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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14, 16-19 and 21 in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Examiner’s Comment
Claim 1 recites “the dielectric constant” in line 3. It appears that the claim should recited “a dielectric constant”.
Claim 4 recites “the thermal conductivity” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recited “a thermal conductivity”.
Claim 5 recites “the density” in line 2. It appears that the claim should recited “a density”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-14 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (CN 109293957, see machine translated version) in view of Dichtel et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0037944).
Regarding claim 1, Feng et al. teach a two-dimensional covalent organic framework (paragraph [0002]), wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework comprises porous (paragraphs [0005], [0026]), covalently linked, layered structure (paragraph [0002]), wherein the dielectric constant k is as low as 1.19 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of less than 2.4 (paragraph [0007]).
Feng et al. fail to teach wherein the framework comprises a regularly porous structure. However, Dichtel et al. teach a two-dimensional covalent organic framework (page 1, paragraph [0009]), wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework comprises a pores in a repeating pattern (regularly porous) (page 3, paragraph [0040], page 11, paragraph [0054]), covalently linked, layered structure (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 3, paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porosity of Feng et al. to that of Dichtel et al. in order to provide vertical charge transport (Dichtel et al., page 3, paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Feng et al. teach wherein the dielectric constant k is as low as 1.19 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of less than 1.9 (paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Feng et al. teach a two-dimensional covalent organic framework (paragraph [0002]), wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework comprises porous (paragraphs [0005], [0026]), covalently linked, layered structure (paragraph [0002]), wherein the dielectric constant k is as low as 1.19 (paragraph [0007]).
Feng et al. fail to teach wherein the framework comprises a regularly porous structure. However, Dichtel et al. teach a two-dimensional covalent organic framework (page 1, paragraph [0009]), wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework comprises a regularly porous (page 3, paragraph [0040], page 11, paragraph [0054]), covalently linked, layered structure (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 3, paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porosity of Feng et al. to that of Dichtel et al. in order to provide vertical charge transport (Dichtel et al., page 3, paragraph [0040]).
Feng et al. and Dichtel et al. are silent on wherein thermal conductivity k is greater than 0.8 W-1 K-1 in a cross-plane direction. It is elementary that a mere recitation of a newly discovered property, inherently possessed by the things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art (In re Swinehart et al, 169 USPQ 226 at 229). It is inherent that the inclusion of the same two-dimensional covalent organic framework within Feng et al., as modified by Dichtel et al., would possess the same thermal conductivity as the instant application because it possesses all the other claimed constituents in the same structure. MPEP 2112.01
Regarding claim 4, Feng et al. teach a two-dimensional covalent organic framework (paragraph [0002]), wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework comprises porous (paragraphs [0005], [0026]), covalently linked, layered structure (paragraph [0002]), wherein the dielectric constant k is as low as 1.19 (paragraph [0007]).
Feng et al. fail to teach wherein the framework comprises a regularly porous structure. However, Dichtel et al. teach a two-dimensional covalent organic framework (page 1, paragraph [0009]), wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework comprises a regularly porous (page 3, paragraph [0040], page 11, paragraph [0054]), covalently linked, layered structure (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 3, paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porosity of Feng et al. to that of Dichtel et al. in order to provide vertical charge transport (Dichtel et al., page 3, paragraph [0040]).
Feng et al. and Dichtel et al. are silent on wherein the thermal conductivity anisotropy ratio is greater than 3 between an in-plane thermal conductivity and a cross-plane thermal conductivity. It is elementary that a mere recitation of a newly discovered property, inherently possessed by the things in the prior art, does not cause a claim drawn to those things to distinguish over the prior art (In re Swinehart et al, 169 USPQ 226 at 229). It is inherent that the inclusion of the same two-dimensional covalent organic framework within Feng et al., as modified by Dichtel et al., would possess the same thermal conductivity as the instant application because it possesses all the other claimed constituents in the same structure. MPEP 2112.01
Regarding claim 6, Feng et al. fail to teach wherein the covalent organic framework has a cross-plane thickness of less than 75 nm. However, Dichtel et al. teach a two-dimensional covalent organic framework (page 1, paragraph [0009]), wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework comprises a regularly porous (page 3, paragraph [0040], page 11, paragraph [0054]), covalently linked, layered structure (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 3, paragraph [0044]), wherein the covalent organic framework has a thickness of 5 nm to 1 micron which reads on Applicant’s claimed cross plane thickness of less than 75 nm (page 3, paragraph [0043], page 8, paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the covalent organic framework of Feng et al. to that of Dichtel et al. in order to provide a thin COF film (Dichtel et al., page 8, paragraph [0045]).
Regarding claims 8-10, Feng et al. fail to teach wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework is a boronate ester-linked COF. However, Dichtel et al. teach a two-dimensional covalent organic framework (page 1, paragraph [0009]), wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework comprises a regularly porous (page 3, paragraph [0040], page 11, paragraph [0054]), covalently linked, layered structure (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 3, paragraph [0044]), wherein the two-dimensional organic framework is a boronate ester-linked COF prepared from catechol and PBBA (page 3, paragraphs [0043], [0044], page 10, paragraph [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the boronate ester linked COF of Dichtel et al. in the two-dimensional covalent organic framework of Feng et al. in order to provide improved crystallinity and more ordered (Dichtel et al., page 1, paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 11, Feng et al. fail to teach a heterostructure, the heterostructure comprising the two-dimensional covalent organic framework and a templated substrate. However, Dichtel et al. teach a heterostructure, the heterostructure (page 3, paragraph [0042]) comprising a two-dimensional covalent organic framework (page 1, paragraph [0009]), wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework comprises a regularly porous (page 3, paragraph [0040], page 11, paragraph [0054]), covalently linked, layered structure (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 3, paragraph [0044]), and a templating substrate (page 3, paragraphs [0042], [0043], page 11, paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the templating substrate of Dichtel et al. with the two-dimensional covalent organic framework of Feng et al. in order to provide improved crystallinity and more ordered (Dichtel et al., page 1, paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 12, Feng et al. fail to teach wherein the templating substrate comprises monolayer graphene or monolayer MoS2. However, Dichtel et al. teach a heterostructure, the heterostructure (page 3, paragraph [0042]) comprising a two-dimensional covalent organic framework (page 1, paragraph [0009]), wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework comprises a regularly porous (page 3, paragraph [0040], page 11, paragraph [0054]), covalently linked, layered structure (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 3, paragraph [0044]), and a templating substrate (page 3, paragraphs [0042], [0043], page 11, paragraph [0063]), wherein the templating substrate comprises monolayer graphene (page 11, paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the templating substrate of Dichtel et al. with the two-dimensional covalent organic framework of Feng et al. in order to provide improved crystallinity and more ordered (Dichtel et al., page 1, paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Feng et al. fail to teach wherein the templating substrate comprises a support. However, Dichtel et al. teach a heterostructure, the heterostructure (page 3, paragraph [0042]) comprising a two-dimensional covalent organic framework (page 1, paragraph [0009]), wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework comprises a regularly porous (page 3, paragraph [0040], page 11, paragraph [0054]), covalently linked, layered structure (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 3, paragraph [0044]), and a templating substrate (page 3, paragraphs [0042], [0043], page 11, paragraph [0063]), wherein the templating substrate a support comprising Si (page 11, paragraphs [0064], [0065], page 12, paragraph [0066]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the templating substrate of Dichtel et al. with the two-dimensional covalent organic framework of Feng et al. in order to provide improved crystallinity and more ordered (Dichtel et al., page 1, paragraph [0010]).
Regarding claim 21, Feng et al. teach a capacitor (paragraphs [0070], [0071]), the capacitor comprising the two-dimensional covalent organic framework (paragraphs [0002], [0070], [0071]) comprises porous (paragraphs [0005], [0026]), covalently linked, layered structure (paragraph [0002]), wherein the dielectric constant k is as low as 1.19 (paragraph [0007]) positioned between two conductive plates (paragraphs [0070], [0071]).
Feng et al. fail to teach wherein the framework comprises a regularly porous structure. However, Dichtel et al. teach a two-dimensional covalent organic framework (page 1, paragraph [0009]), wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework comprises a regularly porous (page 3, paragraph [0040], page 11, paragraph [0054]), covalently linked, layered structure (page 1, paragraph [0009], page 3, paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the porosity of Feng et al. to that of Dichtel et al. in order to provide vertical charge transport (Dichtel et al., page 3, paragraph [0040]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (CN 109293957, see machine translated version) in view of Dichtel et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0037944), in further view of Yaghi et al. (US Patent Application No. 2010/0143693).
Feng et al. and Dichtel et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 5, Feng et al. fail to teach wherein the density is less than 1 g cm-3. However, Yaghi et al. teach a covalent organic framework (page 1, paragraph [0007]) comprising pores (page 1, paragraph [0009]), wherein the density is about 0.17 g/cm3 which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of less than 1 g/cm-------3 (page 1, paragraph [0009]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the density of Feng et al. to that of Yaghi et al. in order to provide adequate gas adsorption (Yaghi et al., page 10, paragraph [0127]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (CN 109293957, see machine translated version) in view of Dichtel et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0037944), in further view of Hoek et al. (US Patent Application No. 2008/0237126).
Feng et al. and Dichtel et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 7, Feng et al. fail to teach wherein the two-dimensional covalent organic framework has a root mean square roughness less than 5 nm. However, Hoek et al. teach a covalent organic framework (page 4, paragraph [0065]) having a root mean square roughness of 4 nm (Table 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the root mean square roughness of Feng et al. to that of Hoek et al. in order to have a less propensity to surface fouling (Hoek et al., page 15, paragraph [0198]).
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng et al. (CN 109293957, see machine translated version) in view of Dichtel et al. (US Patent Application No. 2014/0037944), in further view of Frischmann et al. (US Patent Application No. 2019/0326578).
Feng et al. and Dichtel et al. are relied upon as disclosed above.
Regarding claim 16, Feng et al. fail to teach a dielectric bilayer, the dielectric bilayer comprising two-dimensional covalent organic framework and a blocking layer configured to minimize leakage current. However, Frischmann et al. teach a dielectric bilayer (page 3, paragraph [0034], page 5, paragraph [0059]) comprising a covalent organic framework (page 8, paragraph [0084]) and a second membrane (blocking layer configured to minimize leakage current) (page 10, paragraphs [0107], [0108], page 11, paragraph [0109]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the second membrane of Frischmann et al. with the covalent organic framework of Feng et al. in order to provide thermal shutdown, high temperature dimensional stability and oxidative stability (Frischmann et al., page 11, paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, Feng et al. fail to teach wherein the blocking layer comprises an inorganic dielectric layer. However, Frischmann et al. teach a dielectric bilayer (page 3, paragraph [0034], page 5, paragraph [0059]) comprising a covalent organic framework (page 8, paragraph [0084]) and a second membrane (blocking layer configured to minimize leakage current) (page 10, paragraphs [0107], [0108], page 11, paragraph [0109]), wherein the second membrane (blocking layer) comprises aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide or titanium dioxide (page 10, paragraph [0108]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the second membrane of Frischmann et al. with the covalent organic framework of Feng et al. in order to provide thermal shutdown, high temperature dimensional stability and oxidative stability (Frischmann et al., page 11, paragraph [0109]).
Regarding claim 19, Feng et al. fail to teach wherein the blocking layer has a cross plane thickness of less than 10 nm. However, Frischmann et al. teach a dielectric bilayer (page 3, paragraph [0034], page 5, paragraph [0059]) comprising a covalent organic framework (page 8, paragraph [0084]) and a second membrane (blocking layer configured to minimize leakage current) (page 10, paragraphs [0107], [0108], page 11, paragraph [0109]) having a thickness of between about 5 nanometers and 20 micrometers which reads on Applicant’s claimed range of less than 10 nm (page 8, paragraph [0090], page 10, paragraph [0108]).
It would have been obvious to a person of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the second membrane of Frischmann et al. with the covalent organic framework of Feng et al. in order to provide thermal shutdown, high temperature dimensional stability and oxidative stability (Frischmann et al., page 11, paragraph [0109]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHINESSA GOLDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5543. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 4:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached on 571-272-1490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Chinessa T. Golden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 1/14/2026