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 .
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 01/07/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). The applicant also elected the following species;
Species (1): a bead mill
Species (2): a hydroxyl group; and
Species (3): Carbon Nanotube
Claims 5, 14-17, 24-25 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and Group III, and nonelected species there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/07/26.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 22 requires the conductive pigment paste substantially free of metal; which based in the specification [0092] is substantially free of conductive metal.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15, 18-23 are objected to because of the following informalities: the unit for solubility parameter should be define as (cal /cm3)1/2 based on 0021 of the specification. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Naoyuki Iwata et al (Japanese Patent: 6831896, here after Iwata).
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected. Iwata teaches a method for manufacturing a conductive pigment paste, the method comprising dispersing a paste containing a pigment dispersion resin (A), a conductive pigment (B), and a solvent (C) [abstract], using-with at least one type-of-disperser such as a bead mill(pearl mill)[page 12 paragraph 2], wherein the pigment dispersion resin (A) comprises a polar functional such as a hydroxyl group a polar functional group concentration in the pigment dispersion resin (A) is from 10 to 23 mmol/g[abstract], the conductive pigment (B) comprises carbon nanotubes (B-1) [page 6 last 2 lines page 7 lines 1-2] and a solubility parameter δA of the pigment dispersion resin (A) and a solubility parameter δC of the solvent (C) satisfy a relationship of [δA - δC] < 2[abstract].
Claim 9 is rejected. Iwata teaches a content of the conductive pigment (B) is from 10 to 90 mass% based on a total amount of the conductive pigment paste [page 6 paragraph 9], and is from 70 to 99.9 mass% based on a total solid content of the conductive pigment paste [page 7 paragraph 11].
Claim 18 is rejected. Iwata teaches the solubility parameter δA of the pigment
dispersion resin (A) is 9.3 (cal /cm3)1/2 or greater [page 3 paragraph 4], and the solubility parameter δC of the solvent (C) is from10.5 to 13.0(cal /cm3)1/2 [page 7 paragraph 6].
Claim 19 is rejected. Iwata teaches the conductive pigment pastes further comprise from 0.01 to 2 mass% of a highly-polar low-molecular weight component based on the conductive pigment (B) [page 9 paragraph 1, paragraph 5].
Claim 20 is rejected as Iwata teaches the conductive pigment paste further comprise a film-forming resin (D) having a weight average molecular weight greater than or equal to 100000 and a solubility parameter δD less than 9.3[page 8 paragraphs 6-9].
Claim 21 is rejected. Iwata teaches the conductive pigment paste is substantially free of water [page 7 paragraph 4].
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.
Claims 2, 8, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoyuki Iwata et al (Japanese Patent: 6831896, here after Iwata).
Claim 2 is rejected as Iwata teaches using a disperser such as ball mill or pebble mill,( pearl mill) for uniformly mixing and dispersing the conductive pigment paste[page 10 last paragraph], and also teaches mixing primary particles(agglomerates, a powder raw material) the conductive pigment (B) with a liquid raw material (L) containing the pigment dispersion resin (A) and the solvent (C), and mixing and dispersing using-with a media-less disperser to obtain particles size distribution with 2 peaks[page 11 paragraph 1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Iwata where the primary material first mixes with media free disperser and then disperse with a bead mill, because for 2 peak particles size distribution of conductive pigment paste to bead mill is is preferable to be mixed without using media. Iwata teaches the pigment primary particles, solvent and resin together and not charging pigments to a liquid of pigment dispersion resin and solvent, however selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results [MPEP. 2144.IV.C].
Claim 8 is rejected as Iwata teaches a solid content of the pigment dispersion resin (A) is from 0.02 to 50 mass % based on a total solid content of the conductive pigment paste [page 12 paragraph 1]. Although does not teach 0.1 to 50 mass %, however overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Iwata where a solid content of the pigment dispersion resin (A) is from 0.1 to 50 mass % based on a total solid content of the conductive pigment paste, because one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range in absence of criticality.
Claim 22 is rejected. Conductive pigment paste is substantially free of metal by having metal oxide (e.g. ZnO) rather than elemental metal in the conductive pigment paste or only CNT’s [page 6 paragraph 1].
Claims 3-4, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoyuki Iwata et al (Japanese Patent: 6831896, here after Iwata), further in view of Mutsuo Kuramoto (Japanese Patent: 2003001082, here after Kuramoto).
Claims 3-4 are rejected. Iwata teaches dispersing the pigment paste in a bead mill (pearl mill or sand mill) [page 12 paragraph 2], but does not teach the bead mill is an annular bead mill. Kuramoto teaches using a bead mill for uniform dispersing a pigment paste [abstract, 0001], and greatly reduce energy for dispersion [0009]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Iwata and use Kuramoto’s bead mill, because it helps making a uniform pigment paste and economically preferred. Kuramoto teaches the bead mill is biaxial driving-type annular bead mill [0001, fig. 3].
Claims 6-7, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoyuki Iwata et al (Japanese Patent: 6831896, here after Iwata), further in view of Atsushi Tsukamoto et al (Japanese Patent: 2021002520, here after Tsukamoto).
Claim 6 is rejected. Iwata teaches wherein the pigment dispersion resin (A) comprising polyvinyl alcohol [page 11 paragraph 3], but does not teach it contains an ionic polyvinyl alcohol. Tsukamoto teaches a method of making conductive pigment paste and teaches adding PVA, were the PVA is modified (hydroxyl group attached, ionic) and acetalizing with aldehyde to benefit dispersibility and storage ability [page 3 paragraphs 6-11]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Iwata and modify PVA, because it benefits dispersibility and storage ability.
Claim 7 is rejected as Tsukamoto teaches a degree of saponification of the modified(ionic) polyvinyl alcohol is greater than or equal to 85 mol% and less than 100 mol% [page 3 last paragraph].
Claims 10, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoyuki Iwata et al (Japanese Patent: 6831896, here after Iwata), further in view of Naoyuki Iwata et al (Japanese Patent: 2020169279, here after Iwata-2).
Claim 10 is rejected. Iwata teaches the conductive pigment (B) comprises carbon
nanotubes (B-1) [ page 6 last 2 lines page 7 lines 1-2], but does not teach and the carbon nanotubes contain multi-walled carbon nanotubes. Iwata-2 teaches a method of making a conductive pigment comprising a resin, conductive pigment and solvent[abstract], where the conductive pigment is carbon nanotube, where the carbon nanotube, either a single-walled carbon nanotube or a multi-walled carbon nanotube [page 8 paragraph 6]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Iwata where the carbon nanotube is multi-wall carbon nanotube because it is suitable as conductive pigment for making a conductive pigment paste.
Claim 12 is rejected. Iwata teaches a solid content of the pigment dispersion resin (A) is 30 mass% based on the a total solid content of the conductive pigment paste [page 9 paragraph 8].
Claim 13 is rejected. Iwata teaches a content of the conductive pigment (B) is from 10 to 90 mass% based on a total amount of the conductive pigment paste [page 6 paragraph 9], and is from 70 to 99.9 mass% based on a total solid content of the conductive pigment paste [page 7 paragraph 11]. Although does not teach 1 to 20 mass% based on a total amount of the conductive pigment paste, however overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Iwata where a content of conductive pigment (B) is from 10 to 20 mass% based on a total amount of the conductive pigment paste
, because one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range in absence of criticality.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naoyuki Iwata et al (Japanese Patent: 6831896, here after Iwata), further in view of Hiroyuki Matsumoto et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2005/0232071, here after Matsumoto).
Claim 23 is rejected. Iwata teaches forming a (viscous) pigment paste in bead
mill, and does not teach the inner wall of the bead mill is coated. Matsumoto teaches forming a pigment paste in a bead mill (peddle mill), and also teaches coating the inner wall and blade with Teflon or with glass lining to prevent adhesion of the paste [0116]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Iwata where the bead mill inner wall has glass lining or Teflon coated, because it helps preventing adhesion of the paste on it.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights