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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1 and 4-8 are pending and presented for examination. Claim 1 was amended and claims 2 & 3 cancelled via the instant amendment dated 2 July 2026 which is acknowledged and entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks dated 2 July 2026 (hereinafter, “Remarks at __”) are acknowledged and entered.
The rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Wang is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment which incorporated the subject matter of claims 2 & 3 which Wang was not used to reject.
The rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Kim is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment which incorporated the subject matter of claims 2 & 3 which Kim was not used to reject.
The rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kim is WITHDRAWN as the claims were cancelled and the traversal regarding Kim only showing the thickness and not the diameter (Remarks at 4) is persuasive as this is true.
The rejection of claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Matsumoto is WITHDRAWN over the instant amendment which incorporated the subject matter of claims 2 & 3 which Matsumoto was not used to reject.
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Jeong in view of Kim-2 is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
Jeong provides for an average bundle thickness of 10-200 microns and Kim-2 discloses a D50 of 10-200 microns. The traversal sets forth that Kim-2 discloses the D50 is merely a selection from various parameters (Remarks at 4) and thusly neither references suggests the simultaneous existence of both in a CNT bundle. However, Kim-2 does set forth a motivation (dispersibility) to utilize such in Jeong, Jeong is silent as to the bundle diameter so there is not a presence of teaching away from 10-200 micron diameter of Kim-2.
The traversal continues in that D50 and bundle thickness are not independent parameters (Remarks at 5). While this is correct as evidenced by Hecht, there is nothing in Kim-2 to teach away from using such a bundle thickness in Jeong (nor vice versa). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Furthermore, any argument of unexpected results against any rejection is dubious at best as the Instant Specification fails to set forth what “excellent” conductivity and mechanical properties actually are.
The rejection of claims 1 and 5-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Hecht is MAINTAINED and updated below to reflect the instant amendment.
The traversal is that “Hecht provides no techncail basis for extrapolating the observed relationship to the substantially different bundle length range of 10 to 30” microns (Remarks at 6). Hecht actually does disclose such an extrapolation, specifically that at 25 microns the conductivity is ~30,000 S/cm (Hecht at 60 R col) and that the bundle diameter varies based on this conductivity (which would be 3000 S/microns) at the 1/Dav(1-2) which would yield values from 0.11 to 33.33 microns which overlaps that range instantly claimed. Accordingly, Hecht clearly does disclose values which overlap the range and does set forth that there is a finite connection between thickness, average diameter, and conductivity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht.
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 7, Hecht discloses SWNT bundles (Hecht at “Abstract”), but only discloses that the bundle length is 3-4 microns, but according to “Fig. 2”, the length and the conductivity is proportional such that one of ordinary skill in the art would find the length of the bundle to be a result-effective variable as the length controls the conductivity per conductivity equals length to the 1.46 power (See MPEP 2144.05). Hecht supports values of 20-30 microns, explicitly conductivity at 25 microns of ~30000 S/cm (Hecht at 60 R col). The bundle diameter also controls the conductivity with the relationship of 1/Dav1-2 where Dav is the D50 (Hecht at 133112-3 L col), such that the conductivity increases with larger diameters and it is also a result-effective variable (and Hecht discloses the value for diameter is between 0.11 and 33.33 microns which overlaps that range instantly claimed so it is also prima facie obvious for that reason too, see MPEP 2144.05). Accordingly, values for the length of diameter between 10 and 30 microns for instance would be well within the level of ordinary skill in the art motivated by modification of the conductivity and this would also influence the standard deviation to be between 3 and 10 microns and FHWM of 2-15 microns.
Turning to claims 5 and 6, the number of CNTs is based on the individual diameter varies by the square root of the number of tubes (113112-2 L col), such that 10 microns would be ten million strands. While claim 6 discloses the range as 100k to 50 million, Hecht also discloses that the square aspect is only under ideal conditions and that a smaller value would exist, a lower power of 1.5 would only imply a million strands. This also depends on the individual CNT diameter and degree of packing also though, and Hecht implies further that the amount of strands also influences the conductivity vis a vis the bundle diameter overall.
As to claim 8, Hecht discloses a dispersion of CNTs of claim 1 in a solvent with a dispersant of SDS (Hecht at 133112-2 L col).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Kim-2.
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses a bundled CNT Having a thickness of 10-200 microns (Jeong at [0024]) and they can be dispersed (Jeong at [0071]).
However, Jeong does not expressly state that the D50 is at least 10 microns.
Kim-2 in a CNT bundle which can be dispersed (Kim-2 at [0025]) discloses that the D50 can be between 10 and 200 microns (Kim-2 at [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the D50 of Kim-2 in the bundle of Jeong. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being uniform dispersibilty (Kim-2 [0034]).
The thickness of 10-30 is overlapped at 10-200 which is prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub No. 20200216633 to Choi et al. (hereinafter, “Choi at __”).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a bundle of CNTs having a thickness of 10-200 microns and a bundle diameter of 0.5-20 microns which overlaps that range instantly claimed such that a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Claims 1 and 4-8 are finally rejected.
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 RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights