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 the Claims
The amendment filed March 5, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 12, and 21 have been amended. Claims 1-28 are currently pending and are examined herein.
Status of the Rejection
The rejection on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 13-22 of U.S. Patent No. 12437955 is withdrawn and is obviated by the terminal disclaimer filed on March 5, 2026.
All 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections from the previous office action are maintained and modified in response to the amendments to the claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-22, and 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20090078914) in view of Hong et al. (CN 103346051). Both references cited in IDS 3/29/2023.
Regarding claim 1, Lu et al. teaches a method of forming a field emission cathode (Abstract), comprising:
forming a field emission material by dispersing at least one carbon nanotube (paragraph 20), at least one matrix particle (paragraph 26), and at least one charger (paragraph 51) in a liquid medium (paragraph 45) to form a suspension thereof; and
depositing a layer of the field emission material on to at least a portion of a substrate via electrophoretic deposition (paragraph 49) to form the field emission cathode.
Lu et al. does not explicitly teach the at least one metal salt.
Hong et al. teaches a method for preparing a carbon nanotube cathode. Hong et al. teaches forming an electrophoresis solution comprising carbon nanotubes, graphene, and using at least one charge additives (paragraphs 32, 36). The charge additives can be a soluble metal inorganic salt and may include at least one of MgCl3 and AgNO3 (paragraph 36). It is noted that the additional charge additive is interpreted to read on the metal salt.
MgCl3 would read on a charger, and AgNO3 would read on a metal salt. Therefore, the metal salt is different from the at least one charger since they are different compounds. These are compounds are within the same types of compounds disclosed in the applicant’s own examples of chargers and metal salts (see pages 3-4; Example Embodiment 16 and 17 of the applicant’s Specification).
Since Lu et al. teaches that incorporating a charger to the liquid suspension would facilitate electrophoretic deposition (paragraph 51), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further incorporated additional chargers, i.e., a metal salt, suggested by Hong et al. and Lu et al. in order to further improve electrophoretic deposition.
Regarding claim 2, Lu et al. teaches the matrix particle comprising a glass particle (paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 3, Lu et al. teaches the particle can have a diameter of 0.1 µm to 100 µm (paragraph 26) which overlaps the range of the instant claim. According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Hong et al. teaches the at least one charger, or metal salt, can be a silver salt, i.e., AgNO3 (paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 6, Hong et al. teaches that the weight percentage of the charge additive, or metal salt, to the weight of the carbon nanotubes and graphene is 1 to 100% (paragraph 17), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Lu et al. teaches the charger can be selected from a magnesium salt, i.e., magnesium chloride (paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 8, Lu et al. does not explicitly teach the amount of charger in a liquid medium. However, Hong et al. teaches that the weight percentage of the charge additive, or metal salt, to the weight of the carbon nanotubes and graphene is 1 to 100% (paragraph 17), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In addition, Lu et al. teaches that incorporating a charger to the liquid suspension would facilitate electrophoretic deposition (paragraph 51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of the charger to facilitate the electrophoretic deposition.
Regarding claim 9, Lu et al. teaches the liquid medium is selected from water (paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 10, Lu et al. teaches the substrate comprising a metal (paragraph 52).
Regarding claim 11, Lu et al. teaches at the components can be dispersed prior to electrophoretic deposition or together in the suspension (paragraph 20).
Regarding claim 12, Lu et al. teaches a method of forming a field emission cathode (Abstract), comprising:
forming a field emission material by dispersing at least one carbon nanotube (paragraph 20), at least one matrix particle (paragraph 26), and at least one charger (paragraph 51) in a liquid medium (paragraph 45) to form a suspension thereof.
Lu et al. teaches at the components can be dispersed prior to electrophoretic deposition or together in the suspension (paragraph 20). By dispersing the components together in a suspension, the components are inherently introduced into the liquid medium simultaneously.
Lu et al. does not explicitly teach the at least one metal salt.
Hong et al. teaches a method for preparing a carbon nanotube cathode. Hong et al. teaches forming an electrophoresis solution comprising carbon nanotubes, graphene, and using at least one charge additives (paragraphs 32, 36). The charge additives can be a soluble metal inorganic salt and may include at least one of MgCl3 and AgNO3 (paragraph 36). It is noted that the additional charge additive is interpreted to read on the metal salt.
MgCl3 would read on a charger, and AgNO3 would read on a metal salt. The metal salt is different from the at least one charger since they are different compounds. These are compounds are within the same types of compounds disclosed in the applicant’s own examples of chargers and metal salts (see pages 3-4; Example Embodiment 16 and 17 of the applicant’s Specification).
Since Lu et al. teaches that incorporating a charger to the liquid suspension would facilitate electrophoretic deposition (paragraph 51), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further incorporated additional chargers or a metal salt, suggested by Hong et al. and Lu et al. in order to further improve electrophoretic deposition.
Regarding claim 13, Lu et al. teaches depositing the suspension on to a substrate via electrophoretic deposition (paragraph 49).
Regarding claim 14, Lu et al. teaches the matrix particle comprising a glass particle (paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 16, Hong et al. teaches the at least one charger, or metal salt, can be a silver salt, i.e., AgNO3 (paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 17, Hong et al. teaches that the weight percentage of the charge additive, or metal salt, to the weight of the carbon nanotubes and graphene is 1 to 100% (paragraph 17), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. According to MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 18, Lu et al. teaches the charger can be selected from a magnesium salt, i.e., magnesium chloride (paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 19, Lu et al. does not explicitly teach the amount of charger in a liquid medium. However, Hong et al. teaches that the weight percentage of the charge additive, or metal salt, to the weight of the carbon nanotubes and graphene is 1 to 100% (paragraph 17), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In addition, Lu et al. teaches that incorporating a charger to the liquid suspension would facilitate electrophoretic deposition (paragraph 51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of the charger to facilitate the electrophoretic deposition.
Regarding claim 20, Lu et al. teaches the liquid medium is selected from water (paragraph 45).
Regarding claim 21, Lu et al. teaches a method of forming a field emission cathode (Abstract), comprising:
forming a field emission material by dispersing at least one carbon nanotube (paragraph 20), at least one matrix particle (paragraph 26), and at least one charger (paragraph 51) in a liquid medium (paragraph 45) to form a suspension thereof; and
depositing the suspension on to a substrate via electrophoretic deposition (paragraph 49) to form the field emission cathode.
Lu et al. teaches at the components can be dispersed prior to electrophoretic deposition or together in the suspension (paragraph 20). By dispersing the components together in a suspension, the components are inherently introduced into the liquid medium simultaneously.
Lu et al. does not explicitly teach at least one metal salt.
Hong et al. teaches a method for preparing a carbon nanotube cathode. Hong et al. teaches forming an electrophoresis solution comprising carbon nanotubes, graphene, and using at least one charge additives (paragraphs 32, 36). The charge additives can be a soluble metal inorganic salt and may include at least one of MgCl3 and AgNO3 (paragraph 36). It is noted that the additional charge additive is interpreted to read on the metal salt.
MgCl3 would read on a charger, and AgNO3 would read on a metal salt. The metal salt is different from the at least one charger since they are different compounds. These are compounds are within the same types of compounds disclosed in the applicant’s own examples of chargers and metal salts (see pages 3-4; Example Embodiment 16 and 17 of the applicant’s Specification).
Since Lu et al. teaches that incorporating a charger to the liquid suspension would facilitate electrophoretic deposition (paragraph 51), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further incorporated additional chargers or a metal salt, suggested by Hong et al. and Lu et al. in order to further improve electrophoretic deposition.
Regarding claim 22, Lu et al. teaches the matrix particle comprising a glass particle (paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 24, Hong et al. teaches the at least one charger, or metal salt, can be a silver salt, i.e., AgNO3 (paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 25, Hong et al. teaches that the weight percentage of the charge additive, or metal salt, to the weight of the carbon nanotubes and graphene is 1 to 100% (paragraph 17), which overlaps the range of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 26, Lu et al. teaches the charger can be selected from a magnesium salt, i.e., magnesium chloride (paragraph 51).
Regarding claim 27, Lu et al. does not explicitly teach the amount of charger in a liquid medium. However, Hong et al. teaches that the weight percentage of the charge additive, or metal salt, to the weight of the carbon nanotubes and graphene is 1 to 100% (paragraph 17), which overlaps the range of the instant claim. In addition, Lu et al. teaches that incorporating a charger to the liquid suspension would facilitate electrophoretic deposition (paragraph 51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amount of the charger to facilitate the electrophoretic deposition.
Regarding claim 28, Lu et al. teaches the liquid medium is selected from water (paragraph 45).
Claims 4, 15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu et al. (US 20090078914) in view of Hong et al. (CN 103346051), and further in view of Mao et al. (US 20040070326).
Lu et al. in view of Hong et al. teaches the method of at least claims 1, 12, and 21 as applied above. The references do not explicitly teach the at least one matrix particle comprises dispersing the at least one matrix particle in the liquid medium at up to 10 wt% of total liquid medium.
Mao et al. a method of making a field emission device (Abstract) by electrophoretically depositing (paragraph 46) a mixture of carbon nanotubes and particles including glass (paragraph 30). These particles read on the matrix particle of the instant claims. Mao et al. further teaches that the particles in the mixture of carbon nanotubes effectively reduce the interaction between carbon nanotubes with the consequence of enhancing field emission properties (paragraph 30). The weight percent of carbon nanotubes can vary from about 0.1% to about 99% (paragraph 35), thus the remainder reads on the matrix particle weight of the total liquid medium.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modified the matrix particle weight percent of to 10% of the total liquid medium, as suggested by Mao et al., in order to enhance the field emission properties of the field emission cathode.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Remarks, filed March 5, 2026, on page 8, argues neither Lu nor Hong teach or suggest the amended limitation “wherein the at least one metal salt is different from the at least one charger” in claims 1, 12, and 21.
This argument is unpersuasive, because Hong et al. teaches using multiple charge additives using the phrase “at least one” (paragraph 36). The charge additives can be a “soluble metal inorganic salt” and may include at least one of MgCl3 and AgNO3 (paragraph 36). By having multiple charge additives as suggested by Hong et al., the method would include a charger and a metal salt. For example, MgCl3 would read on a charger, and AgNO3 would read on a metal salt. The metal salt is different from the at least one charger since they are different compounds. These are compounds are within the same types of compounds disclosed in the applicant’s own examples of chargers and metal salts (see pages 3-4; Example Embodiment 16 and 17 of the applicant’s Specification). Therefore, the combination of Lu in view of Hong et al. reads on all claim limitations of claims 1, 12, and 21.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
US 20040102044 teaches that incorporating metal salt into carbon nanotubes when employed as a cathode helps to improve their field emission properties relative to untreated carbon nanotubes (Abstract).
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 LUAN V VAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8521. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-5:00.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
LUAN V. VAN
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1795
/LUAN V VAN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1795
Prosecution Insights