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 2, 4-6 and 12 canceled
Claims 1, 3 and 20 amended
Claims 21-25 new
Claims 1, 3, 7-11, 13-25 pending
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-11, 13-14, 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasel’850 (PG Pub 2015/0158850 A1), in view of Grobert (PG Pub 2015/0064098 A1).
Consider Claims 1 and 3, Fasel’850 teaches the process of forming graphene sheet [0089] 5,5'-(6,11-Dihalo-1,4-diphenylt riphenylen-2,3-diyl)dipyrimidine (C42H26X2) having element from group 15, such as nitrogen, where X is Iodide [0046], [0089].
PNG
media_image1.png
428
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
464
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fasel’850 teaches step (A) process of providing polycyclic aromatic monomer (graphene precursor) onto a solid substrate and subsequently polymerizing to a linear polymer on the surface of the substrate [0066], performing the process of depositing of the polycyclic monomer compound on a flat metal surface (catalyst) such as copper [0067], using a vacuum sublimation deposition processor (where the sublimation process change the chemical compound from solid phase into vapor phase) as chemical vapor deposition (CVD) [0072]-[0073]. Fasel’850 teaches the step (B) process of polymerizing is induced by thermal activation at a temperature range from 0℃ to 500°C [0076]-[0077], and performing complete cyclodehydrogenation as part of step (B) [0081], where this inducting polymerization step using cyclodehydrogenation reaction forms graphene sheet on the metal substrate surface [0083]. Fasel’850 teaches the polycyclic aromatic monomer (graphene precursor) to include the compound having the following formula 1, where X is iodine [0046]. In the case where the claimed ranges, “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Fasel’850 does not teach the copper substrate is polycrystalline copper.
However, Grobert is in the prior art of forming graphene using CVD [0014], graphene such as graphene sheet [0033], teaches in the process of forming graphene using polycrystalline copper substrate [0007].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Fasel’850 with Grobert to orient the graphene domains based on the crystallographic orientation of the polycrystalline copper [0064], to including producing a detectable D peak for the graphene film, that was not precent in the single orientation [0056], as this would be beneficial to the growth of graphene nanoribbon [0033].
Consider Claims 7-9, Fasel’850 teaches the polycyclic aromatic monomer (graphene precursor) to include 6,11-dihalo-1,2,3,4-tetraphenyltriphenylene (C42H26X2) having carbon (C) atoms specifically substituted with group 15 elements, where X is I [0046].
PNG
media_image2.png
464
622
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Consider Claims 10-11, Fasel’850 teaches the depositing of the polycyclic monomer compound on a flat metal surface (catalyst) such as copper [0067].
Consider Claim 13, Fasel’023 teaches the process of forming graphene sheet by raising the temperature to the range of 0-500C [0077], would be obvious to skilled person that would induce in a fully planar graphene sheet, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
Consider Claim 14, Fasel’023 teaches the process of forming graphene sheet using vacuum system [0072].
Consider Claim 16, Fasel’850 teaches the depositing graphene monolayer [0108].
Consider Claims 17-20, Fasel’850 teaches the polycyclic monomer compound (graphene precursor) having doped Boro, Sulphur and nitrogen, or a combination thereof [0043].
Consider Claims 21-25, the combined Fasel’850 (with Grobert) teaches the previously taught in claim 3, including the processing temperature range of 0-500℃ (Fasel’850, [0076]-[0077]), including forming continuous graphene layer (Grobert, [0035]), and a graphene monolayer layer (Grobert, [0034]), with a size order up to 10 centimeters, including 1 cm2 (Grobert, [0035]), under CVD processing system with processing pressure less than 1 Torr, including 0.5 Torr (Grobert, [0025]-[0027]), and vacuum sublimation deposition (CVD) process under pressure of 10-1 to 10-11 mbar (0.075 Torr to 7.5x10-11 Torr) (Fase’850, [0072]-[0073]). Where the graphene growth is on the polycrystalline Cu substrate having grain boundary (Grobert, [0007], [0032]), resulting in growing the graphene monolayer with a continuous and a uniform film over the entire grain boundaries of the polycrystalline Cu substrate, with reasonable and predictable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fasel’850 (PG Pub 2015/0158850 A1), in view of Grobert (PG Pub 2015/0064098 A1), in further view of Ahn (PG Pub 2012/0282419 A1).
Consider Claim 15, the combined Fasel’850 (with Grobert) teaches the process of forming graphene sheet [0046], using catalytic substrate [0103].
The combined Fasel’850 (with Grobert) does not teach the substrate to be flexible substrate.
However, Ahn is in the prior art of forming graphene film (abstract), teaches the process of forming graphene layer on metal such as Copper, where the metal catalyst on the flexible substrate [0042], where the flexible substrate is polymeric material [0043].
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Fasel’850 (with Grobert) with Ahn to use copper layer on plastic flexible as a graphene substrate, to provide graphene synthesis with roll-to-roll process [0008].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 08/06/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 3, 7-11, 13-25 under 102/103a have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Fasel’850 with Grobert.
The previously applied 112 claims rejection, in light of the amended claim are now withdrawn.
The applicant argued against the combination of Fasel with Grobert, on the ground that the prior art of Fasel discloses the use of highly order single crystal of An (111) thin film on mica [0100], as this substrate would lead to precise structural control/atomically precise graphene/GNRs film, as Grobert disclose the graphene properties are "crucially dependent on edge geometries, grain boundaries and relative crystallographic orientation." (Grobert [0002]). Grobert further explains that, because graphene domains nucleate on differently oriented grains, "[a]s the individual domains grow and coalesce, structural defects will inevitably be introduced into the film that will degrade the properties of large-area films." (Grobert [0003]). Grobert likewise teaches that the "shape, orientation, edge geometry and thickness" of graphene domains "strongly depend on the crystallographic orientation of the polycrystalline Cu." (Grobert, [0064]). Therefore, the combination would not produce an atomically precise GNRs having precisely controlled widths and smooth edges by replacing its highly ordered substrate environment with a heterogeneous polycrystalline Cu substrate. Additionally, the applicant against Grobert disclose the forming of bilayer, and the that “as the individual domains grow and coalesce, structural defects will inevitably be introduced into the film that will degrade the properties of large-area films” [0003]. As this combination would lead to variation in graphene morphology, edge geometry, thickness, and structural defects upon domain coalescence.
However, Fasel disclosure of single crystalline is for gold film [0108], not for Cu film, as Fasel discloses the use of copper film [0067] without specifying the crystallinity or teaching away from growing graphene on polycrystalline Cu substrate, enabling the combination with Grobert.
Moreover, Fasel’s precise structural control and smooth edge for GNR does not conflict with the Grobert’s process of controlling the structure and edge geometry, as stated in [0006]. As “precise structural control and smooth edge” and “controlling the structure and edge geometry” is the same, as this would be beneficial to the growth of graphene nanoribbon (Grobert, [0033]).
Furthermore, the graphene “bilayer”, Grobert disclose that the “bilayer” is another choice for forming the graphene, as “monolayer” is also a choice of forming the graphene film (claim 16).
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
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 Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM 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, 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights