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 .
Drawings
The Drawings filed 19 May 2025are approved by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner and an initialed copy is attached.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Citation Notation
The following citations are made for the convenience of the reader:
Citations to Pre -Grant publications are made to paragraph number under the ¶ format. Citations to other publications are made under the format “1/2” or pp 1 are directed to column and line number or to a page - whichever is appropriate. It is noted that any reference to a figure or a table is also directed to any accompanying text in the specification or the document. Notwithstanding those citations, the reference(s) is (are) relied upon for the teachings as a whole.
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 8-10 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.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112, second paragraph, for containing the phrase "substantially". The term " substantially" renders the claim vague and indefinite, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of the term " substantially". Furthermore, the specification does not contain guidelines describing what numerical values are encompassed by the phrase " substantially". It is noted that the specification discloses exemplary values but does not explicitly provide a definition for the “substantially” limitation. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is/are required.
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(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cooper (US-20150376011-A1, cited in the IDS) in view of Jiang (US-20090197082-A1).
Claims 1, 2 and 20: Cooper discloses a process of making aligned carbon nanotubes on a substrate via the steps of forming a plurality of CNTs on a metal substrate, metal coating the CNTS, rolling the substrate to form an insert and drawing the insert (abs, ¶7, 13-16, 25, 57 61, 66, 85, 95-106, 113 and Figs 2-7 with accompanying text). Further, Cooper is motivated to optimize the length and alignment of the carbon nanotubes (¶77-90). The Cooper reference discloses the claimed invention but does not explicitly disclose the feature of the drawing to increase the length of the nanotubes. It is noted that the Cooper reference discloses drawing the carbon nanotubes insert and the claim(s) call(s) for drawing to increase the length. In an analogous art, the Jiang reference discloses the features of growing carbon nanotubes on a metallic substrate, coating the carbon nanotubes with a metallic layer and drawing to increase the length is well known in the art (abs, ¶21-37 and Figs 1 and 3 with accompanying text). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Jiang to the teachings of Cooper would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the cited references shows the ability to apply such features into similar systems, methods and compositions for the benefit gain of controlling the length. See MPEP 2143. Further, it is noted that obviousness only requires a reasonable expectation of success and there is no evidence nor teaching that the substitution and/or optimization would be repugnant to a skilled artisan.
Claims 3-10: Cooper and Jiang disclose applying the application of a shear force, the copper bobbin and sleeve, the substrate rolling and the parallel direction (Cooper: Figs 2-5 with accompanying text and Jiang: Figs 1, 3 and 4 with accompanying text).
Claims 11-14: Cooper and Jiang disclose the CVD and electrodeposition features (Cooper: ¶13, 16, 66-77 & Jiang: ¶39-46).
Claims 15-16: Cooper and Jiang disclose annealing and modifying the order of steps and/or repeating the coating and aligning steps (Cooper: ¶85, 96-113).
Claims 17-19 and 21: Cooper and Jiang disclose the foil substrate, the MWCNT, the copper substrate/coating and a conductive end-product (Cooper: ¶ 19, 61-69, 87 and 103-106 & Jiang: abs, ¶32).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached on 571.270.7026. 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.
/TRI V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764
Prosecution Insights