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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the double patenting rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 14, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddon (US 7723684 B1) in view of Cheng (CN 101665327 B).
With regards to claim 1, Haddon discloses bolometer material which is a thin film comprising semiconducting carbon nanotubes (claim 1). Haddon does not specify a negative thermal expansion material as claimed. However, Cheng teaches a negative thermal expansion (NTE) material, wherein the NTE material comprises an oxide comprising ZrW2O8 (Abstract), which is known to exhibit good isotropic negative thermal expansion characteristics [0002]. Therefore, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Haddon with the claimed NTE in order to improve electrical and thermal conductivity performance as well as mechanical properties.
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Haddon and Cheng does not teach the claimed amount. However, those skilled in the art recognize that the relative amount is a result effective variable routinely optimized based on a desired thermal and mechanical property. Selecting a mass fraction between 1% and 99% represents a broad but predictable range encompassing minor additions through majority compositions, which would have been considered obvious design choices to one of ordinary skill in the art.
With regards to claim 3, Haddon discloses wherein the semiconducting carbon nanotubes have a semiconductor purity of 67% by mass (claim 15), but does not teach a diameter within the range of 0.6 to 1.5 nm and a length within the range of 100 nm to 5 pm. However, Haddon does explain that the geometry of the CNTs may affect detector responsivity (column 11, lines 25-37). Therefore, it would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Haddon with the claimed geometries as a matter of design choice in order to improve detector responsivity.
With regards to claims 6 and 7, Cheng teaches the claimed coefficient of linear thermal expansion [0002], but does not specify the temperature range. Nevertheless, such a modification would have been known and considered an obvious design choice for bolometer materials which are generally known to operate within the claimed temperature range.
With regards to claim 8, Haddon disclose an infrared sensor 100 comprising a substrate 108; a first electrode 106a on the substrate; a second electrode 106b spaced from the first electrode on the substrate; and the bolometer material 102 according to claim 1 (in view of Cheng) electrically connected with the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 1A).
With regards to claim 9, Haddon does not specify the claimed distance. However, such a modification would have been known and considered an obvious matter of design choice during manufacture in order to optimize resistance and sensitivity.
With regards to claim 14, Haddon discloses a detector array (Figs. 18-19C).
With regards to claim 19, Haddon discloses the claimed invention according to claim 1 but does not specify the specific amounts of the carbon nanotubes and the NTE material as claimed. However, since the specific amounts of the carbon nanotubes and NTE material both represent result effective variables to either achieve reliable electrical conductivity and/or to achieve a desired negative thermal expansion, such modification would have been known and considered obvious design choices.
Claim 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haddon (US 7723684 B1) in view of Cheng ‘225 (CN 103468225 A)
With regards to claim 16, Haddon discloses an infrared sensor 100, wherein the infrared sensor comprises a substrate 108; a first electrode 106a on the substrate; a second electrode 106b spaced from the first electrode on the substrate; and a bolometer material 102 electrically connected with the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 1A). Haddon does not specify steps a-c. However, Cheng ‘225 teaches a method comprising: applying the mixed liquid comprising a semiconducting carbon nanotube and a negative thermal expansion material (Summary of Invention); and subjecting the mixed liquid to heat treatment (Summary of Invention). It would have been well known, obvious, and predictably suitable to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Haddon with the method taught by Cheng ‘225 in order to fix the film onto the substrate and remove surfactants. Although the combination of Haddon and Cheng ‘225 do not specify step c, those skilled in the art recognize that the specific sequencing of heat treatment and electrode placement would have been an obvious design choice in view of optimizing mechanical properties.
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 MARCUS H TANINGCO whose telephone number is (571)272-1848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm EST.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached on 571-272-3995. 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.
/MARCUS H TANINGCO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884