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 2 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 2 recites the limitation "the metal electrode" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret “the metal electrode” to refer to “the plurality of source and drain electrode pairs” which are the only electrodes in step b.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (CN107293561A, hereinafter Zhao).
Regarding claim 1, Zhao discloses a method of manufacturing a field effect transistor array, comprising:
a) forming an insulating layer on a substrate and stacking a metal layer (Fig. 1 substrate 31 and first source/drain 11/12);
b) patterning the stacked metal layer to form a plurality of source electrode and drain electrode pairs (Fig. 1 first source/drain 11/12);
c) jetting CNT ink between the plurality of source electrodes and drain electrodes (Fig. 1 carbon nanotube 13 is disposed between first source/drain 11/12 and par. 11 teaches that “a P-type carbon nanotube ink is deposited between the first source electrode and the second drain electrode by means of aerosol printing or inkjet printing”); and
d) allowing the jetted CNT ink to spread along the source and drain electrodes in the form of a thin film (Par. 11 “P-type carbon nanotube ink is deposited between the first source and the second drain by aerosol printing or inkjet printing…to form the P-type Semiconductor carbon nanotube” which examiner notes is a thin film).
Regarding claim 17, Zhao discloses a field effect transistor array manufactured by the manufacturing method of claim 1 (Fig. 1, see above rejection of claim 1, transistor 10).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN107293561A) in view of Singh et al. (Singh, R. S., Takagi, K., Aoki, T., Moon, J. H., Neo, Y., Iwata, F., Mimura, H., & Moraru, D. (2022). Precise Deposition of Carbon Nanotube Bundles by Inkjet-Printing on a CMOS-Compatible Platform. Materials, 15(14), 4935, hereinafter Singh).
Regarding claim 2, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1.
Zhao does not appear to teach wherein
in step b), a thickness of the metal electrode is 10 to 200 nm.
Singh teaches
a thickness of the metal electrode is 10 to 200 nm (Fig. 1 "the source and drain electrodes (defined in Al, approx. thickness of 70 nm)”).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with the teachings of Singh because, as Zhao is silent as to the specifics of their source/drain electrode thickness, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to seek out references such as Singh who do disclose a thickness for source/drain electrodes for use with CNTs.
Regarding claim 3, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1.
Zhao does not appear to teach wherein
a gap between the pair of source electrodes and drain electrodes formed in step b) is 0.1 to 2 μm.
Singh teaches
a gap between the pair of source electrodes and drain electrodes formed is 0.1 to 2 μm (Section pg. 3 “[f]igure 2 shows examples of the CNT dispersion by inkjet printing on Al source and drain gaps with different designed dimensions (Wgap = 500 nm and 1000 nm)” and examiner notes that 500 nm. and 1000 nm are 0.5 μm and 1 μm, respectively).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with the teachings of Singh because, as Zhao is silent as to the specifics of their gap between source/drain electrodes, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to seek out references such as Singh who do disclose a gap width between source/drain electrodes for use with CNTs.
Regarding claim 4, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1,
wherein the CNT ink is prepared by centrifuging a carbon nanotube dispersion (Pg. 3 “performing high-speed centrifugation on the carbon nanotube solution to obtain the carbon nanotube ink”) obtained by ultrasonicating the carbon nanotube film (Pg. 3 “[i]n operation 232, the mixed organic conjugated compound and carbon nanotubes are subjected to action using a high-pressure homogenizer or a micro-jet device or an ultrasonicator to form a carbon nanotube solution”, and then extracting a supernatant (Pg. 3 “the carbon nanotube solution is subjected to high-speed centrifugation to obtain the carbon nanotube ink.”.
Zhao does not appear to teach
putting a carbon nanotube film in a polar solvent
Singh teaches in pg. 2 that their “CNT-networks were…deposited by inkjet printing from similar solutions using…solvents such as N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP).”
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention because as both as both Zhao and Singh teach a suitable method for inkjet printing CNTs, it would have been obvious to substitute Zhao’s listed solutions with Singh’s N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone solution to achieve the predictable result of using N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone as a solvent for inkjet printing CNTs.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Zhao and Singh teaches the method of claim 4, wherein
the polar solvent is a pyrrolidone-based solvent or water (Singh teaches in pg. 2 that their “CNT-networks were…deposited by inkjet printing from similar solutions using…solvents such as N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP)” and that is a pyrrolidone-based solvent).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Zhao and Singh teaches the method of claim 5, wherein
the pyrrolidone-based solvent is any one selected from the group consisting of N-cyclohexyl-2-pyrrolidone (CHP), N-methylpyrrolidone (NMP), and N-ethyl-2-pyrrolidone (NEP), or a mixture of two or more (Singh teaches in pg. 2 that their “CNT-networks were…deposited by inkjet printing from similar solutions using…solvents such as N-methyl-2-pyrrolidone (NMP)”).
Regarding claim 8, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1.
Zhao does not appear to teach wherein
the CNT ink includes 1*10-6 to 1.5*10-5 wt% of carbon nanotubes based on a total weight of ink.
Sing teaches
the CNT ink includes 1*10-6 to 1.5*10-5 wt% of carbon nanotubes based on a total weight of ink (Pg. 3 “we used low concentration (≈1 µg/mL) CNT-solutions, so we obtained very few paths of CNT-networks in between the Al source and drain” but “if a higher density is required, it can be achieved by multiple printing or a higher concentration of the CNT-solution itself”).
Therefore, as the CNT ink concentration affects the density of the deposited CNT-networks in the channel regions, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Zhao and Singh teaches the method of claim 4.
Zhao does not appear to teach wherein
the ultrasonication time is 0.5 to 5 hours.
Singh teaches
the ultrasonication time is 0.5 to 5 hours (Pg. 4 “[t]he coverage of the CNT-networks was low given the low concentration of the CNT-solution and long-time ultrasonication (about 4 h) before inkjet printing” and so Singh teaches ultrasonication time of 4 hours).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with the teachings of Singh because, as Zhao is silent as to the specifics of their ultrasonication time, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to seek out references such as Singh who do disclose an ultrasonication time for use with preparing CNT ink.
Regarding claim 10, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1.
Zhao does not appear to teach wherein
a volume of CNT ink jetted in step c) is 0.1 to 10 pl.
Singh teaches
a volume of CNT ink jetted in step c) is 0.1 to 10 pl (Pg. 3 “[d]roplets of CNT-ink were dispersed by inkjet-printing in the sub-nL range through a piezoelectric nozzle.” While Singh does not explicitly disclose the claimed range values, as the only difference between the combination of Zhao and Singh and the claimed invention is a relative recitation of volume and nothing within the disclosure indicates that a device having the claimed volume of ink would perform differently than the combination of Zhao and Singh, such a recitation of relative dimensions is not enough to be patentably distinct, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with the teachings of Singh because, as Zhao is silent as to the specifics of their volume of ink, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to seek out references such as Singh who do disclose a volume of ink for use with printing CNTs.
Regarding claim 12, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1.
Zhao does not appear to teach wherein
the substrate includes 20 to 50 chips.
Singh teaches
the substrate includes 20 to 50 chips (Pg. 4 “[i]t should be noted that out of the 28 devices of this type for which inkjet printing was performed under the same conditions, CNT-networks were successfully deposited between source and drain in 25 of them” and so there were 28 chips disposed on the substrate).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with the teachings of Singh because, as Zhao is silent as to the specifics of the number of chips on the substrate, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to seek out references such as Singh who do disclose a number of chips on the substrate for use with printing CNTs.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Zhao and Singh teaches the method of claim 12, wherein
the chip includes 50 to 100 pairs of source electrodes and drain electrodes (In Zhao fig. 1 there are 2 source/drain pairs in 11/12 and 22/22. With the above teachings of Singh, this would result in 56 source/drain pairs).
Regarding claim 18, Zhao teaches the field effect transistor array of claim 17.
Zhao does not appear to teach wherein
the array has 1 to 10 carbon nanotubes connecting the pair of source electrodes and drain electrodes.
Sing teaches
the array has 1 to 10 carbon nanotubes connecting the pair of source electrodes and drain electrodes (Pg. 3 “we used low concentration (≈1 µg/mL) CNT-solutions, so we obtained very few paths of CNT-networks in between the Al source and drain” but “if a higher density is required, it can be achieved by multiple printing or a higher concentration of the CNT-solution itself”).
Therefore, as the concentration of CNT within the ink affects the density of the deposited CNTs, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN107293561A) in view of Kosaka (US20220364933A1).
Regarding claim 7, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1.
Kosaka teaches wherein
a length of carbon nanotubes included in the CNT ink is 0.1 to 4 μm (Par. 55 “[t]he length of the carbon nanotubes is preferably in the range of 100 nm to 5 μm”).
Being in analogous arts it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with the teachings of Kosaka because such a length for the CNTs allows for “easy dispersion and easy droplet formation” (Kosaka par. 55).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN107293561A) in view of Xu et al. (US20110315981A1, hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claim 11, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1, wherein
the substrate is 2 to 12 inches in diameter.
Xu teaches
the substrate is 2 to 12 inches in diameter (Par. 104 “[s]elect 4 inches Si (100) silicon wafer as the thin film grown substrate”).
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with the teachings of Xu because, as Zhao is silent as to the specifics of their substrate diameter, this would motivate a person of ordinary skill in the art to seek out references such as Xu who do disclose substrate diameter for use with CNTs.
Claims 14-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN107293561A) in view of Oh et al. (US20100263246A1, hereinafter Oh).
Regarding claim 14, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1.
Zhao does not appear to teach
in step d), wherein the contact angle of the CNT ink with respect to the electrodes is between 0 and 90 degrees.
Oh teaches in par. 82 that “[i]f the surface of the transparent substrate is made hydrophilic, for example, by plasma processing, a contact angle between the carbon nanotube ink and the transparent substrate decreases, thereby forming the carbon nanotube in a mesh pattern without tangling.”
Therefore, as the contact angle affects the geometry of the deposited CNTs, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
Regarding claim 15, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1.
Zhao does not appear to teach
in step d), wherein the differential in contact angles for the CNT ink between the substrate and the electrodes is between 5 and 60 degrees.
Oh teaches in par. 82 that “[i]f the surface of the transparent substrate is made hydrophilic, for example, by plasma processing, a contact angle between the carbon nanotube ink and the transparent substrate decreases, thereby forming the carbon nanotube in a mesh pattern without tangling.”
Therefore, as the contact angle affects the geometry of the deposited CNTs, it is a result effective variable that may be optimized by a person of ordinary skill, see MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). As the differentials in contact angles would be part of the optimization process for the contact angle, an optimization of one necessitate optimizing the other.
Regarding claim 16, Zhao teaches the method of claim 1.
Zhao does not appear to teach
before step c), performing oxygen plasma or UV ozone pretreatment on the substrate on which the source electrode and drain electrode are formed.
Oh teaches in par. 82 that “[i]f the surface of the transparent substrate is made hydrophilic, for example, by plasma processing, a contact angle between the carbon nanotube ink and the transparent substrate decreases, thereby forming the carbon nanotube in a mesh pattern without tangling.”
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao by performing a plasma processing on the substrate in order to “[form] the carbon nanotube in a mesh pattern without tangling” (Oh par. 82).
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao (CN107293561A) in view of Shepard et al. (US20190317084A1, hereinafter Shepard).
Regarding claim 19, Zhao teaches the field effect transistor array of claim 17.
Zhao does not appear to teach
a biosensor comprising the field effect transistor array of claim 17.
Shepard teaches in par. 54 that “[n]anotube and nanowire field-effect sensors can be utilized as biosensors.”
Being in analogous arts, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhao with the teachings of Shepard because Shepard teaches that nanotube FETs are suitable for use in biosensors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLE LEON LINDSEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4028. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m..
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, Christine Kim can be reached at (571)272-8458. 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.
/COLE LEON LINDSEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 /CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812