DETAILED ACTION
Citation to the Specification will be in the following format: (S. # : ¶/L) where # denotes the page number and ¶/L denotes the paragraph number or line number. Citation to patent literature will be in the form (Inventor # : LL) where # is the column number and LL is the line number. Citation to the pre-grant publication literature will be in the following format (Inventor # : ¶) where # denotes the page number and ¶ denotes the paragraph number.
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 .
Status of Application
The preliminary amendment dated 8/14/2023 has been received and will be entered.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7-9 and 13 is/are currently amended.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on:
8/14/2023
10/20/2023
5/29/2025
are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102-103
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.
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.
I. Claim(s) 1-5 and 10-13 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2010/0316556 to Wei, et al.
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “growing the carbon nanotube aggregates on substrates with catalysts on surfaces.” Wei teaches substrates (supports) with catalysts on them. (Wei 8: [0070]). Nanotubes are grown. (Wei 8: [0072]; passim).
Claim 1 further requires “in the growing, forming a substrate layer by stacking the substrates at a lower portion of a growth furnace configured to perform the growing, and supplying a source gas to the substrate layer through a plurality of gas injection ports arranged at the lower portion of the growth furnace.” Substrates are stacked in the moving bed/rotary kiln reactors. (Wei [0063] et seq.; Fig. 7). The gas distributors discussed throughout (Wei 1: [0007]; passim) are interpreted as a plurality of gas injection ports.
Claim 1 further requires “mechanically stirring and/or conveying the substrate layer in the growth furnace are performed at least in part in an overlapping manner.” Stirring blades / propellors are taught, and are understood to stir/convey the substrate layer in an overlapping manner. (Wei [0063] et seq.; Fig. 7).
As to Claim 2, activation/reduction is taught. (Wei 8: [0064] – activation reactor, [0071] – reduction). The activation reactor is part of the moving bed/rotary kiln. (Wei “Fig 7”). Claim 2 repeats limitations addressed in connection with Claim 1. The discussion above is relied upon.
As to Claim 3, activation/reduction is taught. (Wei 8: [0064] – activation reactor, [0071] – reduction). The activation reactor is the “formation unit” (which is broad language). The activation reactor is part of the moving bed/rotary kiln. (Wei “Fig 7”). The moving bed/rotary kiln is the “growth unit” (broad language), understood as so-configured. Various seals are taught throughout. (Wei 1: [0010]; passim). Claim 3 repeats limitations addressed in connection with Claims 1-2. The discussions above is relied upon.
As to Claim 4, at least blades are taught. (Wei 8: [0065]; Fig. 7).
As to Claim 5, source gasses are taught. (Wei 8: [0069]). Hydrogen (a catalyst activator) is taught. See e.g. (Wei 8: [0070]).
With respect to Claim 10, this claim requires “a growth unit comprising: a growth furnace configured to form a substrate layer by stacking the substrates at a lower portion.” A growth unit/furnace is taught. (Wei 8: [0064] et seq.; Fig. 7).
Claim 10 further requires “a source gas injector including a plurality of gas injection ports arranged at the lower portion of the growth furnace, a source gas being supplied to the substrate layer through the gas injection ports.” The gas distributors discussed throughout (Wei 1: [0007]; passim) are interpreted as a plurality of gas injection ports.
Claim 10 further requires “a stir and conveyance unit configured to mechanically stir and/or convey the substrate layer.” Stirring blades / propellors are taught, and are understood to stir/convey the substrate layer.” (Wei [0063] et seq.; Fig. 7).
As to Claim 11, the claim recites many steps not understood to limit the apparatus claim. The claim repeats many limitations discussed in connection with Claim 10. The discussion above is relied upon. As noted elsewhere, a catalyst activation reaction is taught. (Wei 8: [0064] et seq.; Fig. 7).
As to Claim 12, a portion connects the activation reactor and the furnace / moving bed. (Wei 8: [0064] et seq.; Fig. 7). Various seals are taught throughout. (Wei 1: [0010]; passim). Various blades/propellors (construed as conveyance units) are taught. (Wei 8: [0064] et seq.; Fig. 7). The claim repeats many limitations discussed in connection with Claim 10. The discussion above is relied upon.
As to Claim 13, blades/propellers are taught, and are so construed. (Wei 8: [0064] et seq.; Fig. 7).
II. Claim(s) 8-9 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0316556 to Wei, et al.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection I” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 8, while Wei teaches solid supports, Wei would not appear to specify what they are made of. Alumina, silica and zirconia (i.e. substrates containing aluminum, silicon, and zirconium) are very common catalyst supports. Official notice is taken. See the Hata reference cited on the 8/14/2023 IDS. Use of known supports to achieve predictable results does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
As to Claim 9, catalysts are deposited on supports. (Wei 8: [0070]). A gas-solid separator is taught. (Wei 8: [0064] et seq.; Fig. 7). This is reasonably depicted to be a cyclone separator. Id. Recycling is an obvious expedient. Catalyst recycling is commonplace. Official notice is taken. Evidence will be supplied if requested. Even non-precious metals cost money. The motivation to recycle them is to save money and reduce waste. “[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
III. Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13 – or as stated below – is/are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by JP 2012140266 to Hata, et al (cited by Applicants; 07-26-2012; C01B 31/02).
Citation is to the machine translation filed with the 8/14/2023 IDS.
With respect to Claim 1, this claim requires “growing the carbon nanotube aggregates on substrates with catalysts on surfaces.” Nanotubes are grown on catalysts. (Hata [0092]; passim).
Claim 1 further requires “in the growing, forming a substrate layer by stacking the substrates at a lower portion of a growth furnace configured to perform the growing, and supplying a source gas to the substrate layer through a plurality of gas injection ports arranged at the lower portion of the growth furnace.” Stacking of the substrates is taught. (Hata [0134], Figs., passim). The distribution described at (Hata [0136]) is interpreted as a plurality of gas injection ports.
Claim 1 further requires “mechanically stirring and/or conveying the substrate layer in the growth furnace are performed at least in part in an overlapping manner.” Rotation is taught. (Hata [0033]; passim). At least this is interpreted as performing in an overlapping manner. Note also other embodiments where the reactor operates on an incline. (Hata Fig 4; passim).
As to Claim 2, catalyst reduction is taught. (Hata [0091]; passim). Gas jetting means are taught. (Hata [0048]; passim). Rotation is taught. (Hata [0033]; passim). Reduction/growth in the same reactor is taught. (Hata [0168]-[0169]). Claim 2 repeats limitations addressed in connection with Claim 1. The discussion above is relied upon.
As to Claim 3, Claim 3 repeats limitations addressed in connection with Claims 1-2. The discussions above is relied upon. Note reducing gas cylinder, interpreted as addressing the broadly claimed “formation unit.” (Hata [0036]). Connection portions (broad language) are taught. (Hata “Figs.”). Conveyance units are taught. (Hata [0072]. Figs.).
As to Claim 4, rotation is taught. (Hata [0033]; passim).
As to Claim 5, the hydrocarbons are taught. (Hata [0099]). Hydrogen is taught. (Hata [0084]).
As to Claim 6, ethylene is taught. (Hata [0085]). Carbon dioxide is taught. (Hata [0097]).
As to Claim 8, alumina, silica, and zirconium oxide are all taught. (Hata [0054]).
With respect to Claim 10, this claim requires “a growth unit comprising: a growth furnace configured to form a substrate layer by stacking the substrates at a lower portion.” A furnace, so configured, is taught. (Hata [0020]; passim, all Figs.).
Claim 10 further requires “a source gas injector including a plurality of gas injection ports arranged at the lower portion of the growth furnace, a source gas being supplied to the substrate layer through the gas injection ports.” Injectors are taught. (Hata [0136]).
Claim 10 further requires “a stir and conveyance unit configured to mechanically stir and/or convey the substrate layer.” Stir/conveyance units are taught. (Hata [0033]; passim).
As to Claim 11, see above for repeated limitations. Process steps are not construed as limiting the apparatus claims. Reduction units are taught. (Hata [0121]). Injectors are taught. (Hata [0136]).
As to Claim 12, see above for repeated limitations. Baffles, rotators, etc. are taught. (Hata [0129]). Connection portions (broad language) are taught. (Hata “Figs”). Various valves (gas mixture prevention devices) are taught. (Hata [0037], “Figs”).
As to Claim 13, baffles, interpreted as paddles are taught. (Hata [0129]).
IV. Claim(s) 7 and 9 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012140266 to Hata, et al (cited by Applicants; 07-26-2012; C01B 31/02).
The discussion accompanying “Rejection III” above are incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 7, as discussed above, the substrates are taught. Hata teaches “[t]he amount of catalyst present in the embodiments of the present invention may be within a range that has been proven to date in CNT production.” (Hata [0051]). This strongly suggests a result-effective variable relationship between the amount of catalyst present (and in turn, the weight of the catalyst), and the nanotubes grown. Optimizing this, and in turn the density, is an obvious expedient. MPEP 2144.05.
As to Claim 9, catalysts are deposited on supports. (Hata [0052] et seq.). Removing the catalyst/support is taught. (Hata [0039]). Recycling is an obvious expedient. Catalyst recycling is commonplace. Official notice is taken. Evidence will be supplied if requested. Even non-precious metals cost money. The motivation to recycle them is to save money and reduce waste. “[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists not only when a suggestion may be gleaned from the prior art as a whole, but when the improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable, for example because it is stronger, cheaper, cleaner, faster, lighter, smaller, more durable, or more efficient. Because the desire to enhance commercial opportunities by improving a product or process is universal-and even common-sensical-we have held that there exists in these situations a motivation to combine prior art references even absent any hint of suggestion in the references themselves. In such situations, the proper question is whether the ordinary artisan possesses knowledge and skills rendering him capable of combining the prior art references.” DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6537. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9-6).
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 J. 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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736