DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
General Remarks
2. 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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection.
3. When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with paragraph numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
4. Per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
Response to Arguments
5. Regarding claim 1, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “Arnold does not teach a liquid film-adsorbing region and liquid film-repelling region present on the same substrate” See Remarks Pg 7 Paragraph 2) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Examiner notes in claim 1, applicant claims providing a substrate having at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region bounded by at least one liquid film-repelling surface region. The claim language is not limited to both the liquid film adsorbing surface region and liquid film-repelling surface region being present on the same substrate.
6. Regarding claim 1, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The upper surface of channel floor 102 and lower surface of channel ceiling 104 in Fig 1A and Fig 1E of Arnold are separated from one another and rune in parallel… the lower surface of the channel ceiling 104 cannot define boundaries on the upper surface of channel floor 102… a liquid film that is formed on the upper surface of channel floor 102 would also not be ‘bounded by’ the channel ceiling 104” See Remarks Pg 7 Paragraphs 3-4, Pg 8 Paragraph 1) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Referring to Figs 1E and 3 of Arnold, Michael Scott (Pub No. US20180261772A1) (hereinafter, Arnold), examiner notes that in the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, although the upper surface of channel floor is not directly bounded by the lower surface of the channel ceiling/confinement substrate, the prior art currently anticipates the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, without the confinement substrate, there could be no such boundary for the that the liquid film-adsorbing surface region below, and the confinement substrate forms a closed space for the liquid film-adsorbing surface within the solvent.
7. Applicant’s arguments, see Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 3 and 13 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 3 and 13 has been withdrawn.
For above mentioned reasons, the rejection is deemed proper and considered final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1-11, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnold, Michael Scott (Pub No. US 20180261772 A1) (hereinafter, Arnold).
Re Claim 1, (Original) Arnold teaches a method of forming a film of aligned elongated nanoparticles (Carbon nanotubes; 114; Fig 1E; ¶[0032]) on a substrate (Deposition substrate; 102; Fig 1E; ¶[0032]), the method comprising:
providing a substrate (Deposition substrate; 102; Fig 1E; ¶[0032]) having at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region (Upper surface of substrate 102/202; Fig 1A) bounded by at least one liquid film-repelling surface region (Bottom surface of confinement substrate 104/204; Fig 1A); (See Figs 1A/1E below)
Arnold, Fig 1E, forming a film of aligned elongated nanoparticles
PNG
media_image1.png
453
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Arnold, Fig 1A: Aligned carbon nanotube array being deposited in a closed, confined flow channel
PNG
media_image2.png
373
659
media_image2.png
Greyscale
forming a liquid film (Liquid film; 303; Fig 3; ¶[0039]) on the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region, wherein the liquid film is bounded (Liquid film 303 is bounded by confiment substrate 204; Fig 3; ¶[0038]; Note: the liquid film 303 is formed in a 'channel' between 202/204) by the at least one liquid film-repelling surface region;
contacting a suspension (Fluid suspension; 108; Fig 1A; ¶[0031]) that comprises dispersed elongated nanoparticles (Carbon nanotubes; 112; Fig 1A; ¶[0031]) with the at least one liquid film (Liquid; 118; Fig 1B; ¶[0032]),
wherein the suspension is immiscible (Per ¶[0032] liquid 118 is immiscible with fluid suspension 108, resulting in interface 111 forming between them) with the at least one liquid film, such that the at least one liquid film and the suspension form an interface (Liquid interface; 111; Fig 1B; ¶[0032]) and elongated nanoparticles are transferred from the suspension to a surface (Base of 111; Fig 1B) of the at least one liquid film at the interface; and
allowing the at least one liquid film to dissipate (Per ¶[0032] the volumetric flow rate of liquid 118 may be reduced),
whereby the elongated nanoparticles are deposited on the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region along a contact line (Along liquid interface 111; ¶[0033]) defined by: the liquid film, the substrate; and the suspension or air (Per an embodiment, an open air space is located above flowing suspension of carbon nanotubes; ¶[0037]), as the liquid film dissipates.
Re Claim 2, (Original) Arnold teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region (Upper surface of substrate 102/202; Fig 1A) is more hydrophilic (Deposition substrate 102/202 may comprise of hydrophilic material such as silicon oxide, e.g. SiO2; ¶[0027]) than the at least one liquid film-repelling surface region (Bottom surface of confinement substrate 104/204; Fig 1A; Note; Per ¶[0028] materials for confinement substrate may be fluoropolymers, such as polytetrafluoroethylene and Viton, and glass or quartz coated with a hydrophobic polymer, uncoated glass, quartz, or a material more hydrophobic than the deposition substrate).
Re Claim 3, (Currently Amended) Arnold teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the at least one liquid film (Liquid; 118; Fig 1B; ¶[0032]) is an aqueous liquid film (Liquid 118 may be water; ¶[0032]).
Re Claim 4, (Original) Arnold teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region (Upper surface of substrate 102/202; Fig 1A) is less hydrophilic (Per ¶[0028] the confinement substrate may be composed of a material that is less hydrophobic than the material from which the deposition substrate is composed) than the at least one liquid film-repelling surface region (Bottom surface of confinement substrate 104/204; Fig 1A).
Re Claim 5, (Original) Arnold teaches the method of claim 1, wherein forming the liquid film (Liquid film; 303; Fig 3; ¶[0039]) on the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region (Upper surface of substrate 102/202; Fig 1A) comprises flowing a liquid (Liquid; 118; Fig 1B; ¶[0032]) over the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region to wet (Adhering and making contact with hydrophilic layer of substrate 102/202; Fig 1A) the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region, whereby the liquid is retained on the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region,
wherein liquid is not retained (Per ¶[0037] the deposition substrate is removed and retained only on the film-adsorbing region of deposition substrate) the at least one liquid film-repelling surface region.
Arnold, Fig 3: Aligned carbon nanotube array being deposited in an open, confined flow channel with a flowing liquid floor.
PNG
media_image3.png
458
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Re Claim 6, (Original) Arnold teaches the method of claim 1, wherein contacting the suspension (Fluid suspension; 208; Fig 3; ¶[0038]) with the at least one liquid film (Liquid film; 303; Fig 3; ¶[0039]) comprises flowing (Flow of suspension; 213; Fig 3; ¶[0038]) the suspension over the at least one liquid film.
Re Claim 7, (Currently Amended) Arnold teaches the method of claim 1, wherein forming the liquid film (Liquid film; 303; Fig 3; ¶[0039]) on the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region (Interface; 311; Fig 3; ¶[0039]) comprises submerging at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region in a liquid (Liquid; 203; Fig 3; ¶[0038]) and withdrawing (Moving deposition substrate 202 across interface 211; ¶[0038]) the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region from the liquid,
whereby the liquid film is retained (Per ¶[0037] an array of carbon nanotubes is deposited over an area of the deposition substrate by moving the deposition substrate in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the liquid) with carbon nantubes (Carbon nanotubes; 114; Fig 1E; ¶[0032]) on the at least one liquid film- adsorbing surface region after said at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region has been withdrawn from the liquid.
Re Claim 8, (Original) Arnold teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the steps of forming a liquid film (Liquid film; 303; Fig 3; ¶[0039]) on the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region (Interface; 311; Fig 3; ¶[0039]) and contacting a suspension (Fluid suspension; 208; Fig 3; ¶[0039]) that comprises dispersed elongated nanoparticles (Carbon nanotubes; 114; Fig 1E; ¶[0032]) with the at least one liquid film are carried out by forming a layer of the suspension (Fluid suspension; 208; Fig 3; ¶[0039]) on the liquid,
submerging (Submerging deposition substrate 202 in liquid film; Fig 3; ¶[0039]) the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region in the liquid, and withdrawing (Per ¶[0037] an array of carbon nanotubes is deposited over an area of the deposition substrate by moving the deposition substrate in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the liquid) the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region from the liquid and through the layer of the suspension.
Re Claim 9, (Original) Arnold teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the layer of the suspension (Fluid suspension; 108; Fig 1B; ¶[0039]) is continuously flowed (Fluid suspension 108 is flowed along the channel; ¶[0032]) over the liquid (Liquid; 118; Fig 1B; ¶[0032]) as the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region (Upper surface of substrate 102/202; Fig 1A) is withdrawn from the liquid (Per ¶[0037] an array of carbon nanotubes is deposited over an area of the deposition substrate by moving the deposition substrate in a direction perpendicular to the surface of the liquid) and through the layer of the suspension (Fluid suspension; 108; Fig 1B; ¶[0039]).
Re Claim 10, (Original) Arnold teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the elongated nanoparticles are carbon nanotubes (Carbon nanotubes; 114; Fig 1E; ¶[0032]).
Re Claim 11, (Original) Arnold teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the elongated nanoparticles (Carbon nanotubes; 114; Fig 1E; ¶[0032]) are semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes (Per ¶[0002] carbon nanotubes may be single-walled and semiconducting).
Re Claim 14, (Original) Arnold teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the film of aligned elongated nanoparticles (Carbon nanotubes; 114; Fig 1E; ¶[0032]) has an area of at least 50 cm2 (1 m^2; ¶[0046]).
Re Claim 15, (Original) Arnold teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the substrate (Deposition substrate; 102; Fig 1E; ¶[0032]) is a silicon substrate (Per ¶[0027] deposition substrate materials that can be used include metal oxides (including, but not limited to, aluminum oxide, hafnium oxide, and lanthanum oxide), high-k dielectric materials, such as SiN, and common semiconductor materials, such as silicon and germanium).
Re Claim 16, (Original) Arnold teaches the method of claim 15, wherein the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region (Upper surface of substrate 102/202; Fig 1A) comprises silicon dioxide (Per ¶[0027] deposition substrate may be silicon oxide, e.g. SiO2).
Re Claim 17, (Original) Arnold teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the at least one liquid film-repelling surface region (Bottom surface of confinement substrate 104/204; Fig 1A) comprises an organic polymer or organic functional groups (Fluoropolymer; ¶[0028]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnold, Michael Scott (Pub No. US 20180261772 A1) (hereinafter, Arnold) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Joo, Yongho et al. (Pub No. US 20160254468 A1) (hereinafter, Joo).
Re Claim 13, (Currently Amened) Arnold does not teach the method of claim 11, wherein the semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes have a linear packing density of at least 200 semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes per micron in the film of aligned semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes.
In the same field of endeavor, Joo teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes (Semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes; ¶[0007]) have a linear packing density (Linear packing density; ¶[0007]) of at least 200 semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes per micron (At least 40 single-walled carbon nanotabues/micron, i.e. may be over 200; ¶[0007]) in the film of aligned semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes have a linear packing density of at least 200 semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes per micron, as taught by Joo, for the method of forming a film of aligned elongated nanoparticles on a substrate as taught by Arnold. One would have been motivated to do this with a reasonable expectation of success because a higher linear packing density of semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes (s-SWCNT’s) offers several advantages, e.g. a CNT-based field effect transistor (CNFET) may have reduced electrical resistance compared to that of a lower linear packing density of s-SWCNT’s or higher thermal conductivity as compared to lower density arrangements.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 18 is allowed.
13. Claims 12 and 21-23 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.
Regarding claim 12, the closest prior art Arnold, Michael Scott (Pub No. US 20180261772 A1) (hereinafter, Arnold) and Fu, Wei-Qi et al. (Pub No. TW200947070A) (hereinafter, Fu) either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious
“wherein the semiconducting single-walled carbon nanotubes form a liquid crystal on the surface of the aqueous film,”
in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as claimed and defined by applicant.
In the instant case, regarding claim 12, Fu discloses carbon nanotubes which combine with liquid crystals to form a liquid crystal device, it does not disclose carbon nanotubes form liquid crystal on the surface of an aqueous film. Further, Arnold discloses carbon nanotubes on an aqueous film, however, they do not form liquid crystal, therefore neither reference discloses forming liquid crystal from the carbon nanotubes on an aqueous film.
Regarding claim 21, the closest prior art Arnold, Michael Scott (Pub No. US 20180261772 A1) (hereinafter, Arnold) and Fu, Wei-Qi et al. (Pub No. TW200947070A) (hereinafter, Fu) either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious
“The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region and the at least one liquid film-repelling surface region are co-planar on a surface of the substrate,”
in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as claimed and defined by applicant.
In the instant case, regarding claim 21, Arnold in view of Fu discloses a film-adsorbing surface region and a liquid film-repelling surface region, however, they are not co-planar on a surface of the substrate. Therefore, the prior art cannot render obvious the invention of the instant application and the invention of claim 21 is found to be novel.
Regarding claim 22, the closest prior art Arnold, Michael Scott (Pub No. US 20180261772 A1) (hereinafter, Arnold) and Fu, Wei-Qi et al. (Pub No. TW200947070A) (hereinafter, Fu) either singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or render obvious
“The method of claim 1, wherein forming the at least one liquid film on the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region comprises flowing a liquid over the substrate,
whereby the liquid is selectively retained on the at least one liquid film-adsorbing surface region, but not on the at least one liquid film-repelling surface region,
and contacting the suspension that comprises dispersed elongated nanoparticles with the at least one liquid film comprises flowing the suspension over the substrate after the liquid has been flowed over the substrate and the at least one liquid film has been formed,”
in combination with all other limitations in the claim(s) as claimed and defined by applicant.
In the instant case, regarding claim 22, Arnold in view of Fu does not disclose a liquid which is selectively retained on a liquid film adsorbing surface region, but not on the at least one liquid film-repelling surface region. Therefore, the prior art cannot render obvious the invention of the instant application and the invention of claim 22 is found to be novel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
[1] Kane, Alexander Allen et al. (Pub No. US 10833284 B1) discloses manufacturing an electrical device including providing a substrate having a surface and forming a radiofrequency field effect transistor on the surface, including forming a CNT layer on the surface and depositing a pin-down layer on the CNT layer.
[2] Asai Mitsuo (Pub No. JP 2024036861 A) discloses a transistor which incorporates a layer of carbon nanotubes disposed underneath a gate, source and drain region, where the carbon nanotube network structure is encapsulating by a dielectric layer.
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 TIMOTHY EDWARD DUREN whose telephone number is (703)756-1426. The examiner can normally be reached 07:30 - 17:00 PST.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached at (571) 272-7925. 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.
/T.E.D./
Examiner
Art Unit 2817
/ELISEO RAMOS FELICIANO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2817