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. Specification The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Throughout the claims Applicant recites a “self-assembled boron arsenide”. It is not clear what this terminology means. The specification does not provide any guidance as to what “self-assembled” means. Clarification is required. 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. Claim s 1-3, 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solc (US 5,232,970-appears on the PTO-892) . Solc teaches a ceramic-filled thermally-conductive composite for use in microelectronic applications includes a substantially homogeneous mixture of a solidified polymeric material and an adamantine-structured ceramic filler, such as aluminum nitride or boron nitride, wherein the solidified polymeric material is substantially continuous (see abstract) . T he composite of Solc has a thermal conductivity from about 0.8 to about 10 Watts/m.K. at 30.degree (see col. 2, lines 30-41). With respect to the filler that has an adamantine structure, Solc teaches that boron arsenide also meets that requirement (see col. 2, lines 62-67) . Certain polymeric materials which are especially suitable for making the thermally-conductive composites of this invention include a modified epoxy resin , polycyanate, and a fusible semi-crystalline polyamide (see col. 3, lines 13-31). Solc teaches that the composite has a modulus of around 10 Gpa (see Table 5). Solc teaches the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below. Solc does not specifically teach that the boron arsenide is “self-assembled”. However, no unobviousness is seen in this difference because in the absence of unexpected results the skilled artisan would have the expect ation that the boron arsenide of Solc would perform as well as a self-assembled boron arsenide. Claim s 1-3 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (US 20210035885-appears on the PTO-892) . Hu teaches a device that i ncludes a boron arsenide substrate (see abstract ). In some embodiments, the device includes: (1) a boron arsenide substrate; and (2) an integrated circuit disposed in or over the boron arsenide substrate. In additional embodiments of Hu , the device includes: (1) an active or passive component; (2) a heat sink; and (3) a thermal interface material disposed between the active or passive component and the heat sink and including boron arsenide (see para 0005-0006). Devices or applications can have a boron arsenide -based material in physical contact or non-physical contact with a heat source, as long as heat is conducted, collected, dissipated or otherwise regulated through the boron arsenide- based material. Examples include computers, mobile devices, and any other devices including circuits or other components that can benefit from heat dissipation or conduction (see para 0023) . The boron arsenide c an be in the form of particles, such as nanoparticles dispersed in a polymer. The polymer can be selected from, for example, epoxies, silicones, urethanes, and acrylates, among other polymers (see para 0030) . Hu meets the limitations of the claims other than the differences that are set forth below. Hu does not specifically teach that the boron arsenide is “self-assembled”. However, no unobviousness is seen in this difference because in the absence of unexpected results the skilled artisan would have a reasonable expect ation that the boron arsenide of Solc would perform as well as a “ self-assembled ” boron arsenide. With respect to the claimed device (claim 12), Hu does not specifically teach that the device has a chip. However, it is well known that computers and other electronics are equipped with chips. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CEPHIA D TOOMER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1126 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Prem Singh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6368 . 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. /CEPHIA D TOOMER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771 18264571/20260224