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 .
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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 27, 32, 41-42, 50-51, 54, 58, 62, 66, 78 and 79 are pending. Claims 78 and 79 are withdrawn. Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 27, 32, 41-42, 50-51, 54, 58, 62 and 66 are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 1/14/2026 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of the claims based upon Schaper.
Response to Arguments
Initially, it is noted that some of the drawings have been corrected; however, Figures 2E, 3B, 3D, 8G and 9C are still blurry and must be corrected.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim(s) 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 27, 32, 41-42, 50-51, 54, 58, 62 and 66 over Alameri in view of Panth 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2E, 3B, 3D, 8G and 9C are blurry. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 27, 32, 41, 42, 50, 51, 54, 58, 62 and 66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alameri et al. (“Controlled Selective CVD Growth of ZnO Nanowires Enabled by Mask-Free Fabrication Approach using Aqueous Fe Catalytic Inks”) in view of Panth et al. (“High-Performance Strain Sensors Based on Vertically Aligned Piezoelectric Zinc Oxide Nanowire Array/Graphene Nanohybrids”) and Kuljanishvili et al. (“Controllable Patterning and CVD Growth of Isolated Carbon Nanotubes with Direct Parallel Writing of Catalyst Using Dip-Pen Nanolithography”).
I. Regarding claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 27, 32, 41, 42, 54, 58, 62 and 66, Alameri teaches a process comprising providing a structure/substrate (Section 4, Silicon Substrate Preparation); exposing the substrate to an iron nitrate salt solution based ink by deposition in a pattern to form a precursor structure (Section 4, Ink Precursor Preparation and DWP Technique); and transforming the precursor structure in the presence of a zinc oxide precursor into a heterostructure of the substrate and zinc(II) oxide nanowires (Section 4, CVD Synthesis of ZnO Nanowires). Alameri teaches the transformation done at elevated temperature using a double tube system with an outer tube configured with a gas inlet (Section 4, CVD Synthesis of ZnO Nanowires and Figure 1), the transformation occurs by increasing temperature under a flow of argon by heating for a period of 80 minutes at a constant flow of argon of 70 sccm (Section 4, CVD Synthesis of ZnO Nanowires), and also includes a purging step under argon at a flow rate of 600 sccm (Section 4, CVD Synthesis of ZnO Nanowires). Alameri teaches the ink comprising a volume ratio of iron solution to a solvent in the ranges as claimed and a first and second solvent being water (Section 4, Ink Precurosr Preparation). Alameri fails to teach the structure/substrate being a carbon-based structure and the ink also including an organic solvent.
First, Alameri does suggest the process could be applicable to graphene (Section 3). Furthermore, Panth teaches that graphene can be used as a structure and that zinc oxide nanowires can be formed on the graphene (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alameri’s process by substituting a graphene structure/substrate for Alameri’s substrate. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Alameri actually suggests graphene (see above) and the use of graphene would allow for the generation of high-performance strain sensors (see Panth at title and abstract).
Second, Kuljanishvili teaches adding a water-miscible organic solvent to an ink including iron nitrate nonahydrate and water (top of first column, page 2525), wherein the ink is intended for printing as a catalyst (bottom of last column, page 2524). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alameri’s process by incorporating a water-miscible organic solvent into the iron-based ink. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Kuljanishvili teaches that the water-miscible organic solvent prevents excess evaporation during the writing process (middle of 1st column, page 2525).
II. Regarding claims 50 and 51, Alameri in view of Panth and Kuljanishvili teach all the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach the metal oxide precursor located at the open end and/or 1-15 cm to the open end. However, the location of the precursor can be used to control regional saturation of zinc precursor near the substrate during the transformation step. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the instantly claimed locations through process optimization, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 27, 32, 41-42, 50-51, 54, 58, 62, 66, 78 and 79 are pending.
Claims 78 and 79 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7, 11, 14, 18, 21, 27, 32, 41-42, 50-51, 54, 58, 62 and 66 are rejected.
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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
March 12, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717