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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments, filed 2/10/2026, have been fully considered and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner notes the amendment to claims. Claim 4 remains cancelled. Claims 1-3, 5-20 remain pending with claims 15-17 withdrawn due to a restriction requirement.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are directed to newly added claim requirements that are specifically addressed in the prior art rejection of record.
To the extent pertinent to the Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner incorporate herein by reference Response to Arguments in office action dated 11/10/2026. Examiner cites here US 20140356549 A1, US 20150303056 A1, each of which discloses remote plasma generation of hydrogen results in low energy ground state hydrogen.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-14, 18-20 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.
Claim 1, 18 and 19 recites the limitation "an axial length to diameter ratio". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claims fail to require apertures that have a diameter (i.e. cylindrical). Here the claims merely recite “gas ports” and does not limit the gas ports to those that will have a diameter and thus this ratio lacks antecedent basis in the claims (i.e. square apertures do not have a diameter to satisfy this ratio). For the purpose of applying prior art, the examiner will interpret this as a generic aspect ratio (length to width), irrespective of the shape of the aperture.
Dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend and are similarly rejected.
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, 5-6, 11-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20180033727 by Lee et al. taken with Zhang et al. (Low-temperature remote plasma enhanced atomic layer deposition of graphene and characterization of its atomic level structure) further taken with US Patent 9514932 by Mallick et al. and US Patent Application Publication 20160017484 A1 by Kikuchi et al. and further with US Patent 8084339 by Antonelli et al. OR EP 3510624, hereinafter EP 324.
Lee discloses a method of depositing graphene on a metal surface of a substrate (0021), the method comprising: providing a substrate in a reaction chamber, wherein the substrate includes a metal surface (0021); and depositing graphene on the metal surface of the substrate, wherein the substrate is maintained at a temperature between about 200° C. and about 400° C. during deposition (0025, explicitly stating 200 oC or 250oC). Lee discloses selective deposition of graphene on a catalytic metal without graphene depositing on dielectric material (0025).
Lee discloses all that is taught above and discloses the plasma CVD process for the formation of graphene; including the hydrocarbons and hydrogen gas; however, fails to disclose the hydrogen plasma as claimed and not generating a plasma of the hydrocarbon precursors in the chamber. However, Zhang discloses plasma vapor deposition of graphene formation onto a catalytic metal and discloses the remote hydrogen radical injection including generating, from a hydrogen source gas, radicals of hydrogen in a remote plasma source that is positioned upstream of the one or more hydrocarbon precursors (experimental, Figure 1 and accompanying text); and introducing the radicals of hydrogen into the reaction chamber and toward the substrate, wherein the radicals of hydrogen react with the one or more hydrocarbon precursors to deposit graphene on the metal surface of the substrate (experimental, discussion, Figure 1(a) and accompanying text).
Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Lee, who discloses plasma deposition of graphene, to use the hydrogen radical remote plasma assisted deposition as Zhang discloses such will predictably and successfully deposit graphene.
Zhang references discloses using a remote plasma generator provide the plasma is created in a separate chamber and then transferred into the deposition chamber such that the neutral radicals (i.e. radicals in the ground state as neutral is neither positive or negative and thus reasonably reads on ground) are near the substrate and therefore reduce ion bombardment damage on the surface of the substrate, high plasma density with lower ion energy and dramatically reducing the processing temperature (page 7571 left column, first paragraph). Therefore using neutral radicals in low energy (ground state) would have been obvious as one would desire to reap the benefits as outlined by Zhang, that is to reduce/eliminate ion bombardment damage to the substrate surface.
As for the requirement of the precursor gas outlets for providing the hydrocarbon precursor and such outlets are positioned downstream from gas ports of the remote plasma source. The examiner notes that Zhang discloses using a gas port for the precursors that are positioned downstream from the gas port of the remote plasma source. Here, the scope of the claims fails to define the gas port of the remote plasma source or the gas precursor outlet and therefore, as shown by the annotated figure hereinafter, the prior art disclose the downstream position.
PNG
media_image1.png
382
546
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to the claimed showerhead, the examiner cites here Mallick, which, also in the art of carbon deposition using hydrogen radicals (column 4, lines 30-45) and discloses using hydrocarbons including benzene, toluene and those that include a double or triple bond such as ethylene, acetylene, propyne among others (column 3, lines 55-68). Mallick discloses remote plasma generation of the hydrogen to supply into a chamber while supplying the unactivated hydrocarbon so that the hydrogen activates the hydrocarbon in the process chamber. Mallick discloses the benefits of reacting the activated hydrogen with the hydrocarbon in the vapor phase in the environment above the substrate include the benefit of forming intermediaries that would allow better selective deposition into narrow substrate features (column 5, lines 10-30). Therefore, taking the references collectively, it would have been obvious to have modified Lee with Zhang to activate/decompose the hydrocarbon precursor using the hydrogen precursor in the processing chamber to reap the benefits as outlined by Mallick.
A full review of the specification illustrates that the activated hydrogen may be in the ground state near substrate when the excited hydrogen is remotely activated and no further energy is added in the chamber. As such is explicitly disclosed by Mallick, using this method to deposit the graphene, that is remotely activate hydrogen supplied into an chamber to active the hydrocarbon and adding no further energy would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and such will necessarily result in hydrogen being in the ground state at or near the substrate as evidenced by the applicant’s specification that discloses such will occur when no further energy is added to the remotely generated hydrogen.
Zhang references discloses using a remote plasma generator provide the plasma is created in a separate chamber and then transferred into the deposition chamber such that the neutral radicals (i.e. radicals in the ground state as neutral is neither positive or negative and thus reasonably reads on ground) are near the substrate and therefore reduce ion bombardment damage on the surface of the substrate, high plasma density with lower ion energy and dramatically reducing the processing temperature (page 7571 left column, first paragraph). Mallick additionally discloses that the plasma effluent into the deposition chamber can be neutral (column 8, lines 50-60). Therefore using neutral radicals would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as both Zhang and Mallick discloses neutral radicals into the deposition chamber and in the environment adjacent to the substrate.
Additionally, while the examiner maintains the position as set forth above with respect to the plurality of ports and outlets being obvious, the examiner cites Mallick, also in the art of remote plasma generation and discloses using a plurality of ports and outlets as claimed and the arrangement of the outlets for the precursor being downstream from the plurality of ports as claimed.
PNG
media_image2.png
600
1080
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, using a plurality of outlets for the precursor, positioned downstream from the plurality of ports from the remote plasma chamber, would have been obvious as such is explicitly taught by Mallick to provide the remote plasma source and precursor into the chamber for the deposition of a material.
As for the requirement that the radical diffuse out of the remote plasma source through a plurality of gas port of a showerhead and into the reaction chamber via gas port outlets, wherein the precursor outlets are downstream of the gas ports of the showerhead, this is met by the Mallick, where the gas ports of the precursor (1155) are downstream of the gas port outlets (1156). See Figure 3 A annotated below, wherein each of the gas port outlets as noted below are upstream of the outlet of the precursor.
PNG
media_image3.png
467
860
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, the examiner cites here Kikuchi which discloses a carbon film deposition method via remote plasma activation of a carbon gas supplied to the chamber (e.g. toluene) and discloses the precursor (G2) is supplied downstream of the outlets of the showerhead that supplies radicals from the plasma chamber (see Figure 1 and accompanying text). As such, taking the references collectively and all that is known to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to supply the carbon downstream of the showerhead outlets of the remote plasma generated gas as Kikuchi explicitly discloses that carbon formation via remote generated plasma can be performed by such an arrangement and thus predictable results would have followed.
As for the aspect ratio as claimed, the examiner notes that the prior art discloses and makes obvious using a plasma generated in a separate chamber and supplying the plasma gas via outlet or outlets in the processing chamber to achieve the benefits of supplying neutral plasma gases into the chamber for reacting with the hydrocarbon gas for depositing the film. Zhang references discloses using a remote plasma generator provide the plasma is created in a separate chamber and then transferred into the deposition chamber such that the neutral radicals (i.e. radicals in the ground state as neutral is neither positive or negative and thus reasonably reads on ground) are near the substrate and therefore reduce ion bombardment damage on the surface of the substrate, high plasma density with lower ion energy and dramatically reducing the processing temperature (page 7571 left column, first paragraph). Mallick additionally discloses that the plasma effluent into the deposition chamber can be neutral (column 8, lines 50-60). Kikuchi at Figure 3 which discloses the radicals interfacing with the wall of the outlet and thus would support the examiners finding that the outlet ports dimensions will at least in part effect the transition from radicals to ground state.
Antonelli also in the art of processing a substrate using a remote plasma and discloses supplying the plasma through multiple ports in a plate and discloses controlling the aspect ratio of the gas ports to achieve the desired ion flux through the plasma plate and discloses an aspect ratio of 3 or more will effectively provide an ion flux of zero to the processing chamber (column 5, lines 30-50). EP 624 discloses supplying the plasma through a perforated plate/grid to a substrate and discloses ion loss in the plasma will increase as the aperture ratio increases because the charged species passing through the apertures have an increase probability of contacting the sidewalls and being lost or neutralized (0006).
Therefore, taking the references collectively, as Zhang, Mallick and Kikuchi, all desire to remotely generate a plasma and prevent radicals from entering the chamber, it have been obvious to have provide the gas ports with an aspect ratio as claimed, as suggested by Antonelli, as Antonelli explicitly discloses that the ion flux through the apparatus is reduced to zero for an aspect ratio of 3 or more. Alternatively, EP 624 discloses that the aspect ratio is adjusted to have a direct effect on the ion loss through the gas port and thus explicitly discloses that the aspect ratio is a result effective variable, directly affecting the ions that pass through the aperature. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have determined the optimum aspect ratio through routine experimentation to reap the benefits of controlling/limiting/reducing the ions that flow from the remote plasma into the processing chamber.
As for the requirement of ground state at least in part due to the ratio of the plurality of gas ports, the “at least in part” does not provide any amount necessary as it relates to the dimensions that would effectuate the transition and based on the Applicant’s disclosure, the presence of the gas ports will necessarily “in part” contribute to the transition, even to minimal degree. Kikuchi at Figure 3 which discloses the radicals interfacing with the wall of the outlet and thus would support the examiners finding that the outlet ports dimensions will at least in part effect the transition from radicals to ground state. Antonelli and EP 624 discloses the aspect ratio will have a direct effect on the plasma effluent into the processing chamber and thus would support the position that the aspect ratio will be a part of the plasma species in the chamber.
Claims 2-3: Zhang discloses benzene (experimental).
Claim 5: Lee discloses a temperature that overlaps the claimed range (0025, stating 250-450C).
Claim 6: Lee discloses removing the copper oxide by exposing to the hydrogen plasma (0021-0023). Zhang discloses such at experimental.
Claim 11: Lee discloses copper (0022).
Claim 12: Lee discloses a semiconductor with a metal surface (figures 7 and accompanying text) and such would have a surface that “faces toward” the remote plasma source as evidenced by Zhang (see supplemental Figure 1). Mallick, also in the radical injection process for carbon deposition and discloses substrate facing the remote plasma source (see Figure 1) and downstream hydrocarbon and thus using this arrangement would have been obvious as predictable as Mallick discloses a known and suitable location for such an injection.
Claim 13: Lee discloses selective deposition of graphene on metal without graphene on dielectric material (0025).
Claim 14: Lee discloses a temperature within the range as claimed and thus would be inclusive of what can reasonably be considered “annealing” as claimed.
Claim 18: Lee and Zhang disclose all that is taught above and reads on the claims for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, the reaction of the radical source and the carbon precursors will occur in the broadly drafted “environment adjacent to the substrate” as the surface would read on this broadly drafted requirement.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee taken with Zhang, Mallick and Kikuchi and further with Antonelli OR EP 624 as applied above and further with WO 2014110446, hereinafter WO 446.
Claim 7: L Lee taken with Zhang, Mallick and Kikuchi and further with Antonelli OR EP 624 discloses all that is discussed above and Lee discloses removing the copper oxide via hydrogen plasma treatment; however, the reference fails to disclose the cyano radical. However, WO 446, also in the art of graphene deposition using hydrocarbons discloses hydrogen plasma with an inclusion of cyano ligand for removing the copper oxide and therefore including the cyano ligand would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because Lee disclose removing copper oxide to expose copper for the graphene deposition and WO 446 discloses using hydrogen plasma with an amount of cyano radicals provides the benefits of using the highly reactive cyano radicals to prepare the copper surface for graphene deposition (0054, 0056-0058).
Claim 8: WO 446 discloses the cyano radicals with the hydrogen plasma simultaneously and the substrate would be exposed to the hydrogen species and cyano species; however, because the claims include composing language, a portion in time of the pretreatment can be considered the plasma of the reducing species and the portion in time of the plasma can be a plasma containing the CN radicals (i.e. plasma containing CN radicals (while also containing reducing species will be before or after a treatment with a plasma containing the reducing species). Additionally, WO 446 discloses the individual steps can be divided into multiple substeps and such is well within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art (see 0054).
Claim 9-10: WO 446 discloses the cyano radicals with the hydrogen via a hydrogen and nitrogen cleaning gases and plasma simultaneously and the substrate would be exposed to the hydrogen species and cyano species. As for the plasma generation using remote plasma and the supply of the gases, such is taught by Zhang and Mallick and thus makes obvious such. Here, the Zhang disclose the hydrogen cleaning gas supply and remote plasma generation and WO 446 discloses the cleaning gas comprises H2- and N2 and thus using these cleaning gases in the remote plasma process of Zhang would have been obvious as predictable.
Claim 19-20: The prior art makes obvious these claims for the reasons set forth with respect to claims 7-10 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 11-14 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-13 of copending Application No. 18291200 (reference application) with Antonelli. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of US 18291200 fully encompass the claims of the instant application and therefore anticipate and/or make obvious such. As for the aspect ratio, such is made obvious by Antonelli as set forth above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7-10 and 19-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-13 of copending Application No. 18291200 (reference application), Antonelli and WO 446. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of US 18291200 fully encompass the claims of the instant application and therefore anticipate and/or make obvious such. US 18291200 fails to disclose the claimed pretreatment. However, such is taught by WO 446 as set forth above and therefore it would have been obvious to modify claims to pretreat as set forth by WO 446 for the reasons set forth above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 11-14 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of copending Application No. 18569100 (reference application) with Antonelli and Lee. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of US 18569100 discloses all the features of the instant claim; however selective deposition of graphene. However, such is taught by Lee as set forth above and therefore it would have been obvious to modify the claims of 18569100 to selectively deposit graphene. As for the aspect ratio, such is made obvious by Antonelli as set forth above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TUROCY whose telephone number is (571)272-2940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, and Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
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 on 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.
/DAVID P TUROCY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718