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 § 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) 1-13, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chow.
Chow (US 2005/0219788) teaches [0081] Different embodiments of the invention comprise a range of such different densities (i.e., number of nanofibers per unit area of a substrate to which nanofibers are attached). The number of nanofibers per unit area can optionally range from about 1 nanofiber per 10 micron.sup.2 up to about 200 or more nanofibers per micron.sup.2; from about 1 nanofiber per micron.sup.2 up to about 200 or more nanofibers per micron.sup.2; from about 10 nanofibers per micron.sup.2 up to about 100 or more nanofibers per micron.sup.2; or from about 25 nanofibers per micron.sup.2 up to about 75 or more nanofibers per micron.sup.2. In yet other embodiments, the density can optionally range from about 1 to 3 nanowires per square micron to up to approximately 2,500 or more nanowires per square micron.
The nanofibers or wires can form patterns through lithography or other techniques (See
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a first second, third or fourth surfaces as claimed by providing different patterned nanowire regions or islands [0119-0122].
Regarding claim 2-3, the areas can be formed via masking (See above).
The substrate can be formed from aluminum as claimed (see figures and claims). A second layer can be a semiconductor or dielectric a polymer, oxide, or resin (see claims and figures).
The nanofibers can be grown from a metal catalyst (See [0071, 0099, 0108-0109]).
Regarding at least claim 10, an oxide layer can be produced as claimed by an electrolytic process [0028] rendering obvious anodizing the metal to form an oxide layer.
The surface can be etched [0030].
The pillars can be nanowires or nanotubes including carbon nanotubes or can comprise silicon oxide [0009, 0023, 0049, 0056-0057, 0065].
Chow teaches spacing apart CNTs with different densities (See figures and above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a first second or third surface as claimed by providing different patterned nanowire regions or islands [0119-0122] with different surface areas to increase or tailor regions for different conductance.
Chow teaches forming capacitors and multiple layers in forming such devices (See abstract, [0009-0011], figures and [0028], and claims). It would therefore be obvious to provide the claimed layers in forming such electrical devices as claimed.
Applicant has argued that the art of record does not teach an uncovered, pointing to figures as justification for the argument, and thus argues that the art does not meet the claims.
The art of record is also considered to meet the clam limitations of claims 19-20 that are newly presented and substantially similar to previously presented claims above.
The Examiner disagrees.
Chow (US 2005/0219788) teaches patterning and that common lithographical techniques can be used to achieve patterning, in the previously cited paragraphs [0119-0122]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide patterning and textures including masking that would stop deposition of nanofibers and other layers to formed layers consistent with the claim language.
Other embodiments can optionally comprise nanofiber lawns that have areas selectively cleared of nanofibers (thus, creating nanofiber islands, etc.) or can have nanofibers only grown or deposited in certain selected areas (or any combinations thereof). Those of skill in the art will be aware of numerous other patterns, etc. which can optionally be within embodiments herein [0121].
Rejection maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued that the art of record does not teach an uncovered, pointing to figures as justification for the argument, and thus argues that the art does not meet the claims.
The Examiner disagrees.
Chow (US 2005/0219788) teaches patterning and that common lithographical techniques can be used to achieve patterning, in the previously cited paragraphs [0119-0122]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to provide patterning and textures including masking that would stop deposition of nanofibers and other layers to formed layers consistent with the claim language.
Rejection maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL H MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-1534. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 9-6.
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, Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL H MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783