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 .
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 2-5 and 9-11 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 claims 2, 5 and 9, the term “volatile” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “volatile” 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. For purpose of examination, any organic solvent is considered to read on the claimed limitation. However, applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
Regarding claim 10, the term “super-aligned” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “super-aligned” 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. For purpose of examination, any alignment is considered to read on the claimed limitation. However, applicant should clarify what is intended, without adding new matter.
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 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN106477550A) in view of Ye (CN102732863A).
Regarding claim 1, Fang teaches a method for purifying a carbon nanotube film (abstract) (a method to treat carbon nanotube film surface). Fang teaches to provide a carbon nanotube film, and place the carbon nanotube film on a surface of a target substrate, wherein the carbon nanotube film comprises metal catalyst particles (iron particles) (paragraphs 0003, 0006, 0009 and 0037). Fang teaches to anneal the carbon nanotube film (paragraphs 0010). Fang teaches to soak the carbon nano-tube thin film and the target substate in hydrochloric acid (inorganic acid) solution, wherein the hydrochloric acid has a specify concentration, which indicates the solution requires dilute with water at some point (making an inorganic acid mixture) (paragraphs 0011 and 0057). Fang teaches the annealing expose the catalyst particles to be treated by acid solution (paragraph 0006), wherein the SEM pictures show a lot less iron particles are present in the carbon nanotube after the acid soaking, rinsing and drying (figures 2, 3 and 4, paragraphs 0079-0081). Fang does not explicitly teach the acid react with metal catalyst particles to generate inorganic salts. However, it is the position of the examiner that property of generating inorganic salt by reacting the catalyst particles and inorganic acid, is inherent, given that the process and materials (the claimed invention discloses similar carbon nanotube that are annealed and then soaked in hydrochloride acid solution so the metal catalyst particles are reacted with the hydrochloric acid to form chloride salts of the metal particles, such as ferric chloride) disclosed by Fang and the present application are the same. A reference which is silent about a claimed invention's features is inherently anticipatory if the missing feature is necessarily present in than in that which is described in the reference. Inherency is not established by probabilities or possibilities. In re Robertson, 49 USPQ2d 1949(1999). Fang teaches to rinse the carbon nanotube film with water after the inorganic acid soaking (washing the carbon nanotube film with the inorganic salt) (paragraphs 0011, 0041 and 0079). Fang teaches to dry the carbon nano-tube film after purification (paragraphs 0011 and 0039).
Fang does not explicitly teach the anneal the carbon nanotube film with the inorganic salts to remove the inorganic salts. However, Ye teaches a method of preparing a graphite type carbon material, including carbon nanotube (abstract and paragraph 0011). Ye teaches the nanotube is soaked in hydrochloric acid to remove the metal catalyst, wash by water and dry to 600ºC under Ar atmosphere (preset temperature in a preset atmosphere) (paragraph 0026). The high heat drying temperature overlaps with the annealing temperature of the claimed invention, thus, Ye teaches to annealing the carbon nanotube film with the inorganic salts. The result of removing the inorganic salts is intrinsic as the carbon nanotube film with the inorganic salt and the annealing environment in Fang in view of Ye are the same as the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to anneal the carbon nanotube film with the inorganic salts as suggested by Ye in the method of Fang because Ye teaches such annealing temperature facilitate the drying of the carbon nanotube (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 7, Fang teaches the first annealing step is performed in a tubular furnace (paragraphs 0078, 0085), and the carbon nanotube film is formed by CVD (pargraph 0003), thus, it would be reasonably expected the drying in argon gas atmosphere as disclosed by Ye (annealing) would also be conducted in the CVD tubular furnace for the sake of simplifying the process with minimal equipment. Ye teaches the annealing temperature is 600ºC which is inside of the claimed range (paragraph 0026). It would be reasonable expected to the nanotube film to be cooled down to room temperature at some point after the annealing. Ye teaches the annealing process is intended to dry the nanotube. Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize in the duration of the annealing process to yield desired dryness of the carbon nanotube film. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Fang teaches the first annealing step is performed in a tubular furnace (paragraphs 0078, 0085), and the carbon nanotube film is formed by CVD (pargraph 0003), thus, it would be reasonably expected the drying in argon gas atmosphere as disclosed by Ye (annealing) would also be conducted in the CVD tubular furnace for the sake of simplifying the process with minimal equipment. Ye teaches the annealing temperature is 600ºC in an atmosphere of flowing argon gas (inert gas) (paragraph 0026). Ye teaches the annealing process is intended to dry the nanotube. Therefore, it would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan to adjust and optimize in the annealing temperature and the flow rate of the inert gas in the process to yield desired dryness of the carbon nanotube film. Discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art. In re Boesch, CCPA 1980, 617 F. 2d 272, 205 USPQ215. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of showing of criticality. In re Aller, USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 2-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN106477550A) in view of Ye (CN102732863A) as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Han (US20100080748).
Regarding claims 2-3, Fang teaches the carbon nanotube film is immersed in the inorganic acid mixture and the mixture comprises water (mixing inorganic acid in water) (paragraphs 0011 and 0057). Thus, Fang teaches all limitations of this claim, except the inorganic acid mixture is made by mixing an inorganic acid in a volatile organic solvent. However, Han teaches a method of purifying carbon nanotubes (abstract). Han teaches water and aliphatic alcohol of C1 to C20 (including ethanol, isopropanol, which are the claimed volatile organic solvent) are functionally equivalent solvent (in the inorganic acid mixture) for treating carbon nanotube (paragraph 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute ethanol or isopropanol for water as solvent in the treatment of carbon nanotube as disclosed by Fang in view of Ye.
Regarding claim 4, Fang teaches the acid is hydrochloric acid (paragraphs 0011 and 0057).
Regarding claim 5-6, Fang teaches to remove the carbon nanotube film from the inorganic acid mixture and rinse the carbon nanotube film with water (paragraphs 0011, 0041 and 0079). Ye teaches to dry the carbon nanotube at 600ºC and it would be reasonably expected the temperature is raise from lower temperature, including 50-80ºC to 600ºC. Thus, Ye teaches the drying includes 50-80ºC. Fang in view of Ye teaches all limitations of this claim, except rinsing by the mixed solution of volatile organic solvent and water. However, Han teaches water and aliphatic alcohol of C1 to C20 (including ethanol, isopropanol, which are the claimed volatile organic solvent) and a combination of them are functionally equivalent solvent for treating carbon nanotube (paragraph 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a mixture solution of volatile organic solvent (ethanol or isopropanol) and water for water as solvent (in the mixed solution for rinsing) in the treatment of carbon nanotube as disclosed by Fang in view of Ye.
Regarding claim 9, Ye teaches to dry the carbon nanotube at 600ºC and it would be reasonably expected the temperature is raise from lower temperature, including 50-80ºC to 600ºC. Thus, Ye teaches the drying includes 50-80ºC. Fang teaches the carbon nanotube film is immersed in the inorganic acid mixture and the mixture comprises water (mixing inorganic acid in water) (paragraphs 0011 and 0057). Thus, Fang teaches all limitations of this claim, except the inorganic acid mixture is made by mixing an inorganic acid in a volatile organic solvent. However, Han teaches a method of purifying carbon nanotubes (abstract). Han teaches water and aliphatic alcohol of C1 to C20 (including ethanol, isopropanol, which are the claimed volatile organic solvent) are functionally equivalent solvent (in the inorganic acid mixture) for treating carbon nanotube (paragraph 0046). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute ethanol or isopropanol for water as solvent in the treatment of carbon nanotube as disclosed by Fang in view of Ye. The result of shrinking the carbon nanotube film is intrinsic as the carbon nanotube film, the annealing process, the inorganic acid mixture in Fang in view of Ye and Han are the same as the claimed invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fang (CN106477550A) in view of Ye (CN102732863A) as applied to claims 1 and 7-8 above, and further in view of Liu (US20220017368).
Regarding claim 10, Fang in view of Ye teaches all limitations of this claim except the specific type of carbon nanotube film. However, Liu teaches a method of making a carbon nanotube composite film by providing a carbon nanotube film (abstract), wherein the carbon nanotube film is super aligned carbon nanotube film (paragraphs 0040 and 0055). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use super aligned carbon nanotube as suggested by Liu in the method of Fang in view of Ye because Liu teaches such film has clean surface and good electrical conductivity with few defects compared to ordinary arrays carbon nanotubes (paragraph 0055).
Regarding claim 11, Liu teaches the super-aligned carbon nanotube is a single layer film comprising a plurality of carbon nanotubes oriented substantially in a same direction and arranged parallel to a surface of the super-aligned carbon nanotube film, and the plurality of carbon nanotube is connected end to end by van der Waals forces between the plurality of carbon nanotubes (paragraphs 0040-0041, 0049, 0055).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park (EP1550635).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGA LEUNG V LAW whose telephone number is (571)270-1115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 5712721295. 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.
/NGA LEUNG V LAW/ Examiner, Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights