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 .
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(s) 15, 16 to 18, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heurlin et al (2014/0345686) in view of Zhang et al (Nano Letters).
The Heurlin et al reference teaches a method and product of a nanowire network, note entire reference. A first gas is flowed into a reaction vessel. The first gas has an element from silicon or germanium, note para 0024. This element is in the form of a metal organic material or hydride, note para 0025. There is a second gas with the catalyst particles in it. This can include gold, note para 0023. The two gas flows are mixed in the reactor such that the metal catalyst contacts the precursor gas note para 0028. The temperature of the reactor is 600c, note para 0028. The precursor gas decomposes and grows the nano structure/wire on the catalyst by chemical vapor deposition, note para 0023. The resulting nanowire is solid. The difference between the instant claim and the prior art is mole fraction of precursor gas and temperature. However, the Zhang et al reference teaches growing nanowire networks at temperatures in the 1300 range, note page 3. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of the Heurlein et al reference by the teachings of the Zhang et al reference to use a higher temperature in order to ensure a full decomposition of the starting materials.
Further, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable mole fraction of precursor in the gas in the combined references in order to allow for a constant growth of nanowires, note the references do show different parameters affecting the process of growth.
With regards to claim 16, the Heurlin et al reference teaches using CVD or VLS growth, note abs.
With regards to claims 17 and 18, the Heurlin et al reference teaches growing silicon or germanium nanowires, note para 0024.
With regards to claim 19, the Heurlin et al reference teaches using hydrides, note para 0025.
With regards to claim 21, the Zhang et al reference teaches a temperature in the 1300c, note page 3.
With regards to claim 22, the Heurlien et al reference teaches collecting the nanowires, note, para 0029.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heurlin et al (2014/0345686) in view of Zhang et al and Alcott (2016/0130698).
The Heurlin et al and Zhang et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the hydrogen gas addition. However, the Alcott reference teaches using hydrogen gas during nanowire formation, note, figure 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the teachings of the Heurlein et al reference by the teachings of the Alcott reference to use a hydrogen gas in order to have a uniform gas flow and a inert gas to purify the gases.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heurlin et al (2014/0345686) in view of Zhang et al and Alcott (2016/0130698).
The Heurlin et al, Alcott and Zhang et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the spinning and winding on a bobbin. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine the specific collecting method in the combined references in order to increase use as the prior art teaches growing structures not just nanowires.
Claim(s) 24, 25, 27 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heurlin et al (2014/0345686) in view of Zhang et al and Alcott (2016/0130698).
The Heurlin et al, Zhang et al and Alcott references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the volume percentage. The Heurlin et al reference teaches nanowire of silicon or germanium with an aspect ratio over 130, note para 0020. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine volume percentage of the grown nanowire network in the combined references in order to allow for use noting the nanowires of the prior art are grown by a similar process creating a similar product.
With regards to claim 24, the Heurlin et al reference teaches a free-standing nanowire structure, note figure 2.
With regards to claim 25, the Heurlin et al reference teaches an aspect ratio over 150, note para 0020 and a length over 1 micron, note para 0020.
With regards to claim 27, the Heurlin et al reference teaches growing silicon or germanium, note para 0024.
With regards to claim 28, the combined references do not teach weaving the wires.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heurlin et al (2014/0345686) in view of Zhang et al and Alcott (2016/0130698).
The Heurlin et al, Zhang et al and Alcott references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the porosity. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine the specific porosity of the net of nanowires in the combined references in order to increase use as the prior art teaches growing structures not just nanowires.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heurlin et al (2014/0345686) in view of Zhang et al and Alcott (2016/0130698).
The Heurlin et al and Alcott references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the specific use . However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine the specific use, electrode of the nanowires in the combined references in order to have a useful material as the art teaches multiple uses of the nanowires.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in nanowire growth.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714