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 .
This communication responds to the application and amended claim set filed f February 17/2024. Claims 59-67 were canceled. Claims 43 -58 and 70-80 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 43-58, in the reply filed on 8/25/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 43-58 and new dependent claims 70-80 are under examination.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 70-80 have been renumbered 68 -78.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 44 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA , second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 44, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 43 recites the broad recitation “HNBR contains more than 40 wt.% of hydrogenated polybutadiene units”, and the claim also recites “HNBR contains more than 15 wt.% of hydrogenated polybutadiene units” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Furthermore, claim 44 is confusing as amended. It is not clear if the dispersion requires at least 1 wt.% of residual polybutadiene units. In view of the specification ([0017]-[0018]), claim 42 is interpreted as “ the dispersion, wherein the HNBR contains “more than 15 wt.%...” or “more than 40 wt.%...” and/or “less than 1 wt.% of residual polybutadiene units. Thus the limitation of the residual polybutadiene units is optional because of the use of the word “or”. Examiner is invited to clarify.
Regarding claim 52, the term “highly concentrated gel” is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “highly concentrated gel” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s specification does not teach the value and method for measuring the highly concentrate gel. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indefinite in view of the specification, as there is no definition or a standard for determining what is meant by the term “highly concentrated”.
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.
Claim 43-58, 70-73 and 75-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Predtechensky et al., hereinafter Predtechensky ( RU 2749904 C1, as listed in the IDS dated 2/17/2025; US 2023/0246166 A1 is being used as English Translation herewith) in view of Kim ’393 ( EP 3355393 A1).
The examiner will refer to the US equivalent of Kim’393, US 2018/0175370 A1.
Regarding claims 43 and 72-73 Predtechensky teaches an anode slurry of a lithium ion battery comprising a dispersion of carbon nanotubes that comprises 0.01 wt.% to 5 wt.% of carbon nanotubes bundles of single-walled and/or double walled carbon nanotubes, a solvent such as N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), dimethyl acetamide or dimethylsulfoxide and a dispersant including but not limited to polyvinylpyrrolidone or polyvinylidene fluoride ([0017], [0025], [0035], [0077]). Predtechensky further exemplifies a dispersion comprising 0.4 wt.% of SWCNT, 0.8 wt.% of dispersant, 98.8 wt.% of NMP, which implies a ratio of SWCNT to dispersant of 0.5, as required by the instant claim.
Predtechensky is silent on the dispersion comprising hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) .
However, Kim’393 teaches a conductive material dispersion used to manufacture a lithium ion battery (abstract), wherein the dispersion comprises 1 to 8 wt.% of bundled carbon nanotubes including single-walled and double-walled carbon nanotube units ([0039], [0093]), a dispersant including a hydrogenated nitrile butadiene based rubber (HNBR) (claim 5) and a solvent including amide-based polar organic solvent such as N-methyl pyrrolidone ([0090], table 2). Kim’393 further teaches HBNR improves the dispersion of the carbon nanotubes and the coating stability of the composition for forming an electrode ([0080]-[0082]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the hydrogenated nitrile butadiene based rubber (HNBR) of Kim’393 to the dispersant of Predtechensky with a reasonable expectation of success, and the predictable result of improving the dispersion of the carbon nanotubes and the coating stability desired in lithium ion electrode manufacture, thereby arriving to the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 44 and 45, Predtechensky is silent on the hydrogenated nitrile butadiene rubber (HNBR) as recited in the instant claims.
However, Kim’393 teaches hydrogenated nitrile butadiene based rubber containing 20 to 60 wt. % of acetonitrile units and 20-80 wt.% of hydrogenated polybutadiene units, more specifically 30-70 wt.% ([0080]-[0082]) which overlaps with the claimed range (more than 40 wt.% of hydrogenated polybutadiene units). Kim’393 offers the motivation of using the specific HNBR to improve the dispersion of the carbon nanotubes and the coating stability desired in lithium ion electrode manufacture ([0080]-[0082]). In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the HNBR as taught by Kim’393 to the dispersion of Predtechensky, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. Further, it is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claims 46, 47 and 75, Predtechensky teaches N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), dimethyl acetamide or dimethylsulfoxide N-methylpyrrolidone, (NMP), dimethylacetamide (DMAc) ([0090], examples), which are the same solvents used in the instant specification and claims, thereby reading on the solvents as required by the instant claims.
Regarding claim 48, Predtechensky teaches the carbon nanotubes in the composite material contain on their surface more than 0.1 wt.% of functional groups comprising hydroxyl, carboxyl, chlorine to ensure the best adhesion of carbon nanotubes to the particles of an active component ([0033], claims 35-37).
Regarding claims 49-51, Predtechensky teaches a suspension of SWCNT or DWCNT wherein the hydrodynamic diameter distribution of the number of agglomerates (bundles) of carbon nanotubes in the suspension is bimodal with the lower mode of less than 500 nm and the higher mode of more than 2 μm [0022]. Predtechensky further teaches the hydrodynamic diameter distribution of the number of bundles of nanotubes in the suspension obtained by DLS using a Malvern Zetasizer ZS instrument is bimodal, with hydrodynamic diameters in the ranges of 100-700 nm and 4-8 μm [0079].
Regarding claim 52, Predtechensky in view of Kim’393 are silent on the dispersion segregates into a solvent and a highly concentrated gel of carbon nanotubes and HBNR as recited in the instant claim.
In view of the substantially identical dispersion of Predtechensky in view of Kim’393, the dispersion of Predtechensky in view of Kim’393 is expected to possess the claimed segregation behavior because the obvious composition will be the same as claimed. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claims 53, 76 and 77, Predtechensky teaches the single-walled and double-walled carbon nanotubes have a low number of structural defects. The defect rate or perfection of the structure of single-walled and double-walled carbon nanotubes is quantified by the ratio of G and D bands in the Raman spectrum, wherein the ratio of G/D bands at wavelength 532 nm exceeds 5. Most preferably, the ratio of G/D bands exceeds 50 [0032],which overlaps with the claimed range (at least 60 for claim 77), thereby a prima facie case of obviousness being established. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 54, Predtechensky teaches carbon nanotubes contain metals of groups 8-11 of the periodic table including Fe as impurities [0038], as required by the instant claim.
Regarding claims 55 and 78, Predtechensky is silent on the amount of the impurities.
However, Kim’393 teaches the carbon nanotubes include Fe metal elements in an amount of 50 ppm or less, more specifically 20 ppm or less in a main catalyst or a cocatalyst used in the production process. Specifically, when the content of Fe metal elements as a residual impurity in the carbon nanotubes is reduced, an electrode can exhibit better conductivity without concern for side reactions in the electrode [0054]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use the amount of impurities present in the carbon nanotubes to the level taught by Kim’393 to improve the conductivity without Fe side reactions.
Regarding claims 56 and 79-80, Predtechensky in view of Kim’393 are silent on the dispersion is a pseudoplastic fluid as recited in the instant claim.
In view of the substantially identical dispersion of Predtechensky in view of Kim’393, the dispersion of Predtechensky in view of Kim’393 is expected to possess the claimed properties because the flow behavior index n and flow consistency index K are inherent properties, thereby reading on the dispersion being a pseudoplastic fluid. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 57, Predtechensky in view of Kim’393 are silent on the dispersion viscosity dependence on shear rate, as recited in the instant claims.
In view of the substantially identical dispersion of Predtechensky in view of Kim’393, the dispersion of Predtechensky in view of Kim’393 is expected to possess the claimed properties because the viscosity and its dependence on shear rate are inherent property. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 58, Predtechensky in view of Kim’393 are silent on the loss modulus as recited in the instant claim.
In view of the substantially identical dispersion of Predtechensky in view of Kim’393, the dispersion of Predtechensky in view of Kim’393 are expected to possess the claimed property because the loss modulus is an inherent property. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).).
Regarding claims 70-71, note that the discussion supra for claim 1, wherein the dispersion comprises 0.01 wt.% to 5 wt.% of carbon nanotubes bundles of single-walled and/or double walled carbon nanotubes, which overlaps the claimed range (0.3-1.4 wt.% of claim 70 and 0.35-0.45 wt.% of claim 71), thereby a prima facie case of obviousness being established. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Predtechensky ( RU 2749904 C1, US 2023/0246166 A1 is being used as English Translation herewith) in view of Kim ’393 ( EP 3355393 A1) as set forth above for claims 43-58, 70-73 and further in view of Fukumine et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0198126 A1).
The examiner will refer to the US equivalent of Kim’393, US 2018/0175370 A1.
Regarding claim 74, Predtechensky in view of Kim’393 teach the dispersion of claim 1 as set forth above and it is incorporated herein by reference. Kim’393 teaches the hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (HNBR) has a weight average molecular weight in the range of 10,000 to 300,000 g/mol and a polydispersity index (PDI) (a ratio of Mw/Mn, where Mw is a weight average molecular weight and Mn is a number average molecular weight) in the range of 2.0 to 4.0. When the HNBR has a weight average molecular weight and polydispersity index within the aforementioned ranges, the conductive material comprising the carbon nanotubes may be uniformly dispersed in the solvent [0089]
Predtechensky in view of Kim’393 are silent on the Mooney viscosity of the HNBR.
However, Fukumine teaches a conductive material dispersion for a secondary battery electrode (title, abstract, [0185]) comprising hydrogenated acrylonitrile butadiene copolymer (abstract) having a Mooney viscosity of 40 or less that improves the dispersion of the conductive material ([0077], [0097], [0100]. Example 1 further discloses a conductive material dispersion liquid comprising a conductive material, a HNBR copolymer having a Mooney viscosity of 20 ([0185], Table 1). Fukumine offers the motivation of using the specific HNBR due to its ability to adsorb onto the surface of a conductive material to prevent its aggregation [0077]. In light of the In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the HNBR as taught by Fukumine on the dispersion of Predtechensky in view of Kim’393, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claims 43-48, 52, 54-55, 70, 72-73, 75, 78-80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., hereinafter Kim ’393 ( EP 3355393 A1, as listed in the IDS dated 10/06/2025, which is equivalent to US PG Pub 2018/0175370 A1).
The examiner will refer to the US equivalent of Kim’393, US 2018/0175370 A1.
Regarding claim 43, Kim’393 teaches a conductive material dispersion used to manufacture a lithium ion battery (abstract), wherein the dispersion comprises 1 to 8 wt.% of bundled carbon nanotubes including single-walled and double-walled carbon nanotube units ([0039], [0093]), a dispersant including a hydrogenated nitrile butadiene based rubber (HNBR) (claim 5) and a solvent including amide-based polar organic solvent such as N-methyl pyrrolidone ([0090], table 2, claim 1). Kim’393 further teaches the dispersant is included at 1 to 50 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the carbon nanotubes (claim 9), which implies a ratio of carbon nanotubes to the HNBR of 2 to 100.
Kim’393 and the claims differ in that Kim’393 does not teach the exact claimed ranges for the content of carbon nanotubes and weight ratio of the carbon nanotubes to the HNBR, as recited in the instant claims.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the ranges taught by Kim’393 overlap the instantly claimed ranges and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 44, Kim‘393 teaches hydrogenated nitrile butadiene based rubber containing 20-80 wt.% of hydrogenated polybutadiene units, more specifically 30-70 wt.% ([0080]-[0082]). However, the amount ranges taught by Kim’393 overlap with the claimed range (more than 40 wt.%). It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974).
Regarding claim 45, Kim‘393 teaches hydrogenated nitrile butadiene based rubber containing 20 to 60 wt. % of acetonitrile units.
Regarding claims 46-47 and 75, Kim’393 teaches N-methylpyrrolidone, (NMP), dimethylacetamide (DMAc) ([0090], examples), which are the same solvents used in the instant specification, thereby reading on the solvents as required by the instant claims.
Regarding claim 48, Kim’393 teaches the dispersion comprises a dispersion stabilizer such as polyvinylidene fluoride, which is adsorbed on the surface of carbon nanotubes to prevent aggregation of the carbon nanotubes [0095]-[0097], thereby reading on the functional groups on the surface of the carbon nanotubes. Kim’ 393 further teaches that the dispersion stabilizer is used in an amount of 1-10 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of carbon nanotubes, which implies 0.1 wt.% (i.e. considering 1 wt.% of CNT and 10 parts of stabilizer/100 parts of CNT, then 1% x 10/100 = 0.1 wt.%), that overlaps the claimed range (of at least 0.1 wt.%). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range taught by Kim ‘393.
Regarding claim 52, Kim’393 is silent on the dispersion segregates into a solvent and a highly concentrated gel of carbon nanotubes and HBNR as recited in the instant claim.
In view of the substantially identical dispersion of Kim’393, the dispersion of Kim ‘393 is expected to possess the claimed segregation behavior because the obvious composition will be the same as claimed. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claims 54-55 and 78, Kim’393 teaches the carbon nanotubes include residual impurities such as Fe metal elements in an amount of 50 ppm or less [0054].
Regarding claim 56 and 79-80, Kim’393 is silent on the dispersion is a pseudoplastic fluid as recited in the instant claim.
In view of the substantially identical dispersion of Kim’393, the dispersion of Kim ‘393 is expected to possess the claimed properties because the flow behavior index n and flow consistency index K are inherent properties, thereby reading on the dispersion being a pseudoplastic fluid. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 57, Kim’393 is silent on the dispersion viscosity dependence on shear rate, as recited in the instant claims.
In view of the substantially identical dispersion of Kim’393, the dispersion of Kim ‘393 is expected to possess the claimed properties because the viscosity and its dependence on shear rate are inherent properties. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).)
Regarding claim 58, Kim’393 is silent on the loss modulus as recited in the instant claim.
In view of the substantially identical dispersion of Kim’393, the dispersion of Kim ‘393 is expected to possess the claimed property because the loss modulus is an inherent property. Because the PTO does not have proper means to conduct experiments, the burden of proof is now shifted to Applicant to show otherwise. (See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977); In re Fitzgerald, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980).).
Regarding claim 70, note that the discussion supra for claim 1, wherein the dispersion comprises 1 to 8 wt.% of the carbon nanotubes based on the total weight of the dispersion [0093], which overlaps the claimed range (0.3-1.4 wt.%), ), thereby a prima facie case of obviousness being established. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 72-73, note that the discussion supra for claim 1, wherein the dispersion comprises a ratio of carbon nanotubes to the HNBR of 2 to 100 (see paragraph 27 above), which overlaps the claimed range (0.2-5 of claim 72 and 0.5-3 of claim 73), thereby a prima facie case of obviousness being established. MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 74 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ’393 ( EP 3355393 A1, which is equivalent to US PG Pub 2018/0175370 A1) in view of Fukumine et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0198126 A1).
Regarding claim 74, Kim’393 teaches the dispersion of claim 1 as set forth above and it is incorporated herein by reference. Kim’393 teaches the hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (HNBR) has a weight average molecular weight in the range of 10,000 to 300,000 g/mol and a polydispersity index (PDI) (a ratio of Mw/Mn, where Mw is a weight average molecular weight and Mn is a number average molecular weight) in the range of 2.0 to 4.0. When the HNBR has a weight average molecular weight and polydispersity index within the aforementioned ranges, the conductive material comprising the carbon nanotubes may be uniformly dispersed in the dispersion medium.
Kim’393 is silent on the Mooney viscosity of the HNBR.
However, Fukumine teaches a conductive material dispersion for a secondary battery electrode (title, abstract, [0185]) comprising hydrogenated acrylonitrile butadiene copolymer (abstract) having a Mooney viscosity of 40 or less that improves the dispersion of the conductive material ([0077], [0097], [0100]. Example 1 further discloses a conductive material dispersion liquid comprising a conductive material, a HNBR copolymer having a Mooney viscosity of 20 ([0185], Table 1). Fukumine offers the motivation of using the specific HNBR due to its ability to adsorb onto the surface of a conductive material to prevent its aggregation [0077]. In light of the In light of these benefits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the HNBR as taught by Fukumine on the dispersion of Kim’393, thereby arriving at the claimed invention.
Claim 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al., hereinafter Kim’703 ( WO 2017-164703 A1, as listed in the IDS dated 10/06/2025; full English Machine translation incorporated herewith).
Regarding claim 43, Kim’703 teaches a conductive material dispersion comprising bundle carbon nanotubes; a dispersant comprising hydrogenated nitrile-based rubber and amide-based organic solvent (claims 1 and 14); wherein the carbon nanotubes include single-walled and double-walled carbon nanotube units (p.7: first paragraph). Kim further exemplifies a dispersion comprising 2 wt.% of bundled CNT, 0.4 wt.% of partially hydrogenated acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber, which implies a ratio of bundled CNT to hydrogenated acrylonitrile butadiene rubber of 5 and 97.6 wt.% N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP) solvent (example 1, page 26: first paragraph), thereby reading on the claimed ratio and the claimed content of carbon nanotubes.
The difference between Kim and the present claims is that Kim is silent on the recited type of carbon nanotubes used in the examples.
However, Kim does teach single-walled and double-walled carbon nanotube units (p.7: first paragraph) can be used in the embodiments. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use single-walled and double-walled carbon nanotubes units for the bundled CNT in the example 1 because Kim specifically teaches that these type of carbon nanotubes can be substituted and it would be expected to have a reasonable expectation of success given that Kim teaches them as potential bundled CNT for use in the different embodiments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLGA L. DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)270-1152. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, JOSEPH DEL SOLE can be reached at 571-272-1130. 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.
/OLGA LUCIA DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 1763
/JOSEPH S DEL SOLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1763
Prosecution Insights