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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 9/21/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Shrestha fails to teach the same or corresponding special feature between Groups I and II, the specific carbon nanotubes recited in claim 1. This is not found persuasive because Shrestha discloses carbon nanotubes satisfying the following (1) to(3) and comprising multi-walled carbon nanotubes: (1) in differential thermal analysis when heated from 200°C to 1000°C at a rate of 10°C/minute, an exothermic peak is observed between 600°C and 800°C inclusive (Fig. 3a); (2) in a Raman spectrum, when the maximum peak intensity within a range of 1560 to 1600 cm⁻¹ is defined as G, and the maximum peak intensity within a range of 1310 to 1350 cm⁻¹ is defined as D, a G/D ratio is 0.5 or more and 3.0 or less (Fig. 4b); and (3) contains no cobalt, iron, copper, zinc, nickel, chromium, manganese and molybdenum. A total content of cobalt, iron, copper, zinc, nickel, chromium, manganese and molybdenum is “5000ppm or less” includes zero as a lower limit. In addition, Shrestha discloses the oxidation/purification process removed impurities (metal particles and amorphous carbon) from the CNTs (page 55). Therefore, the groups of claims are still seen to be restrictable for reason of record. Lack of unity is proved in the restriction requirement mailed 10/17/2012.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 7-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/7/2025 and 9/10/2026 have been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies accompany this action.
Drawings
The Drawings filed 5/7/2025 are approved by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shrestha et al. (Carbon 48, 2010, pages 54-59).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-5, Shrestha discloses carbon nanotubes satisfying the following (1) to(3) and comprising multi-walled carbon nanotubes: (1) in differential thermal analysis when heated from 200°C to 1000°C at a rate of 10°C/minute, an exothermic peak is observed between 600°C and 800°C inclusive (Fig. 3a); (2) in a Raman spectrum, when the maximum peak intensity within a range of 1560 to 1600 cm⁻¹ is defined as G, and the maximum peak intensity within a range of 1310 to 1350 cm⁻¹ is defined as D, a G/D ratio is 0.5 or more and 3.0 or less (Fig. 4b). A total content of cobalt, iron, copper, zinc, nickel, chromium, manganese and molybdenum is “5000ppm or less” includes zero as a lower limit. Shrestha does not disclose the carbon nanotubes contains metal of cobalt, iron, copper, zinc, nickel, chromium, manganese and molybdenum. In addition, Shrestha discloses the oxidation/purification process removed impurities (metal particles and amorphous carbon) from the CNTs (page 55). Therefore, Shrestha discloses the limitation of “a total content of cobalt, iron, copper, zinc, nickel, chromium, manganese and molybdenum is “5000ppm or less”.
Regarding claim 6, Shrestha discloses the G/D ratio is 0.5 or more and 3.0 or less (Fig. 4b).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shrestha et al. (Carbon 48, 2010, pages 54-59) as applied above, further in view of Wepasnick et al (Carbon 49, 2011, pages 24-36).
Regarding claim 2, Shrestha discloses carbon nanotubes as described above and is incorporated herein by reference. Shrestha does not disclose the nanotubes (pristine) have a surface oxygen content is 2.5 atm% or less. However, pristine carbon nanotubes have a surface oxygen content is 2.5 atm% or less is known as shown by Wepasnick and the oxygen content is increased following different oxidizing treatments/conditions (Fig. 6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the pristine carbon nanotubes of Shrestha also have a surface oxygen content is 2.5 atm% or less.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
9/30/2026
