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 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) 1-6, and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2010/0304101) in view of Sansom (US 2011/0236619) and Williams (US 8236422).
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 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.
Lin teaches functionalizing a substrate and each open-end of a plurality of open-ended carbon nanotubes (functional group to bond to the nanotubes, bonding layer disposed on the metal layer, [0047]). Lin does not explicitly teach the nanoparticles are functionalized prior to the covalent bonding; however, Williams teaches a method of covalently bonding substrates and particles wherein the particles are functionalized before covalent attachment to the substrate (abstract). 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 the combined references to include functionalization of the nanotubes prior to covalent attachment, as suggested by Williams, because it is a known order of steps and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the attachment of the combined references with a functionalization order as suggested in Williams.
Regarding Claims 2-3, The combined references do not teach electrografting; however, Williams teaches a method of functionalizing surfaces including metals and carbon nanotubes by electrografting by applying a potential (Fig. 2A, col. 8 ln. 23-30 and 57-59). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the functionalizing of the combined references to include electrografting, as taught in Williams, because it is a known method for achieving a covalent bond and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of predictably achieving the bond of the combined references with electrografting as taught in Williams.
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 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]).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 2010/0304101) in view of Sansom (US 2011/0236619) and Williams (US 8236422) as applied to claims 1-6, and 8-14 above, and further in view of Atyabi (US 8460711).
Regarding Claim 7, The combined references do not teach treating with nitric acid; however, Atyabi teaches a method of functionalizing carbon nanotubes by using a pre-treating with nitric acid (col. 1 ln. 41-57). 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 the combined references to include a nitric acid pretreatment, as taught in Atyabi, in order to obtain oxidized carbon nanotubes suitable for subsequent functionalizing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 1/30/2026, with respect to the previous Section 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see amendment and remarks, filed 1/30/2026, with respect to the previous Section 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections have been withdrawn.
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.
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 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