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
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 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, 6, 7 and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii (JP 2019040921) of record, in view of Katagiri (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0269157), in view of Miyazaki (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0012846), in view of Heyden (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2020/0360902) of record
Regarding Claim 1
FIG.2 of Fujii discloses a film forming method comprising: preparing a substrate that includes a first conductive film (4); forming, on the first conductive film, a composite layer that includes layers of graphene (3) and includes, as dopant atoms, an intercalation layer (2); and forming, on the composite layer, a second conductive film (1) which is electrically connected to the first conductive film via the composite layer, wherein the intercalation layer between a layer of graphene closest to the first conductive film among the layers of graphene and the first conductive film, and wherein the intercalation layer between a layer of graphene closest to the second conductive film among the layers of graphene and the second conductive film (FIG. 7).
Fujii is silent with respect to “a substrate that includes a base substrate”; the composite layer “includes, as dopant atoms, a transition metal from 4th period to 6th period in a periodic table, excluding lanthanoids, between the layers of graphene”; and “the transition metal is Ti, wherein the transition metal is deposited through a plasma sputtering method”.
FIG. 6 of Katagiri discloses a similar film forming method, comprising: preparing a substrate that includes a base substrate (5); a first conductive film (3) that is formed on the base substrate; and a composite layer that includes layers of graphene (1) on the first conductive film.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujii, as taught by Katagiri. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fujii in the above manner for purpose of forming semiconductor IC and the like ([0059] of Katagiri).
Fujii as modified by Katagiri is silent with respect to the composite layer “includes, as dopant atoms, a transition metal from 4th period to 6th period in a periodic table, excluding lanthanoids, between the layers of graphene”; and “the transition metal is Ti, wherein the transition metal is deposited through a plasma sputtering method”.
FIG. 8 of Miyazaki discloses a similar film forming method, comprising a composite layer that includes layers of graphene (1) and includes, as dopant atoms, a transition metal from 4th period to 6th period in a periodic table, excluding lanthanoids, between the layers of graphene; wherein the transition metal is disposed between layers of the multilayer graphene.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujii, as taught by Miyazaki. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fujii in the above manner for purpose of reducing resistance ([0004] of Miyazaki).
Fujii as modified by Katagiri and Miyazaki is silent with respect to “the transition metal is Ti, wherein the transition metal is deposited through a plasma sputtering method”.
FIG. 1 of Heyden discloses a similar film forming method, wherein the transition metal is Ti [0046], and the transition metal is deposited through a plasma sputtering method [0047]. Depositing titanium through a plasma sputtering method is common in the art, see, for example, [0062] of US 20100120238 for documentary evidence.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fujii, as taught by Heyden, because such process substitution or replacement would have been considered a mere substitution of art-recognized equivalent values ([0046] of Heyden), MPEP 2144.06. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fujii in the above manner for purpose of controlling mobility ([0029] of US 20230088634 by Lin provide documentary evidence).
Regarding Claim 2
The limitation “the transition metal has an open-shell d-orbital, and has 1 or more and 9 or less d-electrons in the open-shell d-orbital” is related to material property. Where the claimed and prior art products are identi-cal or substantially identical in structure or composi-tion, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either antici-pation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
MPEP2112.01.
Regarding Claim 6
FIG. 2 of Fujii discloses the first conductive film is a metal film containing Cu, W, Mo, Co, or Ru, or a semiconductor film containing a dopant.
Regarding Claim 7
FIG. 2 of Fujii discloses forming the graphene in one or more layers and three or fewer layers and depositing the transition metal.
Regarding Claim 11
FIG. 2 of Fujii discloses the first conductive film is a metal film containing Cu, W, Mo, Co, or Ru, or a semiconductor film containing a dopant.
Claims 8 and 11-13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujii, Katagiri, Miyazaki and Heyden, in view of Bao (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2013/0113102) of record.
Regarding Claim 8
Fujii as modified by Katagiri, Miyazaki and Heyden discloses Claim 7.
Fujii as modified by Katagiri, Miyazaki and Heyden is silent with respect to “the substrate includes an insulating film formed on the first conductive film and a recess that penetrates the insulating film to expose the first conductive film, the composite layer is formed on a bottom surface and a side surface of the recess, and the second conductive film is filled in the recess”.
FIG. 6 of Bao discloses a similar film forming method, wherein the substrate (100) includes an insulating film (108) formed on the first conductive film (107) and a recess that penetrates the insulating film to expose the first conductive film, the composite layer (302) is formed on a bottom surface and a side surface of the recess, and the second conductive film (314) is filled in the recess.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to modify the method of Fujii, as taught by Bao. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Fujii in the above manner for purpose of blocking Cu diffusion and enhancing performance and reliability ([0010] of Bao).
Regarding Claim 11
FIG. 6 of Bao discloses the first conductive film is a metal film containing Cu, W, Mo, Co, or Ru, or a semiconductor film containing a dopant [0022].
Regarding Claim 12
FIG. 6 of Bao discloses forming the graphene in one or more layers and three or fewer layers and depositing the transition metal.
Regarding Claim 13
FIG. 6 of Bao discloses the substrate (100) includes an insulating film (108) formed on the first conductive film (107) and a recess that penetrates the insulating film to expose the first conductive film, the composite layer (302) is formed on a bottom surface and a side surface of the recess, and the second conductive film (314) is filled in the recess.
Pertinent Art
Meng (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2022/0216101) discloses a film forming method comprising: preparing a substrate that includes a base substrate and a first conductive film that is formed on the base substrate; forming, on the first conductive film, a composite layer that includes layers of graphene; and forming, on the composite layer, a second conductive film which is electrically connected to the first conductive film via the composite layer. Yang (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2016/0005648) discloses a film forming method comprising: preparing a substrate that includes a base substrate and a first conductive film that is formed on the base substrate; forming, on the first conductive film, a composite layer that includes layers of graphene; and forming, on the composite layer, a second conductive film which is electrically connected to the first conductive film via the composite layer. Costa (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2018/0017473) discloses a graphene layer including, as dopant atoms, a transition metal (1) from 4th period to 6th period in a periodic table, excluding lanthanoids. U.S. Patent No. 6,248,633 discloses depositing Ti by plasma sputtering. Pertinent art also includes U.S. Patent No. 6,156,648, Colombo (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0207002) and Choi (KR 2013099535).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHENG-BAI ZHU whose telephone number is (571)270-3904. The examiner can normally be reached on 11am – 7pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chad Dicke can be reached on (571)270-7996. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/SHENG-BAI ZHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights