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 .
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-5,8,18,21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee et al. 20200272047.
Chatterjee et al. 20200272047 (of record 9/7/2022) teaches with respect to figures 4A-E, carbon nanotubes (CNT,402) are grown from metal catalyst particles/droplets (404) to form an ordered (not random) arrangement of CNTs. The planar sheet of CNTs may have any shape and may have a lattice structure. These are then coated with hBN which has the same or similar lattice structure to the CNT (graphene) and can forma 2-5 nm thick coating (404) which is a boron nitride nanotube (BNNT) to yield a CNT-hBN or CNT-BNNT nanocomposite structure. A 2-5 nm conformal coating of CNT (406) is then formed over the boron nitride to form a CNT-hBN-CNT or CNT-BNNT-CNT. A second coating of boron nitride (410) can then be formed yielding the CNT-hBN-CNT-hBN or CNT-BNNT-CNT-BNNT illustrated in figure 4D [0041-0048]. The pellicle membrane is disclosed as being secured by an adhesive layer [0032].
PNG
media_image1.png
209
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
207
374
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
209
372
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
204
374
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
421
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Chatterjee et al. 20200272047 des not exemplify the pellicle membrane illustrated figures 4D and 4E where the layers are CNT and BNNT attached to a pellicle frame.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the pellicles illustrated in figures 4D and 4E of to be a CNT-BNNT-CNT-BNNT based upon the disclosure at [0041-0048], where the 2-5 nm thick inner BNNT (406) is considered to be the single walled non-carbon nanotube and the 2-5 nm CNT (408) and 2-5 nm BNNT (410) layers on it are the two dimensional material and to attach this to a frame as disclosed at [0032] with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful pellicle. With respect to claim 21, the claim does not require the pellicle to be formed of TMD, so the embodiment where the boron nitride nanotubes meets this claim.
Claims 1-5,8,18,21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chatterjee et al. 20200272047, in view of Ono et al. WO 2021210432.
Ono et al. WO 2021210432 (machine translation attached) teaches that CNTs are formed on substrates such as silicon wafers, glass, metals, and polymer films. The obtained CNT is peeled off from the substrate by floating it on the liquid surface of a liquid such as water, an acid or an alkaline aqueous solution, or an organic solvent. The CNT film floating on the liquid surface is fixed to the support frame by scooping it with a support frame coated with an adhesive or the like. The obtained CNT film becomes a pellicle film 202 [0082].
Chatterjee et al. 20200272047 does not teach separation of the nanotubes from the substrate upon which they are grown.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form the pellicles illustrated in figures 4D and 4E of Chatterjee et al. 20200272047 to be a CNT-BNNT-CNT-BNNT based upon the disclosure at [0041-0048] of Chatterjee et al. 20200272047, where the 2-5 nm thick inner BNNT (406) is considered to be the single walled non-carbon nanotube and the 2-5 nm CNT (408) and 2-5 nm BNNT (410) layers on it are the two dimensional material and peeling it form the substrate and then attaching it to a substrate as taught in Ono et al. WO 2021210432 at [0082] noting that attaching the nanotube pellicle to a frame as disclosed at [0032] of Chatterjee et al. 20200272047 with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful pellicle.
Claims 22-26,29 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The ability to form a lattice makes multiple layers (which are oriented differently) unobvious.
Claims 11,13,15 and 31 are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 pm EST.
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, Mark F Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 May 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights