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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/13/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2010/0304101) in view of Jassby (US 9802163) and Sansom (US 2011/0236619).
Regarding Claims 1, Lin teaches a method comprising: functionalizing a substrate (bonding layer disposed on the metal layer); aligning, orthogonally, the plurality of open-ended carbon nanotubes relative to the substrate in an array (Fig. 1.2B, vertically aligned carbon nanotubes [0111]); and covalent bonding each of the plurality of open-ended carbon nanotubes to the substrate by applying pressure on each of the plurality of open-ended carbon nanotubes against the substrate ([0122], [0047]). Lin teaches functionalizing each open-end of a plurality of open-ended carbon nanotubes (functional group to bond to the nanotubes, [0047]).
Lin teaches the bonding layer being a polymer with functional groups that can bond to both the nanotubes and the mating substrate ([0048]). Lin does not explicitly teach covalently bonding by a reaction between the functional groups of the substrate and functional groups of the carbon nanotubes; however, Jassby teaches carbon nanotubes functionalized with hydroxyl and carboxyl groups for covalent bonding with polymer functional groups. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the bonding of Lin to further include functionalization of the carbon nanotubes for covalent bonding with the polymer layer, because this is a known method of bonding and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the layer of Lin with functionalized nanotubes as taught in Jassby.
Lin teaches the growth substrate acting as a transfer substrate and does not explicitly teach embedding each of the plurality of open-ended carbon nanotubes within respective polymers as a transfer substrate; however, Sansom teaches detaching aligned nanotubes from a growth substrate by embedding in a polymer (col. 4 ln. [0063]). Sansom teaches the polymer embedded nanotube layer may be applied to devices or structures ([0078]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the transfer of Lin to include embedding in a polymer, as taught in Sansom, because it is a known method of removing aligned nanotubes from a growth substrate and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the product of Lin with a polymer embedding step as in Sansom.
Regarding Claims 2-3, Lin teaches radical reactions (e.g. thiol treated gold, [0062]).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Lin teaches open ended carbon nanotubes and a uniform thickness ([0064], [0071]). Lin teaches nanotube arrays with a thickness of 13, 10, and 7 microns ([0112-0113]). Lin does not explicitly teach microtoming or ultramicrotoming; however, Sansom teaches microtoming and ultramicrotoming as a known method for providing open-ends for carbon nanotubes and adjusting height of an array ([0080]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method of Lin to include microtoming or ultramicrotoming, as taught in Sansom, because it is a known method of adjusting film thickness and achieving and open-ended array of nanotubes and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the array of Lin with microtoming or ultramicrotoming as in Lin.
Regarding Claim 6, Lin teaches a carboxylic functionalization ([0047]).
Regarding Claim 7, Jassby teaches functionalization with nitric acid (col. 11 ln. 14-29).
Regarding Claim 8-10, Lin teaches copper or silver (claim 7) and teaches amine functional groups ([0047]).
Regarding Claim 11, Lin is silent as to the temperature for bonding and does not explicitly teach the claimed temperature; however, Lin teaches microwave assisted heating employed to increase reaction rates and the capability of inducing chemical reactions which cannot proceed by thermal heating alone ([0122]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the heating temperature, as suggested in Lin, in order to achieve the desired reaction and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed temperature.
Regarding Claim 12, Lin does not explicitly teach the claimed nanotube length; however, Lin teaches the resistivity is dependent on the nanotube length ([0077]). "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II A. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to optimize the nanotube length, as suggested in Lin, in order to achieve the desired resistivity and in such an optimization one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at applicant’s claimed length.
Regarding Claim 13, Sansom teaches the polymers are clear ([0079]).
Regarding Claim 14, Sansom teaches the polymers are clear PDMS ([0079]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 7/13/2026, with respect to the previous prior art rejection of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2014/0321026 and US 2009/0246507.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABATHA L PENNY whose telephone number is (571)270-5512. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 5712721418. 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.
/TABATHA L PENNY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights