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
This office action is in response to the papers as filed 3/14/2024.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/18/2024 is 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) 1-6 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0032109 to Li in view of:
(i) US 2022/0144641 to Lima.
With respect to Claim 1, this claim recites in the preamble “[a] process for creating a polymer-free, adhesive-free, densified carbon nanotube structure.” To the extent this is construed as limiting, Li recites a polymer-free structure. (Li “Title”). As understood, no adhesives are taught. As such, the process of Li is construed as “adhesive-free.” Densified sheets are taught. (Li Abstract; passim).
Claim 1 further requires “contacting a plurality of layers of carbon nanotube film with a strong, hygroscopic, inorganic acid.” Li treats nanotube films with at least chlorosulfonic acid. (Li 4: [0043]; [0049] et seq.). Li does refer to treated and untreated sheets in the plural (Li 4: [0044]), but would appear to teach contacting a single sheet at a time with chlorosulfonic acid, and not contacting them with one another. (Li 4: [0049] et seq.). Contacting carbon nanotube sheets is well within the skill in the art. Official notice is taken. As but one example, the following is made of record:
US 2022/0144641 to Lima – See e.g. (Lima 7: [0070]: “In some examples, individual films (having the same or different proportions of multiwall and few/single walled carbon nanotubes in each film) are stacked on one another to form a multilayer composite film. Stacking two or more films can produce a more uniform stack with more uniform properties. For example, if one film in the stack has a local defect (e.g., a hole or tear, such as that shown in FIG. 11), adjacent films in the stack can provide physical continuity and uniformity of the properties that would otherwise be absent at the location of the defect.”).
The combination (i.e. the chlorosulfonic acid treatment with stacks/layers of nanotube films, or nanotube films “contacted” with one another) reflects combining prior art elements according to known methods to achieve predictable results. This does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR. Furthermore, note the teachings, suggestions and/or motivations to contact the nanotube sheets with one another (i.e. to stack or layer them) related to providing physical continuity and uniformity caused by defects that can occur in the nanotube film. (Lima 7: [0070]). Alternatively, or additionally, note that Lima teaches densifying the stacked films. (Lima 7: [0071]). The combination can be characterized as substituting the solvent of Lima (Lima 7: [0071]) for the chlorosulfonic acid of Li, to achieve predictable results. Note Li’s discussion of how chlorosulfonic acid increases attraction between nanotubes. (Li 2: [0020]). One of skill would be motivated to employ the chlorosulfonic acid treatment taught by Li for any number of reasons, for example to improve electrical conductivity. See e.g. (Li 5: [0055]: “Upon rinsing with water, the resulting sheet is dried and further densified in the presence of HClSO3 at elevated temperature to provide a densified CNT sheet with improved tensile strength and electrical conductivity.”). Other motivations may be present.
Claim 1 further requires “heating the plurality of layers of carbon nanotube film for a period of time resulting in a densified carbon nanotube structure.” Heating is taught. (Li 4: [0043]: “As HClSO3 is slowly removed upon heating, individual CNTs are brought closer due to increased attractive force.”).
Claim 1 further requires “the densified carbon nanotube structure has a tensile strength greater than 100 MPa and electrical conductivity greater than 1 x 105 S/m.” The tensile strength is taught. (Li 4: [0044]). The conductivity is taught. (Li 4: [0045]).
As to Claim 2, the porous substrate at (Lima 6: [0065]) is interpreted as a shape-imparting substrate. Note that “flat” is a “shape.” Lima teaches repeating the process to add layers. Id. The film can be removed. Id. (“the filtered film can be separated”).
As to Claim 3, Lima teaches filtering. (Lima 6: [0065]; passim). To the extent the filter paper in Lima is not heat/acid resistant, one of skill would me motivated to use a material that resis both acid and heat exposure, as Li teaches using both acid and heat.
As to Claim 4, chlorosulfonic acid is taught. (Li 4: [0043]; [0049] et seq.).
As to Claim 5, the temperature is taught. (Li 4: [0049]).
As to Claim 6, 24 hours is taught. Id.
II. Claim(s) 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2022/0144641 to Lima.
With respect to Claim 7, this claim requires “[a] densified carbon nanotube structure comprising multiple layers of carbon nanotube films.” Lima teaches a densified carbon nanotube structure with multiple layers of carbon nanotube films. (Lima 7: [0070]-[0071]).
As to Claim 8, the “prepared from synthetic methods…” language is product-by-process language. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the process steps, except to the extent they suggest structure or composition. See generally MPEP 2113. Here, the merely suggests the presence of nanotube films, which are taught. (Lima 7: [0070]-[0071]; passim). Note however that at least CVD is taught. (Lima 4: [0049]).
As to Claim 10, the “are prepared from …” language is product-by-process language. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the process steps, except to the extent they suggest structure or composition. See generally MPEP 2113. Here, the merely suggests the presence of nanotube films, which are taught. (Lima 7: [0070]-[0071]; passim). Note however that filtered dispersions are taught. (Lima 7: [0076]).
As to Claim 11, the methods taught by Lima are construed as producing at least “as-grown” nanotubes. (Lima 4: [0049]).
As to Claim 12, the nanotubes are taught. (Lima 2: [0033]; passim).
As to Claim 13, aligned nanotubes are taught. (Lima 8: [0079]).
As to Claim 14, while Lima would not appear to report areal density values, Lima teaches methods to modify the areal density. (Lima 6: [0068]). Use of known techniques to achieve predictable results does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
As to Claim 15, what is construed as a sheet is taught. (Lima Fig. 6-7; passim).
As to Claim 16, conductive layers are taught. (Lima 5: [0055]).
III. Claim(s) 9 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2022/0144641 to Lima.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection II” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 9, the “are prepared from …” language is product-by-process language. Product-by-process claims are not limited by the process steps, except to the extent they suggest structure or composition. See generally MPEP 2113. Here, the merely suggests the presence of nanotube films, which are taught. (Lima 7: [0070]-[0071]; passim). The rejection is made under 102/103, as Lima would not appear to teach a FCCVD process. Any difference in the product – which is not conceded – would be obvious based on the close structural similarity. MPEP 2144.09.
IV. Claim(s) 17 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0144641 to Lima in view of:
(i) US 2008/0251274 to Lee, et al.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection II” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 17, to the extent Lima may not teach at least an EMI shielding tape, this difference does not impart patentabilty. Use of nanotube sheets in EMI shielding tapes is old and known. Official notice is taken. Lee is offered as evidence. See (Lee 2: [0023]: “the shielding layer 130 coating/encompassing the insulting layer 120 is a carbon nanotube film”) and (Lee 1: [0019]: “The coaxial cable is, usefully, an electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield cable.”). Use of a known material (nanotube films) to achieve predictable results (electromagnetic interfernence shielding) does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
V. Claim(s) 18-20 – or as stated below - is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0144641 to Lima in view of:
(i) US 2008/0170982 to Zhang, et al.
The discussion accompanying “Rejection II” above is incorporated herein by reference.
As to Claim 18, to the extent Lima may not teach at least a ballistic resistance material, this is a known application for nanotube sheets. Official notice is taken. In support of taking official notice, Zhang is provided. See (Zhang 30: [0365]-[0366]; passim). Use of a known material (nanotube films) to achieve predictable results (ballistic resistance material) does not impart patentability. MPEP 2143; KSR.
As to Claims 19-20, to the extent Lima may not teach at least a “container or a sack further included in a chemical or biological liner” (interpreted broadly to mean at least some sort of filter), or filtration media, this is a known application for nanotube sheets. Official notice is taken. In support of taking official notice, Zhang is provided. See (Zhang 31: [0375], 38: [0441], 43: [0497]; passim).
Conclusion
Wang, et al., Acid enhanced zipping effect to densify MWCNT packing for multifunctional MWCNT films with ultra-high electrical conductivity, Nature Communications 2023; 14: 380, pp. 1-8 with Supplemental Information (hereinafter “Wang at __”) is made of record as relevant. Wang teaches densifying nanotube films with chlorosulfonic acid. Note the FCCVD process, relevant to Claim 9. (Wang at 2, col. 1). Any additional rejections were considered cumulative at this time.
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
Prosecution Insights