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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 12-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi et al. (US 2013/0209791) in view of Nagamune et al. (US 2018/0370197).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 12, Oi discloses electrically conductive laminate comprising a layer containing carbon nanotube (0058) and sodium carboxymethylcellulose (0061) wherein a ratio of a mass of the sodium carboxymethylcellulose to a mass of the carbon nanotubes is 0.5 to 6 (0065), wherein an substrate (0051) provided with the layer wherein the substrate comprising triacetylcellulose, i.e. pulp, (0051).
Regarding thickness, Oi discloses a thickness of the layer is adjusted to obtain desired surface resistance (0079). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of the layer including that presently claimed to obtain required surface resistivity.
Oi does not disclose BET specific surface area of the carbon nanotube.
Nagamune discloses a film (0019) comprising multi walled carbon nanotubes having BET specific surface area of 550 m2/g or less to obtain excellent flexibility and film formability (0080).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the BET specific surface area of Nagamune in the carbon nanotubes of Oi to obtain excellent flexibility and film formability.
While there is no disclosure that the electrically conductive laminate is an electromagnetic wave suppression sheet as presently claimed, applicants attention is drawn to MPEP 2111.02 which states that “if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction”. Further, MPEP 2111.02 states that statements in the preamble reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether the purpose or intended use results in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. Only if such structural difference exists, does the recitation serve to limit the claim. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
It is the examiner’s position that the preamble does not state any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations and further that the purpose or intended use, i.e. electromagnetic wave suppression sheet, recited in the present claims does not result in a structural difference between the presently claimed invention and the prior art electrically conductive laminate and further that the prior art structure which is a electrically conductive laminate identical to that set forth in the present claims is capable of performing the recited purpose or intended use.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Oi in view of Nagamune discloses the electromagnetic wave noise suppression sheet of claim 1, wherein the surface resistivity of the layer is 1 to 1x104 Ω/□ (0079).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Oi in view of Nagamune discloses the electromagnetic wave noise suppression sheet of claim 1, wherein the carbon nanotubes are multiwalled carbon nanotubes (0058).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oi et al. (US 2013/0209791) in view of Nagamune et al. (US 2018/0370197) in view of Imazu et al. (US 2014/0248494).
Regarding claims 19-20, Oi in view of Nagamune discloses the electromagnetic wave noise suppression sheet of claim 1, but fails to disclose weight average molecular weight of the sodium carboxymethylcellulose.
Imazu discloses film (0034) comprising carbon nanotube and dispersant such as sodium carboxymethylcellulose with weight average molecular weight of 10,000 to 500,000 to obtain improved dispersibility (0043).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the weight average molecular weight of Imazu in the sodium carboxymethylcellulose of Oi in view of Nagamune to obtain improved dispersibility.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to present claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMIR SHAH whose telephone number is (571)270-1143. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/SAMIR SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights