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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed 08/19/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 2 under 103(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Weissfloch et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 3,814,983).
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, 2, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahara et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0380213) in view of Koizumi et al. (JP 2017012970) in view of Weissfloch et al. (3,814,983).
Regarding claim 1, Tahara et al. teaches a boron nitride powder which can be used at a high filling rate and which can be used to manufacture a resin material with excellent thermal (heat) conductivity (paragraph 1). Tahara et al. teaches a boron nitride powder having an agglomerate structure in which scaly primary particles of hexagonal boron nitride aggregate to form secondary particles, where the major axis length of the primary particles is 10 μm, and the median size of the secondary particles is 40 μm which meets the limitation of hexagonal boron nitride powder comprising scaly primary particles of hexagonal boron nitride (paragraph 57). Tahara et al. teaches subjecting a boron nitride powder having a hexagonal structure to a plasma treatment in an atmosphere containing either or both of CO2 and CO in a total of 5 vol% or more and under a pressure of 1 Pa or more and 100 Pa or less which meets a broad and reasonable interpretation of plasma treatment method of plasma-treating a hexagonal boron nitride powder under reduced pressure (paragraphs 23 and 44). Tahara et al. teaches plasma treatment was performed by feeding 20 g of the raw boron nitride powder into a plasma irradiation device (paragraph 58). Tahara et al. does not teach the parts of the device such as a treatment container
Koizumi et al. teaches plasma powder processing apparatus (1) comprises cylindrical chamber (2) which is arranged sideways, cylindrical powder storage container (3) which can withdraw/insert in and out of one side of chamber, and can accommodate powder inside, pressure reduction unit which holds chamber and powder storage container from atmospheric pressure to low pressure, gas supply unit (7) which supplies gas for plasma production in chamber and powder storage container, and electrode (51a, 51b) which generates reduced pressure high frequency plasma by gas (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the plasma powder apparatus taught by Koizumi et al. for the method of treating scaly h-BN taught by Tahara et al. because it reduces the costs of research and development.
Tahara et al. in view of Koizumi et al. do not teach and cooling one or both of the treatment container and the electrode during the plasma treatment by using one or both of a blower and a heat exchanger.
Weissfloch et al. teaches an apparatus for generating plasma using electromagnetic energy in the microwave frequency range, having a source of microwave energy, a slow wave structure, conveying means for conveying microwave energy from the source to the slow wave structure, a plasma container and means for maintaining conditions of pressure and gas flow in the container (abstract). Weissfloch et al. teaches a forced flow of air was used to cool the plasma container 91, but circulation of a suitable cooling fluid could be used as well (column 13, lines 60-67). Weissfloch et al. teaches “particularly at higher pressures, and in the case of exothermic chemical reactions, the plasma may create sufficient heat to necessitate cooling the plasma container. This can be accomplished simply by a forced flow of air from any direction. Usually a longitudinal air flow provided by a fan or blower 18 is preferred, as the radiation shield 9 acts so as to guide the flow of cooling air along the plasma container 8. An alternate method of cooling could be the flow of a liquid having low dielectric losses, such as Dow Corning Type 200 Dielectric Fluid, or of a petroleum product known as BAYOL 35, through a concentric enclosure around the plasma container.” (column 15, lines 55-68; column 16, lines 1-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to cool one or both of the treatment container and the electrode during the plasma treatment taught by Tahara et al. in view of Koizumi et al. using a forced flow of air, .ie. a blower, and/or a flow of a liquid having low dielectric losses, i.e. a heat exchange, because the plasma may create sufficient heat to necessitate cooling the plasma container.
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 09/05/2026
Prosecution Insights