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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The claim objections of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
The indefiniteness rejections of record are withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments.
103 rejections regarding amended Claim 1:
Applicant argues that Jing in view of Zhu do not teach the amended claim 1 (incorporating limitations from previously presented claim 10) since “[t]he device according to Jiang operates at or near room temperature with an extremely low temperature rise during normal operation. The device according to Jiang lacks a structural capability to work stably at extreme high temperatures of 800°C to 1200°C.” This is not persuasive for reasons set forth below.
First, although Jiang does not expressly teach high-temperature operation, applicant has not established that Jiang’s disclosed CNT-graphene film is intrinsically incapable of high-temperature operation under an appropriate environment. Applicant asserts that Jiang operate near room temperature and that its CNT film would “instantly” oxidize and burn out if heated to 800°C to 1200°C in ambient air, but applicant has not identified evidence in Jiang to establish that Jiang’s carbon film necessarily must be operated in ambient air or necessarily fails at the claimed temperature.
Second, the rejection does not rely on Jiang alone for high-temperature operation, nor does it require operating Jiang’s thermoacoustic embodiment unchanged in ambient air. Jiang is relied upon for the electrically driven CNT-graphene composite film and associated electrodes, while Zhu expressly teaches a high temperature implementation of such a CNT-graphene film.
In addition, the present application does not identify a different high-temperature structure required by amended claim 1, which broadly requires only a CNT layer and graphene layer stacked together – the same general structure taught by Jiang and implemented for high-temperature incandescence by Zhu. Applicant’s reliance on more specific unclaimed features therefore do not distinguish claim 1 from the combined references.
Accordingly, the 103 rejections of record are maintained.
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.
Claims 1-9, 11, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2012/0250907 A1 [hereinafter Jiang] in view of “Zhu, F., et al., (2014). Heating graphene to incandescence and the measurement of its work function by the thermionic emission method. Nano Research, 7(4), 553–560” [hereinafter Zhu].
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim 1 directed to an apparatus, not to a method requiring a particular sequence of transient measurement. The additional wherein clause does not recite a different film material, layer arrangement, electrode structure, controller, pulse generator, or other structural feature that distinguishes the claimed apparatus from the apparatus taught by Jiang in view of Zhu. Instead, it recites an operating condition and a resulting thermal-radiation property of the same electrically driven CNT-graphene composition film. Where the prior art apparatus is identical or substantially identical in relevant structure and composition, the claimed properties and functions are presumed to be possessed by the apparatus, and functional language is met by a prior-art apparatus capable of performing the recited function. See MPEP §§ 2112.01 and 2114.
Jiang teaches a device includes:
a carbon nanotube-graphene composite film structure comprising a carbon nanotube layer and a graphene layer stacked with each other (para. [0039]: “the sound wave generator 102 can be or includes a carbon film. The carbon film includes at least one carbon nanotube layer and at least one the grapheme layer... The at least one carbon nanotube layer and the at least one graphene are stacked with each other.”); and
a first electrode and a second electrode electrically respectively coupled with the carbon nanotube-graphene composite film structure, the first electrode and the second electrode configured to apply a voltage to the carbon nanotube-graphene composite film structure (para. [0052]: “the signal input device 104 includes a first electrode 104a and a second electrode 104b. The first electrode 104a and the second electrode 104b are electrically connected with the sound wave generator 102 and input electrical signals to the sound wave generator 102”); and
However, Jiang does not specifically disclose that the CNT-graphene carbon film itself is used as an electrically modulated light source.
Zhu teaches a CNT-graphene film (CGF) formed by transferring CVD-grown single-layer graphene onto a cross-stacked CNT film drawn from a super-aligned multiwalled CNT array and that the as-prepared CGF “can be Joule heated to a temperature as high as 1,800 K in vacuum without obvious destruction in the graphene structure” (Abstract). Zhu further explains that “CNT films can be heated to incandescence and their WF has already been studied with the thermionic emission method,” and therefore “the CGF will be a suitable choice for thermionic emission experiments” (Page 2, 2nd paragraph). Zhu also teaches that “when the CGF [is] heated to incandescence, obvious thermionic emission current can be detected” (Page 4, 1st paragraph), and Fig. 3(a) in Zhu shows the optical image of the heated CGF. Zhu further states that the temperature was obtained by fitting the optical spectra in the visible light range with Planck’s law of black bodies. Thus, Zhu teaches that the CNT-graphene film itself is an electrically heated, incandescent, radiating body.
As such, the combined references also teach “wherein in a temperature ranged of 800 °C to 1200 °C, the carbon nanotube-graphene composite film structure emits thermal radiation in a visible light band for a time period ranged from 3 milliseconds to 4 milliseconds after a voltage is applied on the carbon nanotube-graphene composite film structure.” Zhu expressly teaches that its CNT-graphene film is “Joule heated across two copper electrodes” to a temperature as high as 1800K without obvious destruction of the graphene structure. Zhu also teaches that the electrically heated CNT-graphene film itself emits visible band thermal radiation by showing, for example, in Fig. 3(a), an optical image of the heated, visible glowing CGF. As such, because this limitation does not recite a new structural component or require a controller having a particular construction, and merely recites a temporal operating condition and a resulting performance of the substantially identical prior-art film, the limitation has been considered but does not patentably distinguish the modified apparatus of Jiang-Zhu.
Jiang teaches a CNT graphene film electrically coupled between first and second electrodes and capable of rapid repeated heating in response to an applied electrical signal. Zhu demonstrates that the same type of CNT-graphene film can be Joule heated to incandescence and that the film itself emits visible thermal radiation. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the time of effective filing, to use Jiang’s electrically driven CNT-graphene composite film as an electrically modulated light source in view of Zhu. One of ordinary skilled person would have recognized that applying Jiang’s rapidly variable electrical input to the incandescent CNT-graphene film taught by Zhu would predictably provide an electrically controlled and temporally modulated thermal-light source, with the applied signal strength and period selected to obtain the desired operating temperature and emission interval.
Regarding Claim 2:
Jiang in view of Zhu teaches the electrically modulated light source of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein the carbon nanotube layer comprises a plurality of carbon nanotubes connected with each other by van der Waals force (para. [0074]: “the untwisted carbon nanotube wire includes a plurality of successive carbon nanotube segments joined end to end by van der Waals attractive force therebetween”).
Regarding Claim 3:
Jiang in view of Zhu teaches the electrically modulated light source of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein the carbon nanotube layer comprises at least one super-aligned carbon nanotube film, each super-aligned carbon nanotube film comprises a plurality of carbon nanotubes oriented along a same direction (paras. [0042, 0044]: “the drawn carbon nanotube film includes a number of successive and oriented carbon nanotubes joined end-to-end by van der Waals attractive force therebetween”; and “carbon nanotubes in the drawn carbon nanotube film are aligned along one preferred orientation”).
Regarding Claim 4:
Jiang in view of Zhu teaches the electrically modulated light source of claim 3. Jiang further teaches wherein the carbon nanotube layer comprises multiple layers of super-aligned carbon nanotube films stacked with each other (para. [0044]: “The carbon nanotube layer can include at least two stacked drawn carbon nanotube films”).
Regarding Claim 5:
Jiang in view of Zhu teaches the electrically modulated light source of claim 4. Jiang further teaches wherein an intersection angle between adjacent super-aligned carbon nanotube films is 90 degrees (para. [0047]: “The carbon nanotube layer consists of two stacked drawn carbon nano tube films. The angle between the alignment directions of the carbon nanotubes in the two adjacent drawn carbon nanotube films is about 90 degrees”).
Regarding Claim 6:
Jiang in view of Zhu teaches the electrically modulated light source of claim 4. Jiang further teaches wherein the carbon nanotube layer comprises four layers of super-aligned carbon nanotube films (para. [0053]: “The linear carbon nanotube structure includes a plurality of carbon nanotubes joined end to end. The plurality of carbon nanotubes is parallel with each other and oriented along an axial direction of the linear carbon nanotube structure”). Although Jiang does not expressly disclose four such films, selection of four layers would have been obvious because Jiang already contemplates forming the CNT layer from multiple stacked CNT films, and neither Jiang nor the present specification attributes any criticality or unexpected property to the specific number four. Accordingly, using four stacked CNT films would have been an obvious design choice.
Regarding Claim 7:
Jiang in view of Zhu teaches the electrically modulated light source of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein in the carbon nanotube-graphene composite film structure, the carbon nanotube layer is configured to be a carrier, and the graphene layer is laid on a surface of the carbon nanotube layer (para. [0048]: the carbon film includes the CNT layer and graphene layer stacked with each other, “carbon nanotube layer has high strength and includes a mount of micropores” and “the graphene layer is compact but low strength... the graphene layer covers the micropores in the carbon nanotube layer”).
Regarding Claim 8:
Jiang in view of Zhu teaches the electrically modulated light source of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein the graphene layer is a complete layer of graphene film (para. [0047]: “The graphene layer is a single layer of graphene”).
Regarding Claim 9:
Jiang in view of Zhu teaches the electrically modulated light source of claim 1. Jiang further teaches wherein the graphene layer comprises multiple layers of overlapping graphene films (para. [0038]: “In one embodiment, the graphene layer includes a plurality of graphenes, the plurality of graphenes is stacked with each other or located side by side”).
Regarding Claim 11:
Jiang in view of Zhu teaches the electrically modulated light source of claim 10. The additional limitations in claim 11 do not add any new structural feature to the composite film structure of claim 10 and instead recites a cooling performance characteristic after operation of the same electrically driven composite film taught by Jiang in view of Zhu. In the absence of any additional structural distinction in claim 11, the recited colling time is treated as an inherent characteristics/result of operating the same composite film taught by Jiang in view of Zhu.
Regarding Claim 13:
Jiang in view of Zhu teaches the electrically modulated light source of claim 12. The additional limitations in claim 13 do not add any new structural feature to the composite film structure of claim 10 and instead recites a cooling performance characteristic after operation of the same electrically driven composite film taught by Jiang in view of Zhu. In the absence of any additional structural distinction in claim 13, the recited colling time is treated as an inherent characteristics/result of operating the same composite film taught by Jiang in view of Zhu.
Regarding Claim 14:
Jiang in view of Zhu teaches the electrically modulated light source of claim 1. Zhu further teaches wherein, in a vacuum environment, after the carbon nanotube-graphene composite film structure is energized, the carbon nanotube-graphene composite film structure is capable of radiating visible light (Zhu teaches that when that CNT-graphene film is Joule heated in vacuum, the film reaches incandescence and its temperature is determined from optical spectra in the visible light range, i.e., the film itself is radiating visible light in vacuum).
Regarding Claim 15:
The wherein clause in claim1 5 is interpreted the same as the wherein clause recited in claim 1.
Jiang teaches a device includes:
a carbon nanotube-graphene composite film structure comprising a carbon nanotube layer and a graphene layer stacked with each other (para. [0039]: “the sound wave generator 102 can be or includes a carbon film. The carbon film includes at least one carbon nanotube layer and at least one the grapheme layer... The at least one carbon nanotube layer and the at least one graphene are stacked with each other.”); and
a first electrode and a second electrode electrically respectively coupled with the carbon nanotube-graphene composite film structure, the first electrode and the second electrode configured to apply a voltage to the carbon nanotube-graphene composite film structure (para. [0052]: “the signal input device 104 includes a first electrode 104a and a second electrode 104b. The first electrode 104a and the second electrode 104b are electrically connected with the sound wave generator 102 and input electrical signals to the sound wave generator 102”); and
However, Jiang does not specifically disclose that the CNT-graphene carbon film itself is used as an electrically modulated light source.
Zhu teaches a CNT-graphene film (CGF) formed by transferring CVD-grown single-layer graphene onto a cross-stacked CNT film drawn from a super-aligned multiwalled CNT array and that the as-prepared CGF “can be Joule heated to a temperature as high as 1,800 K in vacuum without obvious destruction in the graphene structure” (Abstract). Zhu further explains that “CNT films can be heated to incandescence and their WF has already been studied with the thermionic emission method,” and therefore “the CGF will be a suitable choice for thermionic emission experiments” (Page 2, 2nd paragraph). Zhu also teaches that “when the CGF [is] heated to incandescence, obvious thermionic emission current can be detected” (Page 4, 1st paragraph), and Fig. 3(a) in Zhu shows the optical image of the heated CGF. Zhu further states that the temperature was obtained by fitting the optical spectra in the visible light range with Planck’s law of black bodies. Thus, Zhu teaches that the CNT-graphene film itself is an electrically heated, incandescent, radiating body.
As such, the combined references also teach “wherein in a temperature ranged of 800 °C to 1200 °C, the carbon nanotube-graphene composite film structure emits thermal radiation in a visible light band for a time period ranged from 2 milliseconds to 3 milliseconds after a voltage is applied on the carbon nanotube-graphene composite film structure.” Zhu expressly teaches that its CNT-graphene film is “Joule heated across two copper electrodes” to a temperature as high as 1800K without obvious destruction of the graphene structure. Zhu also teaches that the electrically heated CNT-graphene film itself emits visible band thermal radiation by showing, for example, in Fig. 3(a), an optical image of the heated, visible glowing CGF. As such, because this limitation does not recite a new structural component or require a controller having a particular construction, and merely recites a temporal operating condition and a resulting performance of the substantially identical prior-art film, the limitation has been considered but does not patentably distinguish the modified apparatus of Jiang-Zhu.
Jiang teaches a CNT graphene film electrically coupled between first and second electrodes and capable of rapid repeated heating in response to an applied electrical signal. Zhu demonstrates that the same type of CNT-graphene film can be Joule heated to incandescence and that the film itself emits visible thermal radiation. Therefore, it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art, before the time of effective filing, to use Jiang’s electrically driven CNT-graphene composite film as an electrically modulated light source in view of Zhu. One of ordinary skilled person would have recognized that applying Jiang’s rapidly variable electrical input to the incandescent CNT-graphene film taught by Zhu would predictably provide an electrically controlled and temporally modulated thermal-light source, with the applied signal strength and period selected to obtain the desired operating temperature and emission interval.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JING WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-2504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-17:00.
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, Robert Kim can be reached at 571-272-2293. 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.
/JING WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights