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 .
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.
Claim 4 is 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 regards to claim 4, it is unclear at what point in the method is “plasma treating is performed in an oxygen atmosphere after the plasma treating step” performed. It is unclear if the plasma treating step is performed directly after the first plasma treating step or at any point in the synthesis method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20030161782A1) in view of Lee (KR20070010715A).
In regards to claim 1, Kim teaches a method of synthesizing carbon nanotubes (Para. 0004, “For the synthesis of carbon nanotubes, various techniques have been proposed, including arc discharge, laser evaporation, thermal chemical vapor deposition (CVD), catalytic synthesis, plasma synthesis and the like”; Para. 0026, “In particular, U.S. Pat. No. 5,147,841 discloses a process for preparing a colloidal solution of elemental metal nanoparticles by adding a metal salt to an organic solvent containing a surfactant to form homogeneous inverse micelle particles and reducing the metal salt within the micelle particles. This patent is incorporated into the present invention for reference”),
A first mixture step of preparing a mixture by mixing a solvent with a surfactant (Para. 0011, “According to a preferred embodiment of the present invention, metal nanoparticles are prepared in the form of a colloidal solution optionally containing a surfactant and then are introduced in a gaseous phase into a reactor”),
And a second mixture step of combining the mixture with a carrier gas and then introducing the mixture with nanoparticles into a heated reactor to form carbon nanotubes (Para. 0056, “Reaction was carried out by introducing the obtained solution (0.34 ml/min) together with a carrier gas (Ar, flow rate: 100 sccm) into a reactor at 800° C. for 20 minutes”; Para. 0012-0015).
The teaching of Kim differ from the present invention in that Kim doesn’t teach that the process of synthesizing carbon nanotubes is continuous. It is, however, prima facie obvious to make a batch process continuous (MPEP 2144.04 e), and it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the carbon nanotube synthesis process of Kim continuous.
Kim does not teach producing metal nanoparticles by performing plasma treatment on a metal salt in an H2 or NH3 atmosphere. Lee teaches producing platinum nanoparticles with plasma treatment on a metal salt (“For example, in the case of platinum, a salt compound such as hydrogen hexachloroplatinate(IV) hydrate (H2PtCl6) or platinum(II) chloride (PtCl2) is used as a precursor and dissolved in a solvent to prepare a solution containing the precursor”; “In order to achieve the above object, the present invention provides a method for manufacturing platinum-based nanoparticles for use as electrode catalysts in fuel cells, comprising the steps of: a) introducing a platinum-containing compound into a plasma reactor and dissolving it in a solvent of water, acid, or base to create a platinum-containing solution; b) mixing hydrogen gas and an inert gas supplied from a hydrogen gas container and an inert gas container and injecting the mixture into the plasma reactor; and c) applying direct current or alternating current to a first electrode and a second electrode disposed inside the plasma reactor to generate a plasma discharge and induce reduction of the platinum containing compound, thereby creating platinum-based nanoparticles in the platinum containing solution”). Lee also teaches that the plasma treatment step has H2 present in the reaction (“The present invention is equipped with a mixed gas injection means (30) that injects hydrogen (H2) gas and an inert gas mixed at a certain ratio into a plasma reactor (10)”). The method of making metal nanoparticles as taught by Lee can be substituted into the method of synthesizing carbon nanotubes by Kim to provide the predictable result of forming the catalytic metal nanoparticles through a plasma treating step that is used to catalyze the formation of carbon nanotubes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the process of producing the metal nanoparticles from Lee for the carbon nanotube synthesis method taught by Kim as both provide the catalytic nanoparticles that are used to catalyze the formation of carbon nanotubes.
In regards to claim 2, Lee teaches group 18 inert gases, such as He, Ne, Ar, or N2 can be present in the reaction (“The present invention is equipped with a mixed gas injection means (30) that injects hydrogen (H2) gas and an inert gas mixed at a certain ratio into a plasma reactor (10)”; “The inert gases above may include helium (He), neon (Ne), argon (Ar), or nitrogen (N2)”).
In regards to claim 7, Kim teaches that a carbon free solvent is used and that a carbon source gas can be added (Para. 0030, “preparing a colloidal solution containing metal salt nanoparticles by adding metal salts to a solvent, such as water, or a polar or nonpolar organic solvent, containing a surfactant, …”; Para. 0032, “(2) introducing the resulting colloidal solution into a heated reactor together with a carrier and/or a carbon source, either separately or in the form of a gaseous mixture, and …”), where water would be the carbon free solvent.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20030161782A1), in view of Lee (KR20070010715A), and further in view of Matsumoto (US8728917B2).
In regards to claim 4, Kim and Lee do not teach that the method further comprises an oxygen plasma treating step in which plasma treating is performed in an oxygen atmosphere after the plasma treating step.
Matsumoto teaches an oxygen plasma step that is applied to a metal layer to convert it into metal nanoparticles (Col. 9 Lines 58-61, “This treatment is a process for producing catalytic fine metal particles 307A as shown in FIG. 5B by converting the catalytic metal layer 307 into fine metal particles by using the action of an oxygen plasma”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an oxygen plasma treating step in order to remove impurities when producing metal nanoparticles (Col. 9 Lines 61-65, “Specifically, in the oxygen plasma treatment, impurities such as organic matters and the like attached on a metallic surface of the catalytic metal layer 307 are removed by the oxygen plasma so that metallic atoms can easily move”).
In regards to claim 5, Kim and Lee do not teach that the plasma treating step is performed at 0.2 to 2.5 Torr.
Matsumoto teaches that the pressure in the processing chamber for plasma is set to be between 0.5 and 3 Torr (Col. 10 Lines 45-48, “The pressure in the processing chamber 1 is set to be in the range between, e.g., 66.7 and 400 Pa (0.5 and 3 Torr) preferably, or between 133 and 266 Pa more preferably, in order to generate many radicals in the oxygen plasma”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the pressure taught by Matsumoto in the plasma treatment step in order to generate more radicals in the plasma, which would activate the surfaces to prevent deterioration of the catalyst activity (Col. 1 Lines 42-49, “JP2007-252970A describes that, when a catalytic metal is provided in the form of fine particles, radicals in a plasma generated by using the carbon containing gas and the hydrogen gas are applied to the Sur faces of the fine particles of the catalytic metal to thereby activate the surfaces of the fine particles in order to prevent deterioration of the catalyst activity due to oxidation of the surfaces of the fine particles”).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US20030161782A1) in view of Lee (KR20070010715A) and further in view of Kang (WO2020141649A1).
In regards to claim 6, Lee teaches that the plasma treating step is done within a temperature range of 50-300°C (“In particular, it is recommended to maintain the temperature of the platinum-containing solution at 1 to 80°C during plasma discharge, and more preferably 5 to 50°C is more effective”). This presents an overlapping range with the instant claim and overlapping ranges are prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Lee does not teach that the frequency range of the plasma treating step is within 15 to 30 kHz. Kang teaches a frequency range between 15 to 30 kHz (Para. 0097, “In the case of the frequency, if the power is less than 10 kHz, if the power is less than 10 kHz, a phenomenon in which the plasma is turned off occurs, and when the frequency exceeds 30 kHz, the power may be transferred to the arc plasma, so that the frequency is preferably in the range of 10 to 30 kHz”). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep the frequency of the plasma between the ranges taught by Kang in the method taught by Lee in order to ensure the plasma is turned on without becoming arc plasma as taught.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAANZEB RAJA whose telephone number is (703)756-4531. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30-6.
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 Zimmer can be reached at 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 published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAANZEB C RAJA/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736