Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/503,838

METHOD OF MANUFACTURING HEXAGONAL BORON NITRIDE MULTILAYER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 07, 2023
Examiner
CHEN, BRET P
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sookmyung Women'S University Industry-Academic Cooperation Foundation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
944 granted / 1122 resolved
+19.1% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+16.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
1151
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.4%
-39.6% vs TC avg
§103
50.4%
+10.4% vs TC avg
§102
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
§112
27.7%
-12.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1122 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 12/03/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. It is noted that the abstract begins with “Provided is”. The examiner suggests its deletion. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-2, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2015/0086460) in view of KR 20200046910A (abstract) and Shi et al. (WO 2020/057672 A1). Kim teaches a method for producing hexagonal boron nitride film using borazine as a precursor (title) by CVD in which borazine is decomposed into boron and nitrogen at high temperature to form a hexagonal boron nitride film on the surface of a metal catalyst substrate (0010). In one embodiment, the catalyst can be iron (0051). However, the reference fails to teach a tube and the claimed temperature range. It is first noted that a reaction chamber is disclosed (0054). One skilled in the art would reasonably expect that the deposition would readily occur in a reaction chamber regardless of the geometric configuration of the reaction chamber. Hence, it would have been obvious to utilize a tube with the expectation of success in the absence of a showing of criticality. Regardless, KR’910 teaches of growing hexagonal boron nitride in a reaction space within a main quartz tube (abstract). It would have been obvious to utilize a tube as a reaction space in Kim with the expectation of success because KR’910 teaches of using a quartz tube to grow hexagonal boron nitride In addition, the reference fails to teach the claimed temperature range. Shi teaches a method for preparing a multi-layer hexagonal boron nitride film (abstract) at a temperature between 800-1500oC (p.5 lines 8-14). It would have been obvious to utilize the temperature range of Shi in the process of Kim with the expectation of success because Shi teaches of using an overlapping temperature range to prepare hexagonal boron nitride. Regarding claim 2, Shi teaches Al2O3 (p.6 lines 12-32). Regarding claim 8, Kim teaches borazine (title). Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2015/0086460) in view of KR 20200046910A (abstract) and Shi et al. (WO 2020/057672 A1) and further in view of Schleich et al. (GB 2192643). The combination of Kim/KR’910/Shi fails to teach the appropriate heater materials. Schleich teaches of forming boron nitride layers (p.2 lines 3-7) using silicon carbide heaters (p.4 lines 15-22). It would have been obvious to utilize silicon carbide heaters in the combination with the expectation of success because Schleich teaches of using silicon carbide heaters to form boron nitride layers. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 9-16 are allowed. The prior art references fail to teach melting and solidifying a catalyst substrate by the claimed method steps. Claims 4-7 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. The prior art references fail to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 4, from which claims 5-7 depend. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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. /BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1715 12/18/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 07, 2023
Application Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595563
SUBSTRATE PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595554
METHOD FOR AREA-SELECTIVE GROWTH OF NOBLE METAL THIN FILMS USING ATOMIC LAYER DEPOSITION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590364
CYCLICAL DEPOSITION METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12577661
METHOD OF FORMING A COATING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577677
ABRASION-RESISTANT COATINGS FOR HIGH-TEMPERATURE SUBSTRATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+16.6%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1122 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month