DETAILED ACTION
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) 22-31, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (CN101708828A; Translation provided by Google 09/25/2025) in view of Ying et al. (Surface wetting processing on BNNT films by selective plasma modes; Chin Sci Bull September; Vol.58 No.27; 2013).
Regarding claim 22, Bai et al. teaches a method for purifying boron nitride nanotubes which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of a process for purifying boron nitride nanotube (BNNT) material to remove impurities (page 1). Bai et al. teaches the boron nitride nanotubes treated in step 1 for 0.5 hours to 6 hours under the conditions of air or oxygen flow rate of 1 L/min and temperature of 550° C. to 950° C which meets the limitation the process comprising: heating the BNNT material at a first temperature for a first duration to remove boron impurities (page 2/6). Bai et al. teaches
the oxidation is performed at a temperature of 600° C. to 900° C. for 1 hour to 5 which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of heating the BNNT material at a second temperature greater than the first temperature for a second duration to remove boron nitride impurities (page 3/6). Bai et al. teaches washed in deionized water for 0.5 hours to 10 hours, and the temperature of the deionized water is 50°C to 100°C which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of heating the BNNT material at a third temperature less than the second temperature for a third duration to remove boron oxide impurities (page 2/6). Bai et al. does not teach wherein the BNNT material is in the presence of an insert gas and a hydrogen feedstock during the first duration.
Ying et al. teaches superhydrophobic BNNT films change to hydrophilic by N2 and N2/H2 plasma, respectively (page 3405). It would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success to use inert gas and a hydrogen feed such as N2/H2 for the method of purifying taught by Bai et al. because N2/H2 does not degrade BNNT.
Regarding claim 36, Bai et al. teaches the boron nitride nanotubes treated in step 1 for 0.5 hours to 6 hours under the conditions of air or oxygen flow rate of 1 L/min and temperature of 550° C. to 950° C (page 2/6). It is the position of the Office air contains water vapor and hydrogen gas and thus meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of wherein the hydrogen feedstock is at least one of water vapor and hydrogen gas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32, 34, 37 and 40 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.
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 571-270-5827. 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 09/25/2025