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 .
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) 1-4, 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0182808) in view of Loeblein et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0093217).
Regarding claim 1, Choi et al. teaches a method of manufacturing a porous metal foam having nano-sized pores is provided, which includes the steps of: (a) casting an elastomer mold on a patterned silicon wafer; (b) curing the cast elastomer mold; (c) separating the cured elastomer; (d) attaching a polymer (SU8) material on a glass substrate; (e) positioning the elastomer on the photo-resistive polymer (SU8) material; (f) irradiating ultraviolet (UV) light to the material of the step (e) to form a polymer foam containing nano-sized pores through diffraction and interference of the UV light; (g) pre-processing the polymer foam of the step (f) to improve surface wettability of the polymer foam; and (h) coating a metal on the pre-processed polymer foam through electroless plating and removing the polymer foam after the step (h) which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of photo-initiating polymerization of a monomer in a pattern of interconnected units to form a polymer microlattice that has a three-dimensional (3D) structure; removing unpolymerized monomer; coating the polymer microlattice with a metal; removing the polymer microlattice to leave a metal microlattice that has a 3D structure (paragraphs 14 and 15). Choi et al. does not teach forming a 3D structure on the porous metal foam.
Loeblein et al. teaches 3D foam-like structure according to the disclosure may comprise or substantially consist hexagonal boron nitride which meets the limitation of a process for preparing a hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) microstructure (paragraph 35). Loeblein et al. teaches a CVD process comprising heating boron nitride precursor gas into hexagonal-boron nitride domains wherein hexagonal-boron nitride domains nucleate and grow on the metal particles and the metal template to form a three-dimensional interconnected porous network of hexagonal-boron nitride and removal of the metal template releases the three-dimensional interconnected porous network of the hexagonal-boron nitride, thereby obtaining a 3D foam-like structure which meets the limitation of depositing an h-BN precursor on the 3D structure of the metal microlattice; converting the h-BN precursor on the 3D structure of the metal microlattice to h-BN; and removing the metal microlattice to form the h-BN microstructure that has a 3D structure (paragraph 36). Loeblein et al. teaches CVD process may include heating a porous metal template (paragraphs 36 and 41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the metal foam taught by Choi et al. for the porous metal substrate taught by Loeblein et al. to produce a 3Dhexagonal boron nitride foam structure.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Choi et al. teaches irradiating ultraviolet (UV) light to the material of the step (e) to form a polymer foam containing nano-sized pores through diffraction and interference of the UV light which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of , wherein photo-initiating the polymerization of the monomer includes passing collimated light through a photomask and wherein photo-initiating the polymerization of the monomer includes multi-photon lithography (paragraph 14).
Regarding claim 4, Choi et al. teaches electroless deposition of nickel (paragraph 19).
Regarding claim 7, Choi et al. teaches removing unwanted particles by cleaning the microlattice with a series of chemicals prior to electroless plating (paragraphs 16-19).
Regarding claim 17, Choi et al. teaches wherein the h-BN microstructure includes a plurality of interconnected h-BN tubes (paragraph 36).
Claim(s) 5, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. in view of Loeblein et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 7 and 17 above, and further in view of Schaedler et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 9,415,562).
Choi et al. in view of Loeblein et al. teaches a method of making a 3D hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) microstructure comprising photo-initiating polymerization of a monomer in a pattern of interconnected units to form a polymer microlattice that has a three-dimensional (3D) structure. Choi et al. in view of Loeblein et al. does not teach polystyrene or poly(methyl methacrylate).
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). Schaedler et al. teaches polystyrene and poly(methyl methacrylate) (column 2, lines 40-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use known polymers such as polystyrene and poly(methyl methacrylate) for the photoresistive material taught by Choi et al. in view of Loeblein et al. because using known materials cuts down on research and development costs.
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 571-270-5713 can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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 08/08/2026
Prosecution Insights