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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 is dependent on itself, therefore it is unclear what are the metes and bounds of the claim. Further clarification and appropriate correction is required.
Examiner’s Comment
Regarding claim 5 the limitation of “the thermal conductor has a thermal resistance of 2.5 x 107 (K/W) or more” should be written as the thermal conductor has a thermal resistance of 2.5 x 107 (K/W) or more, with the numeral “7” as a superscript.
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, 5, 6, 8, 13-15, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinescu (US 2013/0069194 A1) in view of Shimatani (Enhanced photogating via pyroelectric effect induced by insulator layer for high-responsivity long-wavelength infrared graphene-based photodetectors operating at room temperature) in view of Ward (US 2008/0251723 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 6, 8, 14, 15, 20, 21 and 22, Marinescu discloses a thermoelectric conversion element comprising (See Fig. 6 and 7 [0002][0031][0070]-[0086]):
a substrate (501 and/or 523 [0075][0072]);
a first electrode (606 [0077][0078]) on a high temperature side which is disposed on a front surface of the substrate;
a second electrode (608 [0077][0078]) on a low temperature side which is disposed on a front surface of the substrate;
a thermal conductor (507 and 509 [0078], graphene strips which has the same structure as a graphene nanoribbon) which connects the first electrode (606) and the second electrode (608) to each other and contains a nanostructure; and
an absorption film (511 [0086]) which is formed on a front surface of the first electrode and absorbs incident light.
Marinescu discloses that the thermopile ([0002]0thermopile used as IR detector [0034]) is used for IR absorption which includes the wavelengths of 700 nm to 1mm.
However, Marinescu does not disclose using the thermoelectric device explicitly in the range of 8-10 microns.
Shimatani discloses developing detectors for the long-wavelength IR (LWIR) region from 8 to 15 μm is important because this corresponds to human body temperature and this is possible with graphene detectors and further using the graphene sensor at 7.9 microns and 9.6 microns (see first paragraph, left hand column, pg. 025001-1 and Fig. 2, pg. 025001-3).
It would have been obvious to one in the art at the time of filing to modify the wavelength of incident light on the device of Marinescu to be within the wavelength claimed because Shimatani discloses that graphene detectors are able to provide LWIR detectors and that this wavelength detection is important because this corresponds to human body temperature.
In addition, Marinescu discloses that the material of the thermal conductor is graphene strips (nanoribbon) ([0077]) and the material of the absorption film is gold-black ([0064]).
However, modified Marinescu discloses wherein the thermal conductor includes
a width ranging from 100 nm to 1 µm or 100 nm to 500 nm (claim 21)
a thickness ranging from 0.3 nm to 15 nm or 0.3 nm to 10 nm (claim 21)
a length ranging from 500 nm to 50 µm or 500 nm to 5 µm
Ward discloses that the sensitivity of carbon materials used to detected infrared radiation ([0029]) can be tuned by adjusting the dimensions ([0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dimensions of the thermal conductor of Marinescu to have the above claimed ranges because it will allow for optimization of the sensitivity as disclosed by Ward.
With regards to “wherein an absorption rate difference between the absorption film and the thermal conductor is 70% or more”, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure and material recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding claim 5, Marinescu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Marinescu discloses that the material of the thermal conductor is graphene ([0077]) and the material of the absorption film is gold-black ([0064]).
As recited in the instant specification the material of the thermal conductor is graphene nanoribbon ([0047] strip is the same structure as a ribbon) ([0148], please see PG Pub US 20240065103 A1 of instant specification) and the material of the absorption film is gold-black ([0107]).
With regards to “wherein the thermal conductor has a thermal resistance of 2. 5 x 107 (K/W) or more”, regarding product and apparatus claims, when the structure and material recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. The Courts have held that it is well settled that where there is a reason to believe that a functional characteristic would be inherent in the prior art, the burden of proof then shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence to the contrary. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1478, 44 USPQ2d at 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (see MPEP § 2112.01, I.).
Regarding composition claims, if the composition is the same, it must have the same properties (see MPEP § 2112.01, II.).
Regarding claim 13, Marinescu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
In addition, Marinescu discloses a plurality of the thermoelectric conversion, wherein a material of the thermal conductor is a carbon material, and the thermoelectric conversion elements are connected to each other by a metal having a polarity of thermoelectric performance different from that of the carbon material (Au and Ni have a different electrical and thermal conductivity than graphene and thus will have a different thermoelectric performance).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinescu (US 2013/0069194 A1) in view of Shimatani (Enhanced photogating via pyroelectric effect induced by insulator layer for high-responsivity long-wavelength infrared graphene-based photodetectors operating at room temperature) in view of Ward (US 2008/0251723 A1) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 13-15, 20-22 above and in further view of Kawano (US 2020/0141806 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Marinescu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Marinescu does not disclose that the material of the first electrode is
nickel or titanium.
Kawano discloses an infrared detector ([0067]) wherein the second electrode is made of Au or Al and the first electrode is formed of Ni or Ti and further discloses having the electrodes made of these different materials improve sensitivities ([0073] and [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to modify the material of the first electrode of Marinescu so that it is Ni or Ti electrode materials of Kawano because Kawano discloses having the first electrode made of Ni or Ti and the second electrode made of Au or Al improves detector sensitivities.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marinescu (US 2013/0069194 A1) in view of Shimatani (Enhanced photogating via pyroelectric effect induced by insulator layer for high-responsivity long-wavelength infrared graphene-based photodetectors operating at room temperature) in view of Ward (US 2008/0251723 A1) as applied to claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 13-15, 20-22 above and in further view of Lee (US 2017/0059414 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Marinescu discloses all of the claim limitations as set forth above.
However, Marinescu does not explicitly disclose that the absorption film (511) has a heat collection structure.
Lee discloses that an infrared detector can have an absorption film (120) which has a heat collection structure to concentrate infrared radiation ([0045][0067]-[0069]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the absorption film of Marinescu to have a heat collection structure as disclosed by Lee because as disclosed by Lee it can increase response time of the detector.
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges unexpected results based on evidence presented in specification, Examples 1-20. Applicants, however, do not provide an adequate explanation regarding any factual showing in the specification of unexpected results as the examples I-20 have not been shown to be commensurate in scope with rejected claims. For example, the rejected claims are not limited to the thermal conductor dimensions disclosed in the above Examples 1-20. It is well established that the evidence of unobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claimed subject matter. See In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 851, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072-73 (CCPA 1980) and In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1035, 206 USPQ 289, 896 (CCPA 1980). Moreover, given the prior art teachings, the applicants have not met the burden of establishing that the reported results would have been truly unexpected to a person of ordinary skill in the art on this record or otherwise established the unobviousness of the claimed structure. In re Klosak, 455 F.2d 1077, 1080, 173 USPQ 14, 16 (CCPA 1972). Ward discloses that the sensitivity of carbon materials used to detected infrared radiation ([0029]) can be tuned by adjusting the dimensions ([0068]) and therefore provides motivation to adjust the dimensions of the thermal conductor of Marinescu.
Conclusion
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 DEVINA PILLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30-6:00.
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, Jeffrey T Barton can be reached at 517-272-1307. 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.
DEVINA PILLAY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1726
/DEVINA PILLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1726