DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In Paragraph 0005 of the specification, “WO 2012/081601 A” should read “PTL 2: WO 2012/081601 A”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueda et al. (JP2016108175A).
With regard to Claims 1-5, Ueda teaches a carbon nanotube assembly (Abstract).
Ueda is silent to the carbon nanotube assembly satisfying at least one of the following conditions (1) to (3), as disclosed in Claim 1:
(1) a spectrum obtained by a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopic analysis on a carbon nanotube dispersion obtained by dispersing the carbon nanotube assembly so that a bundle length is 10 μm or more, has at least one peak based on plasmon resonance of the carbon nanotube dispersion in a wavenumber range of more than 300 cm-1 and 2000 cm-1 or less;
(2) a highest peak in a differential pore capacity distribution measured on the carbon nanotube assembly is located within a pore size range of more than 100 nm and less than 400 nm; and
(3) a two-dimensional spatial frequency spectrum of an electron microscopic image of the carbon nanotube assembly has at least one peak within a range of 1 μm-1 or more and 100 μm-1 or less.
Ueda is silent to the assembly wherein the at least one peak based on plasmon resonance of the carbon nanotube dispersion is within a wave number range of 500 cm-1 or more, as disclosed in Claim 2.
Ueda is silent to the assembly wherein the highest peak in the differential pore capacity distribution is 2 cm3/g or more, as disclosed in Claim 3.
Ueda is silent to the assembly wherein at least two of the conditions (1) to (3) are satisfied, as disclosed in Claim 4, and wherein all of the conditions (1) to (3) are satisfied, as disclosed in Claim 5.
However, the production method disclosed by the prior art and of the instant invention are substantially identical and thus would produce substantially identical products. See MPEP 2112.01.I.
Paragraph 0037 of the instant specification discloses that “A production method of the carbon nanotube assembly of the present disclosure satisfies all of the following conditions (a) to (c) during growth of the carbon nanotube assembly.
(a) the growth rate of the carbon nanotube assembly is 5 μm/min or more;
(b) the concentration of a catalyst activating material in the growth atmosphere of the carbon nanotube assembly is 4 volume% or more; and
(c) during growth of the carbon nanotube assembly, an obstacle is present in the growth direction of the carbon nanotubes which are to compose the carbon nanotube assembly”.
Furthermore, Paragraph 0038 of the instant specification discloses that “The production method of the present disclosure enables efficient production of the above-described CNT assembly…The production method of the present disclosure is not particularly limited as long as the above-described conditions (a) to (c) are satisfied during growth of the CNT assembly”.
Ueda teaches the production method wherein (a) a growth rate of the carbon nanotube assembly is 5 μm/min or more (Paragraphs 0089-0090, synthesizing the carbon nanotubes on the catalyst particles was set to 10 minutes…long carbon nanotubes exceeding 300 μm were growing).
Ueda teaches the production method wherein (b) a concentration of a catalyst activating material in a growth atmosphere of the carbon nanotube assembly is 4 volume% or more (Paragraph 0037, The content of carbon dioxide in the raw material gas is…more preferably 5% by volume or more).
Ueda teaches the production method wherein (c) during growth of the carbon nanotube assembly, an obstacle is present in a growth direction of the carbon nanotubes which are to compose the carbon nanotube assembly (Paragraph 0038, The carbon nanotube synthesis step (S3) is performed in a fluidized bed reactor).
In this regard, Ueda teaches the carbon nanotube assembly satisfying at least one, two, or all of the following conditions (1) to (3), the assembly wherein the at least one peak based on plasmon resonance of the carbon nanotube dispersion is within a wave number range of 500 cm-1 or more, and the assembly wherein the highest peak in the differential pore capacity distribution is 2 cm3/g or more.
Once a reference teaching a product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden
shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove
that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her]
claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie
obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its
fairness is evidenced by the PTO’s inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art
products." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 4380, 483-34 (CCPA 1977)), see MPEP 2112.
Applicant has not clearly shown an unobvious difference between the instant invention and the prior
art’s product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Hata et al. (EP2383225A1) teaches an aligned single-walled carbon nanotube assembly and method for producing the same.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
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 Zimmer can be reached at 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 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.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736