DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-5 are pending.
Claims 1-5 are rejected.
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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al., Comparative study of structure, mechanical and electromagnetic interference shielding properties of carbon nanotube buckypapers prepared by different dispersion media, Materials & Design, 2019 (Hu), in view of Yoshinari et al., WO 2005027611 A1 (Yoshinari).
The examiner has provided a machine translation of Yoshinari et al., WO 2005027611 A1. The citation of the prior art set forth below refers to the machine translation.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Hu teaches multi-wall carbon nanotube buckypaper (reading upon a carbon film made of a carbon nanotube assembly) (Hu, Abstract); and the buckypaper is freestanding (Hu, page 2, section 2.2);
porosity of buckypaper samples BP-B-W, BP-B-E, BP-C-W and BP-C-E are 81.2%, 82.1%, 82.2% and 84.4%, respectively (Hu, page 7, Table 2), which are all within the claimed range.
Further regarding claim 1, Hu does not explicitly disclose the carbon film having a fractal dimension of 2.6 or more and 4 or less in a wavenumber range of 0.0001 (1/Å) or more and 0.001 (1/Å) or less when a scattering profile obtained by performing ultra-small-angle X-ray scattering on at least one surface of the carbon film is fitted to Beaucage equation.
With respect to the difference, Yoshinari teaches a 3-D structure body wherein the transmittance of an electromagnetic wave has a minimum value (Yoshinari, Abstract). Yoshinari specifically teaches the structural factor of the fractal structure in terms of transmittance of electromagnetic waves has a minimum value at a specific wavelength determined by the material, and a minimum value at a specific wavelength determined by the structure factor of the fractal structure and the material of the reflectance of Z or electromagnetic wave in the reflectance of Z or electromagnetic waves (i.e., structure factor of the fractal structure being an result effective variable on the transmittance and reflectance of electromagnetic wave of the structured body) (Yoshinari, [0005]).
As Yoshinari expressly teaches, the three-dimensional fractal structure can be used as a perfect absorber of an electromagnetic wave that traps and absorbs an electromagnetic wave of a specific wavelength in each of the above modes without substantially reflecting or transmitting the same (Yoshinari, [0071]).
Yoshinari is analogous art as Yoshinari is drawn to 3-D structure body wherein the transmittance of an electromagnetic wave has a minimum value.
In light of the disclosure of Yoshinari structure factor of the fractal structure being an result effective variable on the transmittance and reflectance of electromagnetic wave of the structured body, as taught by Yoshinari, it therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to vary the structure factor of the fractal structure of the multi-wall carbon nanotube buckypaper of Hu, in order to achieve desired electromagnetic interference shielding properties, e.g., through minimum transmittance and/or reflectance of electromagnetic wave.
Although there are no disclosures on the amounts of fractal dimension 2.6 or more and 4 or less, as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of fractal dimension, including over the amounts presently claimed, in order to achieve desired electromagnetic interference shielding properties, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Furthermore, although there is no disclosure that the test method is conformity with in a wavenumber range of 0.0001 (1/Å) or more and 0.001 (1/Å) or less when a scattering profile obtained by performing ultra-small-angle X-ray scattering on at least one surface of the carbon film is fitted to Beaucage equation, given that Hu in view of Yoshinari teaches fractal dimension as the presently claimed and absent evidence criticality how the fractal dimension is measured, it is an examiner's position that the fractal dimension taught by Hu in view of Yoshinari to meet the claim limitation.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, as applied to claim 1, Hu in view of Yoshinari further teaches thickness of buckypaper samples BP-B-W, BP-B-E, BP-C-W and BP-C-E are 40±2, 41±2, 42±4 and 47±4 µm, respectively (Hu, page 7, Table 2).
Hu in view of Yoshinari further teaches the preparation of the buckypaper samples, wherein carbon nanotube samples are prepared into a dispersion, and filtered with a membrane filter to product the buckypaper (Hu, page 2, section 2.2), from which it is understood that the buckypaper is formed of the carbon nanotubes through aggregation after filtration, and therefore the thickness of the obtained buckypaper samples could read upon the aggregate size of the carbon nanotube, under broadest reasonable interpretation and absent of a specific definition of aggregate size of the carbon nanotube.
Although there is no disclosure that the test method is conformity with in a wavenumber range of 0.0001 (1/Å) or more and 0.001 (1/Å) or less when a scattering profile obtained by performing ultra-small-angle X-ray scattering on at least one surface of the carbon film is fitted to Beaucage equation, given that Hu in view of Yoshinari teaches fractal dimension as the presently claimed and absent evidence criticality how the fractal dimension is measured, it is an examiner's position that the aggregate size taught by Hu in view of Yoshinari to meet the claim limitation.
Regarding clam 5, as applied to claim 1, Hu in view of Yoshinari further teaches the shielding effectiveness (SE) (reading upon transmission attenuation rate) of buckypaper samples BP-B-E, BP-B-W, BP-C-E and BP-C-W are 32.3, 34.5, 43.0 and 46.1 dB in 8.2-18 GHz (Hu, page 8, Table 3), and Fig. 8 (shown below) shows that shielding effectiveness.
PNG
media_image1.png
230
293
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hu, page 8, Fig. 8
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELING ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-8043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Ching-Yiu Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/KELING ZHANG/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1732