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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, Claims 1-10 and 12-15 in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-24 and 26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group 2 and 3, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/21/2026.
The restriction requirement has been made FINAL.
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.
Claims 2, 6, 13, and 15 are 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.
Regarding Claim 2, the claim recites “electrodes configured.” There is an issue of antecedent basis that renders the claim indefinite, as it uncertain if these are the same electrodes, first and second, in Claim 1 or different electrodes. For purposes of examination, these are first and second electrodes.
Regarding Claim 6, it is uncertain what is considered a plurality of cells relative to the device as a whole. It is interpreted that the Claim 6 should mirror Claim 14, where the layers in sequence are a cell and are independently/individually addressable. This also creates an issue of a duplicate claim.
Regarding Claim 13, there is an issue of antecedent basis with regard to “the surface”. There are multiple surfaces in Claim 1. For purposes of examination, the surface is interpreted to any surface.
Regarding Claim 15, “the apparent surface temperature” is indefinite, as it does not identify what temperature is being measured. Therefore, the limitation regarding the conditions for the device being held and the voltage being applied to reach some temperature is not considered. In addition, it is uncertain if the temperature, apparent temperature and voltage ranges are correlated as a limitation or each an independent selection as a limitation. This also renders the claim indefinite, as one of ordinary skill in the art would be uncertain what results need to occur from the claimed device.
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.
Claim 1-4, 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2010/0122980 A1) in view of Heintz et al. (US 2009/0142581 A1) and Elhard et al. (US 2011/0059317 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a thermal management system (Abstract) comprising a device. (Fig. 2). Wang teaches the device comprises a first electrode (Item 12 or 14), a CNT layer (Item 164), and a second electrode (Item 12 or 14), where the CNT is located between the two electrodes. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0082). Wang teaches the CNT layer has two major opposing surfaces, where an other major surface contacts the second electrode. (Fig. 2; Paragraph 0082).
Wang does not specifically teach a storage layer comprising a dopant in contact with one major surface of the CNT layer. Wang does teach higher electrical conductivity of the CNT layer improves the heat output. (Paragraph 0009)
Heintz teaches applying a storage layer with a dopant onto one side of a doped CNT layer. (Paragraph 0011, 0043). Heintz teaches the doped CNT layer has improved conductivity (Paragraph 0006) and storage layer with the dopant ensures the CNT has sufficient dopant interactivity to maintain the improved conductivity. (Paragraph 0043). Elhard teaches this storage layer and CNT layer arrangement are suitable for heating systems. (Paragraphs 0022) Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the doped CNT layer with the claimed storage layer with dopant of Heintz applied directly to the one major surface of the CNT layer of Wang for improved electrical conductivity and resulting improved heat output as taught by Heintz and Elhard.
Regarding Claim 2, Wang teaches the electrodes are configured to pass a current the CNTs in the plane of the CNT layer. (Paragraph 0054).
Regarding Claims 3-4, Heintz teaches applying a protective layer encapsulating, overlying an in direct contact with the CNT layer. (Paragraph 0046). Elhard teaches encapsulation of doped CNT fiber layer comprising polypropylene with a thickness of 1000 nm or less. (Paragraph 0052-0055). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05). Elhard teaches a protective layer can provide for improve adhesion or abrasion resistance and such thickness will minimize the insulating effect of the polymer film (Paragraph 0053-0055). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply the claimed protective film of the claimed thickness to CNT layer of Wang for improved abrasion resistance and adhesion without greatly affecting conductivity.
Regarding Claim 9, Heintz teaches the storage layer has as thickness of 10 to 100 nm. (Paragraph 0043). This overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. (MPEP §2144.05).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang teaches the second electrode covers the entire other major surface of the CNT layer. (Fig. 2)
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Heintz and Elhard in view of Unger (US 2014/0101921 A1) and Chamberlain (US 2012/0152930 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang does not specifically teach the second electrode comprises a second CNT layer in direct contact with a porous ceramic layer, where the second CNT layer is in contact with a bus bar.
Unger teaches a porous ceramic electrode (Abstract) coated with a layer of CNT (Paragraph 0014). Unger teaches this porous electrode will lead to a more efficient and conductive electrode. (Paragraph 0015). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed electrode taught by Unger in Wang for better durability and efficiency.
Chamberlain teaches electrodes (wiring) are connected to bus bars. (Paragraph 0062) Busbars allow for good mechanical and electrical interface from the power supply to the wiring/electrodes. (Paragraph 0024). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have the second electrode, including the outer coating of CNT, taught by Unger to be in direct contact with a bus bar to allow for proper transmission of electricity in Wang.
Regarding Claim 8, Wang does not specifically teach the first electrode comprises a CNT layer.
Unger teaches a porous ceramic electrode (Abstract) coated with a layer of CNT (Paragraph 0014). Unger teaches this porous electrode will lead to a more efficient and conductive electrode. (Paragraph 0015). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use the claimed electrode including a CNT layer taught by Unger in Wang for better durability and efficiency.
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Heintz and Elhard, in view of NPH (NPL)
Regarding Claim 6 and 14, Wang inherently teaches the layers form a cell. Wang does not specifically teach the system comprises a plurality of cells that are individually and independently addressable.
NPH teaches making heaters that have individually and independently addressable heater cells to have finer temperature control. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have individually and independently addressable heater cells of Wang to have a more controllable heater system as taught by NPH
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Heintz and Elhard, in view of Iihara et al. (NPL).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang, Heintz and Elhard do not teach using an ionic liquid to dope the CNT.
Iilhara teaches doping CNT with ionic liquids to greatly improve their electrical conductivity. (Abstract). As Wang teaches higher electrical conductivity is desired, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to use an ionic liquid as the dopant in Wang, Heintz and Elhard for the improved electrical conductivity.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Heintz and Elhard in view of Heintz et al. (US 2016/0379740 A1) [hereinafter Heintz ‘740]
Regarding Claim 10, Wang, Heintz and Elhard teaches the electrode is disposed between a substrate and the storage layer (Fig. 2; Rejection of Claim 1 above). Wang does not teach the substrate comprises clothing, a tent or a vehicle, but teaches it can be used as heater (Abstract)
Heintz ‘740 teaches CNT heaters to be applied to vehicles, such as airplanes (Paragraph 0041). Heintz ‘740 teaches the CNT heaters can be applied as de-icing mechanisms. Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to apply the CNT device of Wang to an airplane, as Heintz ‘740 teaches CNT heaters are suitable as de-icing, where the substrate is airplane component.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Heintz and Elhard in view of Jung (NPL).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang does not specifically teach the electrode is has an aluminum film.
Jung teaches metallized polymer with an aluminum film coating can be used as electrodes (Page 19950-19951) Jung teaches aluminum film electrodes are cheaper than regular aluminum electrodes, due to easier production while still offering flexible and good conductivity (Paragraph 19951). Thus, it would have been obvious to use a aluminum film electrode of Jung as the electrode in Wang.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Heintz and Elhard, in further view of Feng et al. (US 2009/0085461 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang teaches the electrode is disposed between a substrate and a storage layer, but does not teach the system has infrared emissivity tunability.
Feng teaches CNT layer with electrodes can be used to adjust the amount of infrared radiation, depending on the voltage supplied to the CNT layer (Paragraph 0038). Feng teaches this allows the device to be used in various devices, such as heaters, therapy devices, display and other devices. (Paragraph 0043). Thus, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that the device of Wang would also have tunable infrared emissivity due to the structure of running electricity from electrodes through a CNT layer and to allow for the device of Wang to be used in a variety of devices.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0358. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9:30am-3:30pm, 8:30PM-10:30PM.
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at (571) 270-1547. 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.
/Michael Zhang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781