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 claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 08/18/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0086460) in view of Schaedler et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,415,562).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. teaches a method for producing a hexagonal boron nitride film by using a borazine oligomer as a precursor and a boron nitride film obtained thereby (paragraph 3). Kim et al. teaches mixing a borazine oligomer with an organic solvent to form a boron nitride precursor solution; coating the boron nitride precursor solution onto a substrate; and carrying out phase transfer of the borazine oligomer in the coated boron nitride precursor solution to produce a hexagonal boron nitride film which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of depositing a 2D h-BN precursor on the metal and converting the 2D h-BN precursor to 2D h-BN (paragraphs 24-26). ; and removing the metal microlattice. Kim et al. teaches hydrochloric acid and sulfuric acid etching solutions in order to remove the metal catalyst which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of removing the metal (paragraph 56). Kim et al. does not teach a metal microlattice.
Schaedler et al. teaches micro-lattice template is formed by exposing a photomonomer to a collimated UV light through a patterned mask wherein micro-lattice template is formed by exposing a photomonomer to a collimated UV light through a patterned mask which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of photo-initiating the polymerization of a monomer in a pattern of interconnected units to form a polymer microlattice and removing unpolymerized monomer (column 2, lines 50-67). Schaedler et al. teaches after the polymer lattice is generated, films (e.g., conformal nickel-phosphorous thin films) were deposited on the polymer lattices by electroless plating and the polymer was subsequently etched out (via chemical etching or any other suitable etching technique that is gentle enough not to destroy the micro-lattice) which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of coating the polymer microlattice with a metal (column 7, lines 30-55). Schaedler et al. teaches removing the micro-lattice template to leave a cellular material formed of hollow tubes which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of removing the polymer microlattice to leave a metal microlattice (column 2, lines 50-67). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the metal microlattice taught by Schaedler et al. for the catalyst substrate taught by Kim et al. to form a hexagonal boron nitride lattice.
Regarding claim 2, Schaedler et al. teaches wherein photo-initiating the polymerization of the monomer includes passing collimated light through a photomask (column 2, lines 55-65).
Regarding claim 3, Schaedler et al. teaches micro-lattice template is formed by exposing a photomonomer to a collimated UV light through a patterned mask which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein photo-initiating the polymerization of the monomer includes multi-photon lithography (column 2, lines 55-65; column 11, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 4, Schaedler et al. teaches electroless nickel film which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein coating the polymer microlattice with a metal includes the electroless deposition of nickel (column 3, lines 45-55).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Schaedler et al. teaches polystyrene and poly(methyl methacrylate) (column 2, lines 40-50).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Schaedler et al. teaches to prepare the surface for electroless deposition, the polymer sample were first heat treated at greater than 120 degrees Celsius and then immersed in 1 molar sodium hydroxide solution which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of removing unwanted particles by cleaning the microlattice with a series of chemicals prior to electroless plating and wherein the microlattice is rinsed with water following the cleaning with each respective chemical of the cleaning the microlattice with a series of chemicals (column 11, lines 1-45).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUINEVER S GREGORIO whose telephone number is (571)270-5827. The examiner can normally be reached M-W 11 am - 9 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, Coris Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
/GUINEVER S GREGORIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 11/01/2025
Prosecution Insights