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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/05/2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: items 10,11,12, 13 and 14 in figs.13-16. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 § 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 33 is recites the limitation "wherein the nanostructures and the metal contacts" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. NOTE: the limitation recites “at least two metal contacts” in line 8; thus, the Examiner suggests to amend the objected limitation to be “wherein the nanostructures and the at least two metal contacts”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17-19, 21-22, 29 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kosloff, A et al., "Nanodicing Single Crystalline Silicon Nanowire Arrays", Letter, Nano Letters, 2016, 16, 016-10-18, pp. 6960-6966, American Chemical Society, obtained on 2023-10-04, obtained from: pubs.acs.org/NanoLett as submitted by the Applicant filed on 10/05/2023.
Regarding claim 17, Kosloff teaches a method of manufacturing a transferable lamella comprising interconnected nanostructures in fig. 1, the method comprising in the steps of:
a) providing a planar substrate (refer to substrate in fig. 1a);
b) forming at least one superstructure on the substrate (refer to nanostructure formed on substrate in fig. 1c), said superstructure comprising a plurality of elongated nanostructures that elongates away from the substrate (NOTE: the nanostructures are elongated away in a vertical direction of substrate), wherein the elongated nanostructures are formed such that at least two of said nanostructures are conductively interconnected (refer to a residual Au layer on the substrate which connecting at least two of the nanostructures together);
c) encapsulating at least a portion of said superstructure in an encapsulating material, said portion comprising at least two interconnected nanostructures (refer to epoxy layer in fig. 1f); and
d) cutting the encapsulated superstructure in a direction that intersects at least two interconnected nanostructures, thereby manufacturing a transferable lamella comprising interconnected nanostructures (see fig. 1h).
Regarding claim 18, Kosloff teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Kosloff teaches the superstructure is formed by growing a plurality of elongated nanostructures from the substrate (refer to nanostructure formed on substrate in fig. 1c).
Regarding claim 19, Kosloff teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Kosloff teaches at least two of said elongated nanostructures are conductively interconnected at least partially along their growth direction (NOTE: there is a residual Au layer on the substrate that connecting at least two of nanostructures).
Regarding claim 21, Kosloff teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Kosloff teaches a first layer (refer to a residual Au layer in fig. 1) is grown or deposited to conductively interconnect or insulate at least a part of the elongated nanostructures as part of step b).
Regarding claim 22, Kosloff teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Kosloff teaches the first layer is directionally deposited on one side of the nanostructures (NOTE: there is a residual Au layer on the substrate that connecting at least two of nanostructures).
Regarding claim 29, Kosloff teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Kosloff teaches at least a first layer (refer to Au layer in step d of fig. 1) is grown or deposited to conductively interconnect or insulate at least a part of the elongated nanostructures during forming of the at least one superstructure on the substrate (see fig. 1, step d).
Regarding claim 31, Kosloff teaches a transferable lamella in fig. 1, comprising conductively interconnected nanostructures (refer to nanostructures formed on substrate in fig. 1, steps a-d) embedded in an encapsulating material (refer to epoxy material in step f of fig. 1) wherein the nanostructures (refer to nanostructures) extend between two opposing surfaces of the lamella (refer to x-axis direction), and wherein the nanostructures each have ends that are in the same plane as said opposing surfaces (refer to a front surface is planar with front surface of lamella and a back surface of the nanostructure is on the planar with the back surface of lamella), and wherein the cross section of any of the nanostructures (see fig. 1, step h), in a plane parallel to the opposing surface, has an aspect ratio below 100 (NOTE: in fig. 3C and its corresponding text discloses height and wide of nanostructures is 9 um and 300 nm respectively on page 6962. Aspect ratio= width/height= 0.3/9= 0.03333).
Regarding claim 32, Kosloff teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Fig. 1 of Kosloff teaches the cross section of any of the nanostructures, in a plane parallel to the opposing surface (refer to the vertical plane of the nanostructures), has an aspect ratio below 10 (NOTE: in fig. 3C and its corresponding text discloses height and wide of nanostructures is 9 um and 300 nm respectively on page 6962. Aspect ratio= width/height= 0.3/9= 0.03333).
Claims 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by XU, Q. et al., "Fabrication of Complex Metallic Nanostructures by Nanoskiving", Article, Department of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University, Massachusetts, US, ACSNano, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2007, pp. 215-227, downloaded '021-09-15, obtained from: www.acnano.org, American Chemical Society as submitted by the Applicant filed on 10/05/2023.
Regarding claim 31, Xu teaches a transferable lamella in fig. 1, comprising conductively interconnected nanostructures (refer to metal step shaped nanostructures formed in fig. 1) embedded in an encapsulating material (refer to epoxy material) wherein the nanostructures (refer to metal nanostructures) extend between two opposing surfaces of the lamella (refer to x-axis direction), and wherein the nanostructures each have ends that are in the same plane as said opposing surfaces (refer to a front surface is planar with front surface of lamella and a back surface of the nanostructure is on the planar with the back surface of lamella), and wherein the cross section of any of the nanostructures (see fig. 1), in a plane parallel to the opposing surface, has an aspect ratio below 100 (NOTE :each cut section has a dimension of 0.5 nm x 0.5 mm, which means its aspect ratio is W/H= 0.5/0.5= 1 is below 100).
Regarding claim 32, Xu teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Fig. 1 of Xu teaches the cross section of any of the nanostructures, in a plane parallel to the opposing surface (refer to the vertical plane of the nanostructures), has an aspect ratio below 10 (NOTE :each cut section has a ( width x height) dimension is 0.5 nm x 0.5 mm respectively, which means its aspect ratio is Width/Height= 0.5/0.5= 1 is below 100).
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.
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.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosloff, A et al., "Nanodicing Single Crystalline Silicon Nanowire Arrays", Letter, Nano Letters, 2016, 16, 016-10-18, pp. 6960-6966, American Chemical Society, obtained on 2023-10-04, obtained from: pubs.acs.org/NanoLett as submitted by the Applicant filed on 10/05/2023 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Hamada (US 2009/0247670).
Regarding claim 25, Kosloff teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Kosloff teaches the encapsulating material is made of epoxy resin. However, Kosloff does not explicitly mention it’s electrically insulating with a resistivity of at least 107Ωm.
Hamada discloses an epoxy resin material for sealing which has an electrically insulating with a resistivity of 1x 105 Ω*cm or more (NOTE: 105 Ω*cm is 107 Ωm) (see par. 15 or Abstract).
Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the encapsulating material has electrically insulating with a resistivity of at least 107Ωm as taught by Hamada in the teaching of Kosloff so that it can provide an epoxy resin molding material for sealing which is good in moldabilities such as fluidity and curability, and colorability, and which does not cause a short circuit failure based on an electroconductive material even when the material is used in a package (see Abstract).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosloff, A et al., "Nanodicing Single Crystalline Silicon Nanowire Arrays", Letter, Nano Letters, 2016, 16, 016-10-18, pp. 6960-6966, American Chemical Society, obtained on 2023-10-04, obtained from: pubs.acs.org/NanoLett as submitted by the Applicant filed on 10/05/2023 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Herbsommer (US 2012/0256239).
Regarding claim 30, Kosloff teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for the encapsulating material is transparent to visible light.
Herbsommer teaching an semiconductor device being encapsulating in a transparent insulating compound in order to protect the semiconductor device against light in the visible wavelength regime (see par. 27).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include the encapsulating material is transparent to visible light as taught Herbsommer in the teaching of Kosloff in order to protect the semiconductor device against light in the visible wavelength regime (see par. 27).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosloff, A et al., "Nanodicing Single Crystalline Silicon Nanowire Arrays", Letter, Nano Letters, 2016, 16, 016-10-18, pp. 6960-6966, American Chemical Society, obtained on 2023-10-04, obtained from: pubs.acs.org/NanoLett as submitted by the Applicant filed on 10/05/2023 as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Wagner, M. et al., "Fabrication and Thermoelectrical Characterization of Three-Dimensional Nanowire Networks", Phys. Status Solidi A 213, No. 3, 2016-01-27, pp. 610-619, Wiley Online Library as submitted by the Applicant filed on 10/05/2023.
Regarding claim 23, Kosloff teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above except for a second layer is grown or deposited on the outside of the first layer to insulate the interconnected nanostructures.
Wagner teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein a second layer (refer to Al2O3) is grown or deposited on the outside of the first layer (formed on top of Au layer) to insulate the interconnected nanostructures (see fig. 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include a second layer is grown or deposited on the outside of the first layer to insulate the interconnected nanostructures as taught by Wagner in the teaching of Kosloff so that the Ag layer helps to achieve a reliable electrical insulation (see fig. 8 and its corresponding).
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosloff, A et al., "Nanodicing Single Crystalline Silicon Nanowire Arrays", Letter, Nano Letters, 2016, 16, 016-10-18, pp. 6960-6966, American Chemical Society, obtained on 2023-10-04, obtained from: pubs.acs.org/ NanoLett as submitted by the Applicant filed on 10/05/2023, and further in view of Wagner, M. et al., "Fabrication and Thermoelectrical Characterization of Three-Dimensional Nanowire Networks", Phys. Status Solidi A 213, No. 3, 2016-01-27, pp. 610-619, Wiley Online Library as submitted by the Applicant filed on 10/05/2023.
Regarding claim 33, Kosloff teaches An electronic device in fig. 1 comprising:
at least two interconnected nanostructures (refer to nanostructures formed on substrate) embedded in an encapsulating material (refer to epoxy) wherein the nanostructures (refer to nanostructures extending from bottom surface to top surface in a vertical direction) extend between two opposing surfaces of the lamella, and wherein the nanostructures each have ends that are in the same plane as said opposing surfaces (refer to front side to the back side), and wherein the cross section of any of the nanostructures, in a plane parallel to the opposing surface, has an aspect ratio below 100 (NOTE: in fig. 3C and its corresponding text discloses height and wide of nanostructures is 9 um and 300 nm respectively on page 6962. Aspect ratio= width/height= 0.3/9= 0.03333);
Kosloff does not teach at least two metal contacts (refer to Au patterns on the surface of substrate as shown in fig. d) connected to the nanostructures; the nanostructures and the metal contacts form an electrical connection such that the device is configured to allow an electrical current to flow through the device from one metal contact to the other via the interconnected nanostructures.
Michael teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein at least two metal contact (refer to Au layer and Ag filled layer formed on top and bottom surface of NW network in fig. 8) connected to the nanostructures; the nanostructures (refer to NW networks) and the metal contacts (refer to Au layer and Ag layer) form an electrical connection such that the device is configured to allow an electrical current to flow through the device from one metal contact to the other via the interconnected nanostructures (see fig. 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include at least two metal contacts connected to the nanostructures; the nanostructures and the metal contacts form an electrical connection such that the device is configured to allow an electrical current to flow through the device from one metal contact to the other via the interconnected nanostructures as taught by Michael in the teaching of Kosloff so that the Ag layer and Au layer helps to achieve a reliable electrical and thermal contact.
Regarding claim 34, Kosloff and Michael teach all the limitations of the claimed invention for the same reasons as set forth above. Besides, Kosloff teaches the cross section of any of the nanostructures, in a plane parallel to the opposing surface, has an aspect ratio below 10 (NOTE: in fig. 3C and its corresponding text discloses height and wide of nanostructures is 9 um and 300 nm respectively on page 6962. Aspect ratio= width/height= 0.3/9= 0.03333).
Regarding claim 35, Kosloff teaches a superstructure circuit in fig. 1 comprising:
at least one lamella comprising multiple conductively interconnect structure (refer to nanostructures formed on substrate) embedded in an encapsulating material (refer to epoxy) wherein the nanostructures (refer to nanostructures extending from bottom surface to top surface in a vertical direction) extend between two opposing surfaces of the lamella, and wherein the nanostructures each have ends that are in the same plane as said opposing surfaces (refer to front side to the back side), and wherein the cross section of any of the nanostructures, in a plane parallel to the opposing surface, has an aspect ratio below 100 (NOTE: in fig. 3C and its corresponding text discloses height and wide of nanostructures is 9 um and 300 nm respectively on page 6962. Aspect ratio= width/height= 0.3/9= 0.03333).
Kosloff does not teach at least two contacts in a conductive material, configured to form an electrical connection to points of the interconnected nanostructures of the lamella.
Michael teaches the same field of an endeavor wherein at least two metal contacts in conductive material (refer to Au layer and Ag filled layer formed on top and bottom surface of NW network in fig. 8) configured to form an electrical connection to points of the interconnected nanostructures of the lamella (see fig. 8).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skills in the art before the invention was made to include at least two contacts in a conductive material, configured to form an electrical connection to points of the interconnected nanostructures of the lamella as taught by Michael in the teaching of Kosloff so that the at least two contacts help to achieve a reliable electrical and thermal contact.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 24 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “the first layer comprises a material selected from the group of superconductors, ferromagnetic materials, ferroelectric materials, and piezoelectric materials.”
Claim 26 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “the superstructure comprises: a plurality of elongated nanostructures of a semiconductor material; and at least a first layer selected from the group of superconducting materials, ferromagnetic materials, and insulators.” Claim 27 includes all the limitations of claim 26.
Claim 28 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, since the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure does not teach or suggest “the elongated nanostructures comprise an insulating core and a first layer selected from the group of semiconductors, superconducting materials, and ferromagnetic materials.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Niki Tram Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5526. The examiner can normally be reached on 6:00am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Steven Loke can be reached on (703)872-9306. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NIKI H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818