DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The traverse is noted, however the search burden is considerable given the broad genus claimed for each material and the variety of classifications involved.
The election of specie is noted. The search has been extended to cover the additional features taught by the references below. Claims 105-107 are withdrawn.
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.
Claims 88-104 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.
In claim 88, ‘associated’ and ‘association’ are unclear as to the relationship. See also claims 99 and 102-104. Is physical contact required? The term ‘tune’ is unclear and appears to be a mental step. Moreover, the wetting properties of a material are inherent therein, and are unchangeable. It is also unclear what ‘metal-based’ means; for example if a metal oxide is encompassed.
In claims 89 and 90, ‘wetting film’ is without antecedent.
In claim 90 ‘ranging’ should be ‘range’.
In claim 92, ‘graphene and graphene flakes,’ should be ‘graphene, graphene flakes,’.
In claim 92, ‘fullerenes’ includes materials other than buckyballs.
Claim 93 is improper in that it expands the group of materials.
In claim 98, ‘hybrid’ is unclear as to if it is a composition, for example. Would a carbon allotrope having organic functional groups be considered a ‘hybrid’? Are organometallic materials meant?
Claims 102 and 103 are unclear how (if at all) the parenthesized term limits the claim.
For purposes of this action, the claims are interpreted to require a 3D carbon object, a metal-based agent in contact therewith and a polymer in contact with both of them.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 88 91, 92, 94, 97-101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Sriskandha et al. 20220363799.
Sriskandha teaches, especially in paras 141, 197-198, polyolefin grafted to carbon nanomaterial that has a catalyst deposited thereon. The catalyst can be a metallocene (‘hybrid material’).
For claims 91, 92, 94, CNTs are taught (para 191).
For claim 97, the catalyst on the carbon is not a surfactant.
For claim 98, an organometallic material (MAO/metallocene) is taught, see para 54.
For claims 99-101, MAO meets the definition of metalcone, since it has the indicated bonds and groups.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 88, 89, 91-93, 97, 98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al. 20170321069.
Zhao teaches, especially in paras 24-34, and fig. 2, a carbon structure with 0.1-100 micron dispersed metal binder and polymer coating. There is no specific embodiment, however the claimed features are obvious as a matter of selection of disclosed ingredients.
For claim 89, the range of thickness overlaps, rendering it obvious.
For claims 91-93, Para 18 teaches graphite (‘graphene-based structure’).
For claim 97, no surfactants are used.
For claim 98, metals are used.
Claims 88, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. 20070116626.
Pan teaches, especially in fig. 9, paras 30-35, aligned nanotubes with a metal wetting layer. The space between nanotubes may be filled with polymer.
There is no specific embodiment, however the claimed features are obvious as a matter of selection of disclosed ingredients.
For claims 91-92, 94, 95 Para 32 teaches CNT assembly.
For claim 97, no surfactants are used.
For claim 98, metals are used.
Claims 88-92, 94-101 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerushalmi PCT/IL2018/050198.
11679981 is used as an equivalent.
The reference teaches, especially in fig. 1 and col. 3, 6-8 and 14, a nanotube bundle treated with Al binder and optionally other materials. 1-100 layers are taught; from the described layers, the claimed size (claims 89-90) is obvious. While a polymer is not explicitly taught, using one is suggested in col. 21 to exploit the properties of the treated CNTs. Note the similarity to the present claims.
For claims 91-92, 94- 96 CNT assemblies are taught.
For claim 97, no surfactants are used.
For claim 98, metal compounds are used.
For claims 99-101, see col. 14.
Claims 102-104 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yerushalmi PCT/IL2018/050198 taken with Imholt et al. 20100038595.
Yerushalmi does not teach the polymers claimed, however Imholt does in fig. 5 and para 23. Using the treated fibers of Yerushalmi in the composite of Imholt is obvious to exploit their properties and provide a suitable material for Imholt.
Claims 88-92 94-98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. 8766927.
Feng teaches, especially in fig. 1, col. 5-6, items 100, 120, 124, 213-215 and claim 18, nanotubes, a wetting layer and a conductive layer. The metal particles are in contact with some of the nanotubes (‘plurality of regions of a metal-based wetting material’). The layer can be a polymer (PETE for example).
For claim 89, nanoparticles are taught.
For claim 90, col. 5 lines 10-13 teach a thickness of 10 nm.
For claim 91, 92, 94-96, nanotubes (‘carbon fibers’) are taught. The nanotubes can be a web/film or connected tubes.
For claims 97, 98, metal particles without surfactants are taught. See also col. 5 lines 18-23
Claims 88-93, 97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. 20160288200.
Xu teaches, especially in paras 28-33, binding metal onto graphite phase and adding a filler, such as a polymer. This differs in not requiring a polymer, however is obvious since that is an option.
For claims 89-90, given the size of the carbon in para 21 and relative amounts of the other materials in para 29, the sizes are obvious as a matter of selection of parameters.
For claims 91-93 the carbon material is graphite, which is made up of many graphene layers (‘graphene based structure’).
For claim 97, there are no surfactants.
For claim 98, the metal is inorganic.
Claims 95 and 96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sriskandha et al. 20220363799.
The reference has been discussed above and bundles of CNTs are not taught, however in so far as they do not inherently self-assemble under the conditions disclosed, forming them is obvious to create the desired level of incorporation and exposure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART L HENDRICKSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1351. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9 to 5. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anthony 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.
/STUART L HENDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights