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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to applicant’s amendment filed 2/5/2026.
Claims 13-16, 20-35 are pending.
The Affidavit under 37 CFR 1.130 filed 2/5/2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee et al (Chemical Engineering Journal 453 (2023) 139974).
The previous rejection of claims 13-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Xu et al (CN1995143) is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 13-16 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Konyushenko et al (Polymer 47 (2006) 5715-5723) in view of Qu et al (Analytical Biochemistry 344 (2005) 108–114).
Regarding claims 13-16, Konyushenko discloses a carbon nanotube composite comprising: a carbon nanotube (CNT); and an aromatic monomer-derived conductive polymer (polyaniline PANI) coated along a surface of the carbon nanotube in a longitudinal direction. See the Abstract, pages 5718-5719 and Figs. 4 and 5. Xu discloses the composite comprises an imitator, which is ammonium persulfate (ammonium peroxydisulfate) (page 6716, Experimental). Konyushenko also discloses that the surface of the CNT has also been modified, e.g., by oxidation in an acid, as taught by Qu (reference 19, cited in Konyushenko). Qu discloses multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWNTs) were oxidized in a 3:1 (v/v) mixture of concentrated sulfuric and nitric acids with the aid of ultrasonication (page 109, purification of MWNTs). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill min the art to modify the MWNTs of Konyushenko with sulfuric and nitric acids as taught by Qu, to enhance the deposition of conducting polymer (Konyushenko, page 5718). Konyushenko does not disclose the composite has the claimed properties as recited in claims 13, 15 and 16. However, the carbon nanotube composite of Xu appears to be produced by substantially identical processes as the claimed composite, therefore a person having an ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the composite of Xu to have the claimed linear density, specific electric conductance, surface oxygen, elongation and pore diameter because it has been held that "Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Konyushenko et al (Polymer 47 (2006) 5715e5723) in view of Qu et al (Analytical Biochemistry 344 (2005) 108–114) and Jeong et al. (US2021/0323826).
Konyushenko discloses a carbon nanotube composite as described above and is incorporated herein by reference. Konyushenko does not disclose the carbon nanotube fibers having a linear density equal to or smaller than 10.5 g/km as claimed. Jeong discloses carbon nanotube fibers having the upper limit value of the linear density is limited to a specific value and, for example, may be 30 tex, 15 tex, or 10 tex (1tex=1g/km, para 0063). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filling date of the invention to use the carbon nanotube fibers of Jeong as the carbon nanotube fibers in the forming the composite of Konyushenko, as said carbon nanotube fibers having excellent physiochemical properties, such as specific strength and electrical conductivity, while having excellent mass-producibility and productivity (para 0012).
Claims 24-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Konyushenko et al (Polymer 47 (2006) 5715e5723) in view of Qu et al (Analytical Biochemistry 344 (2005) 108–114) and Deng et al. (JOURNAL OF MATERIALS SCIENCE (2005)).
Konyushenko discloses a carbon nanotube composite as described above and is incorporated herein by reference. Konyushenko discloses that composites of carbonaceous materials and conducting polymers have been used in electrodes and supercapacitors (page 5716) and also evidenced by Deng. Konyushenko does not disclose the electrodes and supercapacitors has the claimed properties. However, a person having an ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect the electrodes and supercapacitors comprises the carbon nanotube composite of Konyushenko to have the claimed length capacitance, an elongation, specific capacitance (Csp), surface oxygen content, and a capacitance change after 90 ° bending because it has been held that "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/5/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
5/27/2026
Prosecution Insights