DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number of the pregrant publication corresponding to this application, US 2023/0416096.. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Application
The preliminary amendment dated 3/30/2023 has been received and will be entered.
Claim(s) 1-24 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 2-9, 11-22, and 24 is/are currently amended.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Great Britain on 10/15/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2016334.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on:
8/4/2025
4/28/2025
5/5/2023
3/30/2023
are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention (“Method”) is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “Method of making carbon nanotubes.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
I. Claim 24 – or as stated below – is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 24 recites “The temperature-controlled flow-through reactor as claimed in claim 23…” Claim 23 is drawn to a carbon nanotube aggregate. This language lacks antecedent basis.
Assuming Claim 24 is intended to limit the aggregate or structure recited in Claim 23, then Claim 24 is separately indefinite as it recites “the diameter of the carbon nanotube bundles varies axially from a normal distribution to a log normal distribution.” This language is unclear. First, by reciting a distribution, it suggests more than one aggregate or structure, yet Claim 23 recites aggregate or structure in the singular. Second, note that it recites “varies” versus “is variable.” A plain reading suggests bundles of nanotubes whose diameter varies along the axis of the bundles from a normal to a log normal distribution. As understood, this is not what is shown. The figures show ordinary nanotubes. Arguable more rejections (enablement, written description) are appropriate to address this issue, but are potentially premature given that this claim has been amended to depend from a reactor (?)...
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
I. Claim(s) 1-24 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0247675 to Schulz, et al.
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “(a) introducing a metal catalyst precursor into a continuous flow of a carrier gas in a temperature-controlled flow-through reactor.” A catalyst is taught. (Schulz 7: [0116]: “A catalyst may be delivered in the fuel flow or the particle flow or both.”). Carrier gasses are taught. (Schulz 7: [0117]).
Claim 1 further requires “(b) exposing the metal catalyst precursor in the flow of the carrier gas to a first temperature zone sufficient to generate particulate metal catalyst.” The “zone” language is arbitrary and is construed broadly. Any number of “zones” can be defined in furnace zone 8. (Schulz 4: [0092]; Fig. 1). Schulz teaches decomposition of ferrocene to yield iron particles, as is common in the art. (Schulz 4: [0094]).
Claim 1 further requires “(c) releasing a source of carbon into the flow of the carrier gas.” A carbon source is taught. (Schulz 4: [0094]). A carrier gas is taught. (Schulz 1: [0006] et seq.; 4: [0094]; 7: [0117]; passim).
Claim 1 further requires “(d) exposing the particulate metal catalyst and the source of carbon to a second temperature zone downstream from the first temperature zone, wherein the second temperature zone is sufficient to produce a carbon nanotube aggregate.” The “zone” language is arbitrary and is construed broadly. Any number of “zones” can be defined in furnace zone 8. (Schulz 4: [0092]; Fig. 1). The temperatures in the “zones” are sufficient to grow carbon nanotubes. (Schulz 4: [0096]; passim).
Claim 1 further requires “(e) generating an electric field in the temperature-controlled flow-through reactor at or near to the second temperature zone.” An electric field is generated. (Schulz 6: [0110]).
Claim 1 further requires “(f) discharging the carbon nanotube aggregate as a continuous discharge through a discharge outlet of the temperature-controlled flow-through reactor.” The nanotubes are discharged. (Schulz 4: [0096]).
Claim 1 further requires “(g) collecting the continuous discharge in the form of a carbon nanotube structure.” The nanotubes are collected. (Schulz 4: [0096]).
As to Claim 2, “substantially parallel” is interpreted broadly. Whatever is taught in Schulz is interpreted as reading on this broad language. (Schulz 6: [0110]). Note also (Schulz Fig. 5(a)-5(b)).
As to Claim 3, “substantially coaxially” is interpreted broadly. Whatever is taught in Schulz is interpreted as reading on this broad language. (Schulz 6: [0110]). Note also (Schulz Fig. 5(a)-5(b)).
As to Claim 4, an AC field is taught, which suggests the presence of an AC source. (Schulz 6: [0110]).
As to Claim 5, the field intensity is taught. Id.
As to Claim 6, the discussion of the claims above and of apparatus Claim 10 below are relied upon in addressing these features.
As to Claim 7, “substantially parallel” is interpreted broadly. Whatever is taught in Schulz is interpreted as reading on this broad language. (Schulz 6: [0110]).
As to Claim 8, “substantially coaxially” is interpreted broadly. Whatever is taught in Schulz is interpreted as reading on this broad language. Id.
As to Claim 9, the nanotube sock and/or hybrid material is interpreted as an aerogel. (Schulz 8: [0125]; passim).
With respect to Claim 10, this claim requires “an elongate refractory housing extending from an upstream end to a downstream end.” Quartz and ceramic tubes are interpreted as a refractory housing. (Schulz 4: [0092]).
Claim 10 further requires “an inlet at or near to the upstream end of the elongate refractory housing for introducing a continuous flow of a carrier gas from the upstream end to and beyond the downstream end.” Inlets at the upstream end are taught. (Schulz 4: [0092] et seq.; Fig. 1).
Claim 10 further requires “a first feed for releasing a source of carbon into the continuous flow of the carrier gas.” Feeds are taught. (Schulz 4: [0092] et seq.; Fig. 1) (25 gas canisters).
Claim 10 further requires “a second feed for introducing a metal catalyst precursor into the continuous flow of the carrier gas.” Feeds are taught. (Schulz 4: [0092] et seq.; Fig. 1) (25 gas canisters).
Claim 10 further requires “a thermal enclosure surrounding the elongate refractory housing which is adapted to provide an axial temperature variation between temperature zones in the elongate refractory housing, wherein the temperature zones include a first temperature zone sufficient to generate particulate metal catalyst and a second temperature zone sufficient to produce a carbon nanotube aggregate.” Furnace zone 8 is interpreted as a thermal enclosure. (Schulz 4: [0092] et seq.; Fig. 1)
Claim 10 further requires “a collector for collecting from the downstream end a continuous discharge of the carbon nanotube aggregate in the form of a carbon nanotube structure.” A collector is taught. (Schulz 4: [0092] et seq.; Fig. 1) (18 harvest box). See also (Schulz 4: [0097]) (discussing processing apparatus 20).
Claim 10 further requires “a first electrode positioned inside or outside the elongate refractory housing; and an electric field generator electrically connected to the first electrode so as to apply a high potential thereto which is sufficient to generate an electric field in the elongate refractory housing at or near to the second temperature zone.” Electrodes are taught. (Schulz 3: [0049]; 6: [0110]). Electric fields are generated. (Schulz 6: [0110]).
As to Claim 11, Figure 5(a) of Schulz depicts injectors 14 and 16 with a potential. See also (Schulz 6:[0110]). These are interpreted as second electrodes. Other “second electrodes” may be taught. (Schulz Fig. 5(b); passim).
As to Claim 12, notwithstanding the issues above, electric fields are generated. (Schulz 6: [0110]).
As to Claim 13, a ground is taught. (Schulz Fig. 5(a)-5(b)).
As to Claim 14, a ground is taught. (Schulz Fig. 5(a)-5(b)).
As to Claim 15, an electrode is so positioned. A ground is taught. (Schulz Fig. 5(a)-5(b)). See also discussion of electrodes at (Schulz 6: [0110]).
As to Claim 16, an electrode is so positioned. A ground is taught. (Schulz Fig. 5(a)-5(b)). See also discussion of electrodes at (Schulz 6: [0110]).
As to Claim 17, an electrode is so positioned. A ground is taught. (Schulz Fig. 5(a)-5(b)). See also discussion of electrodes at (Schulz 6: [0110]). Temperature zones are interpreted broadly, as above.
As to Claim 18, an electrode is so positioned. A ground is taught. (Schulz Fig. 5(a)-5(b)). See also discussion of electrodes at (Schulz 6: [0110]).
As to Claim 19, an AC source is more than reasonably suggested by virtue of the AC field. (Schulz 6: [0110]).
As to Claim 20, electric fields are taught. (Schulz 6: [0110]). As they are AC fields, they are understood to be HF.
As to Claim 21, this refers to the material worked on or made by the reactor, and is not accorded patentable weight. See MPEP 2115.
As to Claim 22, this refers to the material worked on or made by the reactor, and is not accorded patentable weight. See MPEP 2115.
With respect to Claim 23, this claim requires “[a] carbon nanotube aggregate or carbon nanotube structure which comprises carbon nanotube bundles with a median diameter which is variable axially along the carbon nanotube aggregate or carbon nanotube structure.” This claim does not actually require that the diameter vary. Rather, the claim only states that the diameter is variable, i.e. it has the ability to vary or change. The nanotube sock described throughout Schulz are interpreted as a nanotube aggregate or a nanotube structures. (Schulz passim). See also (Schulz Fig. 7(a), 7(b)) (appearing to show a diameter of the aggregate/sock that does vary) and (Schulz 3: [0034]: “the diameter can range from 20nm to 100 nm”).
As to Claim 24, for purposes of this rejection, the claim is construed as depending upon Claim 23. This claim might appear to recite a range of diameters, more than reasonably taught by Schulz. (Schulz passim).
II. Claim(s) 1-24 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0247675 to Schulz, et al. in view of:
(i) Melhorn, Wiring and Grounding for Power Quality, Electric Power Generation, Transmission, and Distribution, CRC Press (2012), pp. 36-1 to 36-14 (hereinafter “Melhorn at __”).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
To the extent Schulz can be characterizing as not teaching the particular ground wires as claimed (no such concession is made), any such difference is obvious. There are ample reasons for ground an electrical devices, including at least personal safety. See (Melhorn at 36-3). Other rationales/motivations may be present. All of Melhorn is relied upon. One would be motivated to ground the electrodes for at least safety reasons.
III. Claim(s) 23-24 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Venkatesan, et al., Effect of chemical vapor deposition parameters on the diameter of multi-walled carbon nanotubes, International Nano Letters 2018; 8: 297-308 (hereinafter “Venkatesan at __”).
With respect to Claim 23, this claim requires “[a] carbon nanotube aggregate or carbon nanotube structure which comprises carbon nanotube bundles with a median diameter which is variable axially along the carbon nanotube aggregate or carbon nanotube structure.” This claim does not actually require that the diameter vary. Rather, the claim only states that the diameter is variable, i.e. it has the ability to vary or change. Nanotube diameters can be varied/controlled by controlling any number of process parameters. This is well known in the art. All of Venkatesan is relied upon, but see generally (Venkatesan at 301, col. 1 set seq. – Results and discussion).
As to Claim 24, for purposes of this rejection, the claim is construed as depending upon Claim 23. Notwithstanding the issues above, this claim might appear to recite a range of diameters, more than reasonably taught by Venkatesan. (Venkatesan, entire reference, figures).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony J. Zimmer can be reached on 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736