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 .
This action is in response to the application filed 01/31/2024 and the IDS’s filed 08/06/2024 and 08/27/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and being examined.
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 2, 3, 6, 9, 11, and 13 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.
Considering claim 2, the parenthesis render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations within the parenthesis are part of the claimed invention.
It is also unclear whether the carbon material comprises 20-45 wt.% carbon nanotubes, 3-6 wt.% fullerenes, 1-4 wt.% nanos and graphene, 45-60 wt.% carbon black and catalyst or whether the slurry comprises 2.4 wt.% carbon material in addition to 20-45 wt.% carbon nanotubes, 3-6 wt.% fullerenes, 1-4 wt.% nanos and graphene, 45-60 wt.% carbon black and catalyst. It is unclear whether combined nano-onions and graphene are 1-4 wt.% or whether the slurry comprises 1-4 wt.% nano-onions and 1-4 wt.% graphene. It is unclear whether combined carbon black and catalyst are 45-60 wt.% or whether the slurry comprises 45-60 wt.% carbon black and 45-60 wt.% catalyst.
Considering claim 3, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the carbon nanotubes”.
Considering claims 6, 8, and 11 there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the carbon nanotube slurry”.
Considering claim 13, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “the solution of alcohol”.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2012/0267581 A1).
Considering claim 1, Cai teaches a method of producing a carbon slurry comprising providing an organic solvent and dispersing carbon nanotube raw material into the organic solvent to form a first mixture (S132); providing an inorganic carrier and dispersing the inorganic carrier into the organic solvent to form a second mixture (S133); providing an organic carrier and mixing the first mixture, the second mixture and the organic carrier to form a third mixture (S134) (Cai, abstract, [0047]-[0052]). Cai teaches the organic carrier in step (S134) can include a diluent, stabilizer, and plasticizer (Cai, [0057]). Cai teaches in step (S133) the inorganic carrier is an inorganic binder (Cai, [0055]). Thus, Cai teaches dispersing a powdered carbon material into a first solvent to form a first interim-mixture; dissolving a binder material into a second solvent to form a second interim-mixture; combining the first interim-mixture with the second interim-mixture and a diluent/stabilizer to form a third mixture.
Cai does not explicitly teach after performing step c) adding diluent/stabilizer to the third-interim mixture to form the carbon slurry.
However, changes in sequence of adding ingredients is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP §2144.04(IV)(C)).
Considering claim 3, Cai teaches the carbon nanotubes are single walled carbon nanotubes with diameter of about 0.5 nm to about 50 nm (Cai, [0033]). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed range of 1.2-1.4 nm lies within the range taught by Cai (see MPEP §2144.05(I)).
Considering claim 6, Cai teaches that when the binder content is too high, the viscosity of the carbon nanotube slurry will be too thick and the mobility of the carbon nanotube slurry is too poor; when the binder content is too low, it will lead to poor plasticity of carbon nanotube slurry, thus the carbon nanotube slurry is not easy to shape; the component proportion of the carbon nanotubes slurry can be selected to ensure that the carbon nanotubes slurry can have a suitable viscosity and plasticity in order to meet the requirement for field emission.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary the amount of binder material including to within the claimed range of 0.1 wt.%-1 wt.%. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired viscosity and plasticity for the carbon slurry with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 13, Cai teaches dispersion by ultrasonic vibrating (Cai, [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to disperse the carbon material in the solution of alcohol using an ultrasonic bath for a suitable amount of time including about 5 minutes to about 20 minutes. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to disperse the carbon material and achieve desired dispersion with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claims 14-16, Cai teaches dispersion by ultrasonic vibrating (Cai, [0054]). It should be noted that ultrasonic vibrating results in stirring of the materials/solution.
Cai teaches certain of the process steps maybe removed, others maybe added, and the sequence of steps may be altered (Cai, [0064]). It should be also noted that changes in sequence of adding ingredients is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP §2144.04(IV)(C)).
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to carry out the dispersion in any desired sequence while stirring including the claimed sequence of steps; in step b) stirring the second solvent while dissolving the binder material; step c) and step d) are performed while stirring; step c) is performed by adding the first interim-mixture into a vessel containing the second interim-mixture. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to do so in order to ensure homogeneous mixing of the materials in order to achieve desired dispersion with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2012/0267581 A1) in view of Zhen (CN 10618977 A).
Considering claim 4, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for the carbon material having a density of between about 1.25 g/cm3 and about 1.45 g/cm3.
Cai is silent regarding the density of the carbon material and does not explicitly teach that it is between about 1.25 g/cm3 and about 1.45 g/cm3.
However, Zhen teaches the bulk density of the carbon nanotubes is a result effective variable relative to dispersibility (Zhen, top of page 4 of English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the density of the carbon material including to within the claimed range of about 1.25 g/cm3 and about 1.45 g/cm3. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve desired dispersibility of the carbon material with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 5, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for coating at least a portion of the carbon material with a surfactant prior to dispersing it into the first solvent.
Cai does not explicitly teach coating at least a portion of the carbon material with a surfactant prior to dispersing it into the first solvent.
However, Zhen teaches after pretreatment, the bulk density of the carbon nanotubes is increased resulting in significant improvement in dispersibility (Zhen, top of page 4 of English translation); Zhen teaches pretreatment of the surface of the carbon nanotubes (Zhen, middle of page 3 of English translation) and dispersion can be improved with the addition of surfactants (Zhen, tope of page 2 of English translation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to coat at least a portion of the carbon material with a surfactant prior to dispersing into the first solvent. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to improve the dispersibility of the carbon material into the solvent with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2012/0267581 A1) in view of Wah et al. (Wah et al., “The effect of chemical solutions (Isopropyl alcohol, Dichloromethane, Acetone and Triton X-100) on the dispersion of single-walled carbon nanotubes”, Advanced Materials Research Vol. 1109 (2015) pp 113-117).
Considering claims 7-9, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for the first solvent is the same as the second solvent and comprises isopropanol.
Cai does not explicitly teach the solvent is isopropanol.
However, Wah teaches that isopropyl alcohol is the best choice for single-walled carbon nanotubes dispersion process (Wah, Conclusion on page 116).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select isopropanol as the first and second solvent in an amount for desired dispersion including the claimed 95-99,9 wt.%. One ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to use a solvent that is best for dispersing single-walled carbon nanotubes in an amount for desired dispersion with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2012/0267581 A1) in view of Sohn et al. (US 2017/0036914 A1).
Considering claim 10, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for the diluent comprises at least one of n-butanol, hexylene glycol and propylene glycol.
Cai teaches a diluent such as terpineol (Cai, [0057]), he does not explicitly teach the diluent comprises at least one of n-butanol, hexylene glycol and propylene glycol.
However, Sohn teaches suitable solvents/diluents for carbon nanotube dispersions include butanol, ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, and α-terpinol among others (Sohn, [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, for the diluent to comprise n-butanol. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so because n-butanol is known to be a suitable solvent/diluent for carbon nanotube dispersions.
Considering claim 11, Cai teaches the diluent can dissolve the stabilizer (Cai, [0057]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to vary the amount of diluent including to within the claimed 0.05-6.0 wt.%. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to use an amount that would effective in dissolving the stabilizer with a reasonable expectation of success.
Considering claim 12, Cai teaches certain of the process steps that may be removed, others maybe added, and the sequence of steps may be altered (Cai, [0064]). It should be also noted that changes in sequence of adding ingredients is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results (see MPEP §2144.04(IV)(C)). Thus, it would be obvious to separately add the n-butanol (i.e., diluent) to the third-interim mixture in the absence of new or unexpected results in doing so.
Claims 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2012/0267581 A1) in view of Jagadish et al. (Jagadish et al., “Dispersion of Multiwall Carbon Nanotubes in Organic Solvents through Hydrothermal Supercritical Condition”, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Journal of Nanomaterials, Volume 2015, Article ID 381275, 6 pages).
Considering claims 17-20, all of the limitations are met by the prior art referenced in meeting claim 1 limitations except for the mixing temperature of greater than 30°C.
Cai is silent regarding the mixing temperatures and does not explicitly teach a mixing temperature of greater than 30°C for the various steps.
However, Jagadish teaches dispersion of carbon nanotubes at supercritical condition under hydrothermal reaction, the solvents become fluid and have greater diffusivity in carbon nanotubes (Jagadish, Conclusion and Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to heat the first solvent to a first mixing temperature that is greater than 30°C, heat the second solvent to a second heating temperature that is greater than 30°C and heat the first interim mixture and second interim mixture to a third mixing temperature that is greater than 30°C wherein step d) is performed while the third interim mixture is at the third mixing temperature. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to do so in order to achieve greater diffusivity in the carbon nanotubes for improved/better dispersion with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH whose telephone number is (571)270-7588. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-3:00.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1177. 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.
/ANITA NASSIRI-MOTLAGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734
Prosecution Insights