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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length (the current abstract contains multiple paragraphs and exceeds 150 words). The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because both claims place the abbreviation, T22, for the spin-spin relaxation time of the second component after the phrase “spin-spin relaxation time,” not after the entire phrase “spin-spin relaxation time of [a or the] second component” (see lines 7 – 8, 10, and 11 in claim 1; see lines 2 – 3 and 6 – 7 in claim 2). The current placement of the abbreviation T22 suggests that T22 only stands for the phrase “spin-spin relaxation time,” not the entire phrase. While this does not render the claim indefinite, this may cause confusion when distinguishing between the multiple time components.
For similar reasons as the claim objection above, claim 2 is further objected to because claim 2 places the abbreviation, T21, for the spin-spin relaxation time of the first component after the phrase “spin-spin relaxation time,” not after the entire phrase “spin-spin relaxation time of [a or the] first component” (see lines 2 and 6).
Claim 2 is further objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2: “a” should be added before “first component”
Line 3: “the” should be added before “second component”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki, et. al. 2014 (JP 2014101249 A), referred to as Nishiwaki from herein, in view of Wang, et. al. 2011 (Mechanisms of Viscosity Increase for Nanocolloidal Dispersions, Journal of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology 2011, 11, 3141 - 3150), referred to as Wang from herein.
Regarding claim 1, Nishiwaki teaches an aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion where the mean particle size (D50) is 1 μm or less ([0030] describes an example where the D50 value of carbon nanotubes was found to be 26.3 nanometers). Nishiwaki further discloses a similar method for preparing the aqueous carbon nanotube as the specification of the present invention, including oxidizing the carbon nanotubes through an ozone treatment ([0029] – [0030] describes oxidizing the carbon nanotubes where ozone is bubbled into the mixture, which is similar to the present invention’s step 3 in [0034] in the specification; [0051] in the present specification specifically states that “the method of oxidation treatment is preferably ozone treatment, which can produce the aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion of the present invention”).
Nishiwaki does not teach the spin-spin relaxation time of a second component (T22) when the carbon nanotubes are prepared as an aqueous dispersion with a concentration of 0.1 % by mass.
In regards to the concentration of the aqueous dispersion, while Nishiwaki does not teach of a specific concentration for the aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion, generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In the case that concentration of the aqueous dispersion is critical, Wang discloses models and theoretical calculations to investigation the effects of various properties, such as volume fraction, a measurement of concentration, on the viscosity of dispersions (see Abstract). Wang decomposes results based on the types of particle interactions where solid-solid interactions appear to have a greater influence over the viscosity of the dispersion (Fig. 12 and Table 2), suggesting that the selection of a solid dispersant may be more impactful than the selection of dispersion medium.
Nishiwaki and Wang are analogous to the present invention because Nishiwaki is in the same field of preparing aqueous carbon nanotube dispersions while Wang is in the field of understanding what properties influence dispersion viscosity, which impacts the present invention.
While neither Nishiwaki nor Wang teach the concentration of an aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion, Wang does teach the relationship between volume fraction, i.e. concentration, and viscosity, suggesting that concentration is a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the concentration of the aqueous dispersion of carbon nanotubes, in turn optimizing the viscosity of the aqueous dispersion, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. The courts have found that “where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed value of 0.1 % by mass merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of dispersion viscosity.
Nishiwaki in view of Wang still does not teach T22. However, the limitation of T22 is construed as an inherent property. The courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01.I.) The examiner has provided a Table below to compare an example taught by Nishiwaki with an example of the present invention.
Nishiwaki (Example 1, [0029] – [0030])
Present Invention (Example 1, [0057] – [0059] and Table 1)
Preparation of Dispersion
Starting material: solvent
1:4 volume ratio of perfluorododecane:water
Ion-exchanged water
Starting material: carbon nanotubes
Carbon nanotubes (amount not disclosed)
Carbon nanotubes (20 g of 5 cm square sheet)
Mixing mechanism
Rotor stirred the two-phase solvent mixture
Commercial mixer rotated mixture in sets of reverse and forward directions (described as “step 1”)
Mechanical Treatment
None
Commercial instrument mechanically dispersed carbon nanotubes (described as “step 2”)
Oxidation treatment: Oxidizer
Ozone
Ozone
Oxidation treatment: Time exposure to oxidizer
60 minutes
100 minutes
Properties of Aqueous Dispersion and Carbon Nanotubes
D50
26.3 nm (less than 1 μm)
520 nm (less than 1 μm)
Oxygen content of Carbon Nanotubes
5.74% by weight
7.23 atm%
Dispersion Stability Measurement
Left to stand for 24 hours and did not observe precipitation
Measured sedimentation rate (117 μm/s)
Dispersion concentration
0.1 % by mass
Although the Example 1 of Nishiwaki uses a mixture containing a fluorine-based solvent (non-polar) and water (polar), which are generally immiscible, the two-phase solvent system of Nishiwaki has a similar function as the mechanical treatment (described as “step 2”) of the present invention, which Nishiwaki does not perform (see Table above). Nishiwaki discloses that before oxidation, the hydrophobic carbon nanotubes are only soluble in the non-polar fluorine-based solvent, which is perfluorododecane in the case of Example 1 (see [0027]). As the carbon nanotubes oxidize under the oxidation treatment, the oxidized carbon nanotubes will become more hydrophilic and move to the water phase instead (see [0027]). The fluorine-based solvent is then removed through separation means, leaving the aqueous dispersion behind ([0028] describes removing the fluorine-based solvent). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the two-phase solvent system in Nishiwaki has the same function of dispersing the carbon nanotubes in water as the instrument employed in the mechanical treatment step of the present invention. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). Furthermore, the perfluorododecane is removed after the oxidation treatment and therefore is not part of the final aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion product.
Therefore, as the aqueous carbon nanotube dispersions of Nishiwaki have substantially the same compositions as the claimed invention, claim properties or functions would be inherent. Therefore, T22 would be inherent to a given dispersion composition since a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2112.01.II) Therefore, since as shown above, Nishiwaki suggests a carbon nanotube dispersion that is identical to the claimed aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the properties including T22 would necessarily follow absent evidence to the contrary.
Regarding claim 2, Nishiwaki in view of Wang teaches an aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion according to claim 1. Similar to claim 1, the limitation of spin-spin relaxation time of the first component (T21) and the first component fraction (T21/T22) are construed as inherent properties. The courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01.I.) See the comparison between Nishiwaki and the present invention as applied in claim 1.
As the aqueous carbon nanotube dispersions of Nishiwaki have substantially the same compositions as the claimed invention, claim properties or functions would be inherent. Therefore, T21 and T21/T22 would be inherent to a given dispersion composition since a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2112.01.II). Therefore, since Nishiwaki suggests a carbon nanotube dispersion that is identical to the claimed aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the properties including T21 and T21/T22 would necessarily follow absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Wang as applied in claim 1, and in further view of Yamada, et. al. 2020 (WO 2020/067429 A1), referred to as Yamada from herein.
Regarding claim 3, Nishiwaki in view of Wang teaches an aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion according to claim 1, and Yamada teaches the carbon nanotubes having a peak intensity ratio G/D of G band to D band of 50 or less, in a Raman spectrum at an excitation wavelength of 532 nm as measured by resonance Raman scattering (carbon nanotubes in examples [0063] and [0065] exhibit G/D ratios of 50 and 7.8 respectively; [0048] describes the Raman microscope used to obtain the G/D ratios where the Raman microscope includes an excitation laser with a wavelength of 532 nm).
Yamada teaches of a substantially similar carbon nanotube dispersion where the dispersion medium may include water ([0029] mentions that the dispersion medium may be of water), and has a similar concentration of 0.1% by mass ([0027] describes recommended concentrations of carbon nanotubes, where it is more preferable to have a concentration of 0.1% by mass). Yamada further discloses that the strength of the G/D ratio represents how crystalline the carbon nanotubes are (see [0048]) and that a higher G/D ratio is an indication of fewer structural defects of the carbon nanotubes (see [0016]).
Yamada is analogous to the present invention as both are in the same field of characterizing carbon nanotube dispersions.
Since both Nishiwaki in view of Wang and Yamada have substantially similar carbon nanotube dispersions with similar materials, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion of Nishiwaki in view of Wang with the G/D ratio as taught by Yamada, as Yamada teaches that this G/D ratio is known in the art for a carbon nanotube dispersion. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as demonstrated by Yamada.
Furthermore, the G/D ratio is a result effective variable, where routine experimentation would inherently arrive at the optimized peak intensity ratio in the absence of critical or unexpected results. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the G/D ratio, which is a measure of how crystalline the carbon nanotubes are, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. The courts have found that “where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed range of 50 or less for the peak intensity ratio G/D merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of crystallinity as taught by Yamada.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Wang as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Nishiwaki in view of Wang teaches an aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion according to claim 1. The limitation of viscosity is construed as an inherent property. The courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01.I.) See the comparison between Nishiwaki and the present invention as applied in claim 1.
As the aqueous carbon nanotube dispersions of Nishiwaki have substantially the same compositions as the claimed invention, claim properties or functions would be inherent. Therefore, viscosity would be inherent to a given dispersion composition since a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (see MPEP § 2112.01.II). Therefore, since Nishiwaki suggests a carbon nanotube dispersion that is identical to the claimed aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that the properties including viscosity would necessarily follow absent evidence to the contrary.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Wang as applied in claim 1 and in further view of Han, et. al. 2010 (US 2010/0065776 A1), referred to as Han from herein.
Regarding claim 5, Nishiwaki in view of Wang teaches an aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion according to claim 1, and Han teaches carbon nanotubes having a functional group content of 5 to 30 atm% based on a (O1s) spectrum due to a is orbital of an oxygen atom as measured by X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (Table 1 summarizes the atom % based on the O1s spectrum for each example where each example differs based on oxidizer used in oxidation treatment; Table 1 shows that Example 6, which uses ozone as an oxidizer, similar to the present invention, has an oxygen group content of 5.58 atom %).
Han discloses a method to functionalize carbon nanotubes in order to increase the solubility of carbon nanotubes in various solvents, such as water, and to increase their dispersion efficiency so that the carbon nanotubes can be used in a wider range of applications ([0004] describes carbon nanotubes, or CNTs, as hydrophobic and does not dissolve well in organic solvents and water; [0004] also describes how functionalization may widen the range of applications they can be used in). The carbon nanotubes of Han are dispersed in a liquid (see S410 in Fig. 1) where the dispersing liquid can be water ([0045] states that the functionalized carbon nanotubes can be dispersed in water; [0101] specifically describes a dispersion of carbon nanotubes using water). Han further discloses using X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy to estimate to what degree the carbon nanotubes were functionalized (see [0105]) and teaches O1s atom % values (Table 1 summarizes the atom % values based on the O1s spectrum for each example; Table 1 shows that Example 6, which uses ozone as an oxidizer, similar to the present invention, has a functional group content of 5.58 atom %).
Han is analogous to the present invention because Han is in the field of preparing carbon nanotubes that are more soluble in water, which influences the properties of the aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion of the present invention.
Since both Nishiwaki in view of Wang and Han have substantially similar aqueous carbon nanotube dispersions with similar materials, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nishiwaki in view of Wang with the functional group content of 5.58 atm%, as taught by Han as Han teaches that this functional group content is known in the art for an aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.). One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as demonstrated by Han.
Furthermore, the functional group content is a result effective variable, where routine experimentation would inherently arrive at the optimized functional group content in the absence of critical or unexpected results. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to optimize the functional group content of the carbon nanotubes, which directly impacts the solubility of the carbon nanotubes in water, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. The courts have found that “where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed range of 5 to 30 atm% for the functional group content merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of carbon nanotube solubility as taught by Han.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Wang as applied in claim 1 and in further view of Kajiura, et. al. 2008 (JP 2008100895 A), referred to as Kajiura from herein.
Regarding claim 6, Nishiwaki in view of Wang teaches an aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion according to claim 1. Kajiura teaches the significance of peak temperature of weight loss due to combustion (see [0060] – [0061]). More specifically, Kajiura discloses that a higher peak temperature is an indication of higher purity where the higher temperature is an indication that any impurities were removed (see [0060] – [0061]; while the machine translation of [0061] explicitly uses the phrase “combustion temperature” rather than “peak temperature of weight loss due to composition,” the example described at the end of the same section specifically states the “peak temperature shifted from 576 ºC to 636 ºC,” suggesting that peak temperature is also an indication of high purity carbon nanotubes).
Kajiura is analogous to the present invention because Kajiura is in the field of preparing carbon nanotubes that can be dispersed in aqueous solutions (see [0091] of Kajiura).
While Kajiura does not teach the peak temperature in a first-order differential curve of weight loss of combustion for an aqueous carbon dispersion that is substantially similar to the claimed invention, they do teach the relationship between peak temperature of weight loss due to combustion and purity where the properties are directly related, i.e. higher peak temperature of weight loss due to combustion indicates high purity carbon nanotubes (see [0060] – [0061]; while [0061] explicitly uses the phrase “combustion temperature” rather than “peak temperature of weight loss due to composition,” the example described at the end of the section specifically states the “peak temperature shifted from 576 ºC to 636 ºC,” suggesting that peak temperature is also an indication of high purity carbon nanotubes). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the peak temperature of the weight loss due to combustion, which directly impacts the purity of the carbon nanotubes, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. The courts have found that “where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed range of 500 ºC - 650 ºC merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of the purification of carbon nanotubes as taught by Kajiura.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Wang as applied in claim 1 and in view of Liebscher, et. al. 2017 (Temperature- and pH-Dependent Dispersion of Highly Purified Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes Using Polycarboxylate-Based Surfactants in Aqueous Suspension. J. Phys. Chem. C 2017, 121, 16903 – 16910), referred to as Liebscher from herein.
Regarding claim 7, Nishiwaki in view of Wang teaches an aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion according to claim 1, and Liebscher teaches the effect pH has on the dispersibility of carbon nanotubes in aqueous dispersions (see Abstract). More specifically, Liebscher discloses that lower pH values, i.e. more acidic environments, lead to larger carbon nanotube agglomerates (see Section titled “Temperature and pH Dependency of Aqueous CNT Dispersion Using PCE Monitored by Optical Imaging and Integral Light Transmission” on Page 16905 and Fig. 4). Furthermore, while Liebscher studied the effect of both temperature and pH on dispersibility, pH exhibited a stronger influence over aggregation tendencies than temperature (Page 16908 specifically states “it is obvious that the effect of pH is much stronger than that of temperature”).
Liebscher is analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of preparing aqueous carbon nanotube dispersions.
While Liebscher does not specifically teach a pH value for the aqueous dispersion of carbon nanotubes, they do teach how pH affects the dispersibility and agglomerate size of carbon nanotubes in aqueous dispersions (see Section titled “Temperature and pH Dependency of Aqueous CNT Dispersion Using PCE Monitored by Optical Imaging and Integral Light Transmission” on Page 16905 and Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the pH of the dispersion to achieve the desired dispersibility and aggregation tendencies of the dispersant, as taught by Liebscher, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. The courts have found that “where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed pH value of the aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of dispersibility and agglomerate size as taught by Liebscher.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiwaki in view of Wang as applied in claim 1 and in further view of Lerche, 2002 (Dispersion Stability and Particle Characterization by Sedimentation Kinetics in Centrifugal Field. Journal of Dispersion Science and Technology 2002, 23(5), 699 – 709), referred to as Lerche from herein.
Regarding claim 8, Nishiwaki in view of Wang teaches an aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion according to claim 1, and Lerche teaches how sedimentation kinetics indicates the stability of a dispersion (see Abstract and Title; Section titled “Introduction” describes sedimentation as an example of “instability phenomena” on Page 699) and the importance of underlying stabilization, destabilization, sedimentation, and de-mixing processes involved with dispersions (see Section titled “Conclusion” on Page 709).
The phrase “sedimentation rate” is broadly interpreted as the rate or velocity in which particles in a dispersion migrate out of the dispersion. Therefore, the sedimentation rate may be considered as a measurement of how long the mixture will stay as a dispersion, and as a result, a measurement relating to the stability of a dispersion. More specifically, Lerche teaches that data obtained from integrating transmission profiles measured via disc centrifuge photosedimentometry is directly related to the stability of the dispersion (see Page 701; while the phrase “disc centrifuge photosedimentometry” is not explicitly stated, Figure 1 shows the schematic of the technique used, which resembles disc centrifuge photosedimentometry). For instance, a slope of zero indicates that the particle concentration does not vary over time, or in other words, the dispersion has a high stability, while a high slope indicates that the particle concentration varies over time, or in other words, the dispersion has a low stability (see Page 701).
Lerche is analogous to the present invention as Lerche is in the field of understanding what factors influence dispersion stability, which influences the properties of the aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion of the present invention.
While Lerche does not teach a sedimentation rate for an aqueous carbon nanotube dispersion, they do teach sedimentation rate as a measurement of dispersion stability (Page 699; Page 701 describes how to analyze data obtained from disc centrifuge photosedimentometry measurements to evaluate the stability of a dispersion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the sedimentation rate, and in turn, the overall stability of the dispersion, thereby arriving at the instantly claimed invention. The courts have found that “where 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.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II. Therefore, the claimed value of 150 μm/s merely represents an obvious variant and/or routine optimization of sedimentation rate.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Porrelli, et. al. 2017 (Evaluation of Concentration and Dispersion of Functionalized Carbon Nanotubes in Aqueous Media by Means of Low Field Nuclear Magnetic Resonance. Carbon 2017, 113, 387-394; supplementary content is also included in office action) teaches of aqueous dispersions containing functionalized carbon nanotubes with spin-spin relaxation time components on the millisecond scale.
Tsuyoshi, et. al. 2014 (JP WO2014033810 A1), referred to as Tsuyoshi from herein, teaches carbon nanotubes with an average diameter on the nanometer scale being dispersed in a liquid such as water.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVIAN F CRUM whose telephone number is (571)270-0554. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:00PM, Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/V.F.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/MICHAEL FORREST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights