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 filed on 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Li is non-analogous art because it is directed to a thermocouple-type sensor operating on the Seebeck effect, whereas the claimed invention is a bolometer-type detector operating on a change in electrical resistance (TCR), and that a person of ordinary skill would not have looked to Li’s material selection to optimize a CNT-based bolometer. This argument is not persuasive because the rejection does not rely on Li for its Seebeck based sensing mechanism; Li is relied upon solely for its teaching that electrode pairs in an infrared temperature sensing device may be formed of different metals, different metal alloys, or a combination of a metal and metal alloy (see Li, para [0071]), which is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by Kosaka namely selecting suitable electrode materials for an infrared sensing device regardless of the underlying transduction mechanism.
Applicant further argues that the claimed alloy groupings (a) – (d) were specifically selected to simultaneously satisfy an appropriate work function and low electrical resistivity, enabling an unexpected TCR of 4.5%/ K or higher not achievable with conventional electrodes. This argument is not persuasive because it is unsupported by any objective evidence of record. Moreover, applicant has not shown that the alleged result is commensurate in scope with the full breadth of claimed alloy groups (a) – (d), as the specification’s disclosure at paragraphs [0016] and [0018] supporting the asserted TCR value is directed only to the elected Al-Hf species.
Applicant additionally argues that one of ordinary skill would have been discouraged from using alloy electrodes because complex alloys are generally expected to increase contact resistance or introduce interfacial noise. The argument is not persuasive because none Kosaka, Li, or Yuge criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the use of alloy electrodes on a carbon-nanotube based sensing film.
For at least these reasons, the rejections of claims 1 – 3 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kosaka in view of Li, and claims 5 – 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Kosaka in view of Li and further in view of Yuge, are maintained.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka (US 2022/0364928 A1 – hereafter “Kosaka”) in view of Li et al. (US 2022/0082444 A1 – hereafter “Li”).
As per claim 1, Kosaka teaches the following:
A bolometer type infrared detector comprising:
a substrate (see Fig. 1, substrate 1; para [0061]),
a bolometer film comprising semiconducting carbon nanotubes (see Fig. 1, layer 2, carbon nanotube layer 3, see para [0061] – [0063]), and
two electrodes spaced from each other and connected to the bolometer film (see Fig. 1, electrodes 4,5; para [0061]), but fails to teach one of the two electrodes are formed of the metal alloy combinations in the groups claimed.
However, Li teaches electrodes in an infrared temperature sensor device that are formed from different conductive materials, including different metals or different metal alloys. Specifically, Li discloses that a thermocouple includes first and second electrodes that may be formed of different metals, different metal alloys, or a combination of a metal and a metal alloy (see para [0071]). Li further discloses specific electrode material combinations, including copper and copper-nickel alloy electrodes (see Table 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to modify Kosaka’s in view of Li to form at least one of the electrodes from a metal or metal alloy, as taught by Li, in order to achieve stable thermoelectric performance and improve temperature measurement accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “The bolometer type infrared detector according to claim 1, wherein the two electrodes are formed of a same alloy.”
Kosaka teaches the bolometer type infrared detector of claim 1, but fails to teach two electrodes formed of the same alloy.
However, Li teaches electrodes formed of metal alloys, including embodiments in which the electrodes are formed of the same metal alloy (see para [0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to modify Kosaka’s in view of Li to form the two electrodes of the same metal alloy in order to simplify fabrication by using a single electrode material.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “The bolometer type infrared detector according to claim 1, wherein the two electrodes are formed of alloys different from each other.”
Kosaka teaches the bolometer type infrared detector of claim 1, but fails to teach the two electrodes are formed of alloys that are different from each other.
However, Li teaches that the first electrode and the second electrode may be formed of different metal alloys (see para [0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to modify Kosaka’s in view of Li to use different metal alloys for the two electrodes in order to generate a thermoelectric potential based on material differences.
As per claim 8 Kosaka teaches:
A method of manufacturing a bolometer type infrared detector, the method comprising:
providing a substrate (see Fig. 1, substrate 1; para [0061]),
forming a bolometer film comprising semiconducting carbon nanotubes (see Fig. 1, layer 2, carbon nanotube layer 3, see para [0061] – [0063]), and
forming two electrodes so that the two electrodes are spaced from each other and connected to the bolometer film (see Fig. 1, electrodes 4,5; para [0061]), but fails to teach one of the two electrodes are formed of the metal alloy combinations in the groups claimed.
However, Li teaches electrodes in an infrared temperature sensor device that are formed from different conductive materials, including different metals or different metal alloys. Specifically, Li discloses that a thermocouple includes first and second electrodes that may be formed of different metals, different metal alloys, or a combination of a metal and a metal alloy (see para [0071]). Li further discloses specific electrode material combinations, including copper and copper-nickel alloy electrodes (see Table 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to modify Kosaka’s in view of Li to form the two electrodes from a same metal alloy during manufacturing in order to simplify the electrode forming process by using a single alloy material.
Claims 5 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosaka in view of Li in further view of Yuge et al. (US 2023/0288262 A1 – hereafter “Yuge”).
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “The bolometer type infrared detector according to claim 1, wherein the bolometer film is a composite material comprising a carbon nanotube and a negative thermal expansion material.”
Kosaka in view of Li teaches the bolometer type infrared detector of claim 1, but fails to teach the bolometer film is comprised of carbon nanotubes and a thermal expansion material.
However, Yuge teaches that a bolometer film is a composite material comprising semiconducting carbon nanotubes and a negative thermal expansion material (see para [0056] – [0057]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to modify Kosaka’s in view of Li in further view of Yuge to include a composite material comprising semiconductor carbon nanotubes and a negative thermal expansion material in order to improve temperature induced resistance change and increase the temperature coefficient of resistance.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “The bolometer type infrared detector according to claim 5, wherein the negative thermal expansion material is an oxides, a nitride, a sulfide, or a multi-element compound, each comprising one or more element selected from the group consisting of , Li, Al, Fe, Ni, Co, Mn, Bi, La, Cu, Sn, Zn, V, Zr, Pb, Sm, Y, W, Si, P, Ru, Ti, Ge, Ca, Ga, Cr, and Cd.”
Kosaka in view of Li teaches the bolometer type infrared detector of claim 5, but fails to teach the negative thermal expansion material is an oxides, a nitride, a sulfide, or a multi-element compound, each comprising one or more element selected from the group consisting of , Li, Al, Fe, Ni, Co, Mn, Bi, La, Cu, Sn, Zn, V, Zr, Pb, Sm, Y, W, Si, P, Ru, Ti, Ge, Ca, Ga, Cr, and Cd.
However, Yuge teaches the negative thermal expansion material is an oxide, a nitride, a sulfide, or a multi-element compound comprising one or more elements selected from Li, Al, Fe, Ni, Co, Mn, Bi, La, Cu, Sn, Zn, V, Zr, Pb, Sm, Y, W, Si, P, Ru, Ti, Ge, Ca, Ga, Cr, and Cd (see para [0083] – [0085]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to modify Kosaka’s in view of Li in further view of Yuge to employ a negative thermal expansion material selected from oxides, nitrides, sulfides, or multi-element compounds as taught by Yuge, in order to enable material selection optimized for thermal stability, manufacturability, and enhanced TCR.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “The bolometer type infrared detector according to claim 1, wherein the bolometer film comprises semiconducting carbon nanotubes in an amount of 90% by mass or more based on a total amount of the semiconducting carbon nanotubes.”
Kosaka in view of Li teaches the bolometer type infrared detector of claim 1, but fails to teach the bolometer film comprises semiconducting carbon nanotubes in an amount of 90% by mass or more based on a total amount of the semiconducting carbon nanotubes.”
However, Yuge teaches that the bolometer film comprises semiconducting carbon nanotubes in an amount of 90% by mass or more based on a total amount of the semiconducting carbon nanotubes. (see para [0077]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the present application to modify Kosaka’s in view of Li in further view of Yuge to modify the bolometer film to comprise semiconducting carbon nanotubes in an amount of 90% by mass or more in order to suppress metallic conduction paths and improve bolometer performance.
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 Manuel Castellon whose telephone number is (571)272-4575. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, John Breene can be reached at 571-272-4107. 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.
/MANUEL SALVADOR CASTELLON JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2855
/JOHN E BREENE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights