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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/16/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-20 and 22-24 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The previous rejection of claims 1-20 and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Samouce (University of Florida, 2019) is maintained in view of applicant’s amendment/remarks.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 1-20 and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Samouce (University of Florida, 2019).
Regarding claims 1 and 22, Samouce discloses a method, comprising: providing a carbon nanotube (CNT) dispersion solution comprising: an aqueous solution comprising a quantity of amphiphilic pendant polymer dispersant (pyrene-labeled hydroxypropyl cellulose, Py-HPC); and a plurality of carbon nanotubes in the aqueous solution (page 42), the pendant polymer dispersant enabling CNT self-assembly (page 42); and forming a self-assembled CNT film on a surface of a substrate using the CNT dispersion solution (page 74). Given that the self-assembled CNT film disclosed by Samouce is produced by the same method as set forth by applicant, and the self-assembled CNT film is formed with the CNT dispersion solution having a single-walled carbon nanotube (SWNT) concentration between about 1 µg/mL to about 12 µg/mL (pages 55 and 62), a person skill in the art would have expected the self-assembled CNT film to have the same properties, which is a percolating CNT film with a carbon mass surface density in a range from about 150 ng/cm3 to about 1000 ng/cm3. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claims 2-4, wherein the amphiphilic pendant polymer dispersant comprises a water-soluble polysaccharide backbone substituted with at least one CNT interacting pendant group, wherein the at least one CNT interacting pendant group comprises a polycyclic aromatic group, and wherein the amphiphilic pendant polymer dispersant is pyrene-labeled hydroxypropyl cellulose (pyrene-labeled hydroxypropyl cellulose, Py-HPC, pages 39-41).
Regarding claim 5, Samouce discloses the plurality of carbon nanotubes are single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs, page 39).
Regarding claim 6, Samouce discloses a concentration of carbon nanotubes is in a range from about 1 µg/ml to about 25 µg/ml (page 62).
Regarding claim 7, Samouce discloses the substrate is a rigid substrate or a flexible substrate (pages 26-27).
Regarding claim 8, Samouce discloses the substrate comprises a hydrophilic surface, a semi-hydrophobic surface or a low energy hydrophobic surface (pages 77-78 and 130)
Regarding claim 9, Samouce discloses the substrate is a hydrophilic substrate (page 77), and the surface is treated with a wetting agent (fluorosurfactant, page 107).
Regarding claim 10, Samouce discloses the substrate is a low energy substrate of an electronic or optoelectronic device (page 73).
Regarding claim 11, Samouce discloses the electronic or optoelectronic device is a vertical field effect transistor (VFET) device or a vertical organic light emitting transistor (VOLET) device (pages 92-93).
Regarding claim 12, Samouce discloses the self-assembled CNT film is formed on the surface of the substrate by a plurality of coatings using the CNT dispersion solution (multiple dips, page 89).
Regarding claim 13, Samouce discloses excess amphiphilic pendant polymer dispersant is removed from the CNT dispersion solution by dialysis, microfiltration, filtration, washing, heating above the lower critical solution concentration (LCSC)/precipitation/centrifugation cycles, or centrifugation/washing/decanting cycles until a non-associated, CNT-free polymer concentration in solution is less than 10 µg/ml (page 52, 63).
Regarding claim 14, Samouce discloses the plurality of carbon nanotubes forms a self- assembled (SA) layer at an air/liquid interface of the CNT dispersion solution, and the SA layer adheres to a hydrophilic surface, a semi-hydrophobic surface or a low energy hydrophobic surface of the substrate (pages 77 and 86).
Regarding claim 15, Samouce discloses the substrate is coated with a SWNT film from the CNT dispersion solution comprising single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) of a concentration less than 1 µg/mL (page 97).
Regarding claim 16, Samouce discloses he method of claim 1, comprising coating or immersing the substrate in the CNT dispersion solution and allowing CNT self-association at a solid/liquid interface of the substrate (pages 75-76).
Regarding claim 17, Samouce discloses the substrate is a hydrophobic or semi- hydrophobic substrate that is coated or immersed in the CNT dispersion solution for 10 seconds to 30 minutes (page 75-76).
Regarding claim 18, Samouce discloses the substrate is a hydrophilic, semi-hydrophobic or hydrophobic substrate that is coated or immersed in the CNT dispersion solution for 60 seconds to 2 hours (pages 75-77).
Regarding claim 19, Samouce discloses the CNT dispersion solution is coated onto the surface of the substrate by a slot-die coater (pages 27, 85 and 120).
Regarding claim 20, Samouce discloses the CNT self-assembly is accelerated by heating the CNT dispersion solution to a temperature below a lower critical solution temperature (LCST) and cooling down to 5-25°C (ambient temperature, pages 98, 100 - Two methods to enhance the rate of interfacial SWNT film formation were tested. 1) Since diffusion and convection both have a temperature dependence, it was reasoned that externally heating a Py-HPC/SWNT ink could enhance the rate of film formation. 2) Gentle stir bar stirring of the ink it was reasoned could increase convective flow bringing SWNTs to the interface. It was found that both of these enhance the rate of film formation relative to still inks at ambient temperature. Heating decreased film formation time to a greater extent and was explored further).
Regarding claim 23, Samouce discloses polymer dispersant residue is removed by washing the CNT film in water, organic solvents, alcohols, acetone, or mildly acidic or basic aqueous solutions, or by light irradiation (page 83).
Regarding claim 24, Samouce discloses the same method of making the self-assembled CNT film, a person skill in the art would have expected the CNT film to have the same properties: a highly uniform, electrically conductive thin film comprising a plurality of single walled carbon nanotubes with a light transmittance of at least 95% at 550 nm and a sheet resistance between about 1 kΩ/square to about 30 kΩ/square is formed (also see pages 84, 91-92).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Samouce discloses a method for forming self-assembled CNT film as set forth above. The present specification states that the carbon nanotube film density could be reliably controlled by the functionalized CNT concentration in the dispersion, coating time and/or by the number of coating steps. For example, the functionalized CNT dispersions can be diluted to a concentration needed to deposit a single layer CNT film of the desired CNT density (para0029). In addition, the specification also states the SWNT film should be sufficiently dilute (CNT film with carbon mass surface densities of 150-1000 ng/cm2, para 0039). Given that the self-assembled CNT film disclosed by Samouce is produced by the same method as set forth by applicant, and the self-assembled CNT film is formed with the CNT dispersion solution having a similar single-walled carbon nanotube (SWNT) concentration between about 1 µg/mL to about 12 µg/mL (pages 55 and 62) and is coated or immersed in the CNT dispersion solution for 10 seconds to 30 minutes (page 75-76), a person skill in the art would have expected the self-assembled CNT film to have the same properties, which is a percolating CNT film with a carbon mass surface density in a range from about 150 ng/cm3 to about 1000 ng/cm3. The law held that "Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. See also Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Furthermore, “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)). A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories, 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). See also > Upsher-Smith Labs. v. Pamlab, LLC, 412 F.3d 1319, 1323, 75 USPQ2d 1213, 1215 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
Regarding claim 9, Samouce discloses the substrate is a hydrophilic substrate (page 77), and the surface is treated with a wetting agent (fluorosurfactant, page 107).
Regarding claim 12, Samouce discloses the self-assembled CNT film is formed on the surface of the substrate by a plurality of coatings using the CNT dispersion solution (multiple dips, page 89).
Regarding claim 19, Samouce discloses the CNT dispersion solution is coated onto the surface of the substrate by a slot-die coater (pages 27, 85 and 120).
Claims 1-20 and 22-24 remain unpatentable for the reasons of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAIDUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5455. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 10a-3p.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached on 571-272-2817. 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.
/HAIDUNG D NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
5/28/2026
Prosecution Insights