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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8, in the reply filed on 12/4/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/4/2025.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings filed 8/24/2022 are accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al (US 2016/023411) in view of Han et al (US 2021/0207939), as evidenced by US 2010/200146.
With regards to claim 1, Li teaches a film comprising an organic material layer and a carbon nanotube paper (herein understood to read on the claimed “inorganic material layer”) stacked together wherein a thermal expansion coefficient of the organic material layer is different from a thermal expansion coefficient of the inorganic material layer (claim 1). The inorganic material layer comprises carbon nanotube, which is known in the art to comprise rolled layers of graphene.
With regards to the preamble limitation stating “An assembling film… has a photothermal deformation effect,” said limitation is understood to be a preamble limitation that does not further limit the claimed invention. Alternatively, the invention of Li is understood to have a photothermal deformation effect because said layer comprises carbon nanotubes (one of applicant’s referred materials) and carbon based materials are known in the art to exhibit photothermal deformation. Furthermore, with regards to the preamble limitation “configured for assembling display,” said limitation is understood to be an intended use limitation which does not further limit the claimed invention (see MPEP 2111.02 stating where “the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp.)
Li teaches the polymer should comprise a flexible binder such as a silicone rubber, but does not explicitly teach that the binder should be a dimethylsiloxane. However, Han taches that dimethylsiloxane materials are useful as flexible polymers for use in actuators (0018). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilize dimethylsiloxane as the flexible polymer disclosed in Li. The motivation for doing so would have been that Han teaches dimethylsiloxane are useful flexible polymers for use in actuators.
With regards to claim 2, Li teaches the ratio of the thermal expansion coefficient of the organic material layer to the thermal expansion coefficient of the inorganic material layer is greater than 100:1 (claim 2).
With regards to claim 3, polydimethylsiloxanes are known to have a thermal expansion coefficient of the organic material layer is between 200 and 600 ppm/°C (see US 2010/0200146 @0008).
With regards to claim 4, LI teaches the inorganic layer may be carbon nanotube, which is comprised of graphene. Said material is known to have a thermal expansion coefficient of the inorganic material layer is between 5 and 30 ppm/°C.
With regards to claim 5, Li teaches the organic material layer has a thickness of between 270-450um (0026). Alternatively, Li does not explicitly teach the polymer thickness limitation of claim 5. However, Li teaches the thickness of the polymer layer is a result effective variable (0080) selected to control the thermal response rate of the composite. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the thickness of the polymer layer in order to optimize the thermal response rate of the composite.
With regards to claim 6, Li is relied upon as above. Li does not explicitly teach the inorganic layer thickness limitation of claim 6. However, Li teaches the thickness of the inorganic layer is a result effective variable (0064) selected to control the strength of the paper. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to optimize the thickness of the inorganic layer in order to optimize the strength of the carbon nanotube paper.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN R KRUER whose telephone number is (571)272-1510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Callie Shosho can be reached at (571) 272-1123. 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.
/KEVIN R KRUER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787
Prosecution Insights