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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/26/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/27/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 16-17, 20-22, 24, 34 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veerasamy (US 2011/0030991) in view of Dimitrakopoulos et al. (US 2014/0342127).
Regarding claim 16, Veerasamy teaches thin films comprising graphene (Paragraph [0001]). The thin films may be formed, debonded and transferred from a mother substrate as illustrated in figure 7 (Paragraph [0027]). The techniques involve a stacked sequence of a back support (“carrier base substrate”), a release layer (“release layer”), a catalyst layer (“protective layer”), a graphene layer (“transfer layer”) and a polymer layer (“contact layer”) (Paragraph [0055]; Fig. 7). The catalyst layer is preferably formed from nickel in order to facilitate graphene crystallization (“the transfer layer is grown on the protective layer”) (Paragraph [0040]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the catalyst layer shields the graphene layer from the release layer and the back support (“the protective layer shields the transfer layer”).
Veerasamy is silent with respect to the polymer layer being a layer made of oxide.
Dimitrakopoulos teaches electronic devices including a graphene monolayer (Paragraph [0003]). The graphene layer is formed on a stressor layer and is then applied to a target substrate as illustrated in figures 5-8 (Paragraphs [0040]-[0043]; Paragraphs [0058]-[0063]). The target substrate is further provided with a layer of silicon oxide which is taught to be capable of holding graphene (Paragraph [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the polymer layer of Veerasamy, which is required to be a support for graphene, such that the layer is formed from silicon oxide, which is taught to be a material capable of holding graphene as described by Dimitrakopoulos.
Veerasamy is silent with respect to the carrier base substrate being at least partially transparent and configured to transmit laser radiation therethrough, the release layer being configured to absorb the laser radiation transmitted through the carrier base substrate and to undergo a change in adhesive properties in response to the absorbed laser radiation, the protective layer being configured to shield the transfer layer form the transmitted laser radiation that is not absorbed by the at least one release layer, and the transfer layer is detachable from the carrier base substrate together with the protective layer by the laser radiation acting on the at least one release layer.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that if the back support, the release layer, the catalyst layer, equivalent to the protective layer, the graphene layer, and the polymer layers are all formed from the same materials as applicant’s invention, then they must have identical properties as well and may act in an identical manner as applicant’s invention. MPEP 2112.01: Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
In the instant case, the preferred material for the carrier base substrate is glass in order to be at least partially permeable for electromagnetic radiation (PGPUB, Paragraph [0033]). The release layer may be formed from a selective group of materials including ZnO (PGPUB, Paragraphs [0133]-[0139]). The protective layer is preferably formed from nickel (PGPUB, Paragraph [0194]). The transfer layer is preferably graphene (PGPUB, Paragraph [0032]). The contact layer is an oxide, preferably silicon oxide (PGPUB, Paragraph [0034]).
Veerasamy teaches the back support layer being formed from glass products (Paragraph [0039]). The release layer is formed from ZnO (Paragraph [0055]). The catalyst layer may be formed from nickel (Paragraph [0040]). Veerasamy teaches the graphene layer as discussed above. Lastly, the combination of Veerasamy and Dimitrakopoulos teaches the polymer layer being a silicon oxide.
As such, the layers of Veerasamy are formed from the same materials as applicant’s invention. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the layers would have identical properties or would be configured in such a way to have identical properties, including the carrier base substrate being at least partially transparent and configured to transmit laser radiation therethrough, the release layer being configured to absorb the laser radiation transmitted through the carrier base substrate and to undergo a change in adhesive properties in response to the absorbed laser radiation, the protective layer being configured to shield the transfer layer form the transmitted laser radiation that is not absorbed by the at least one release layer, and the transfer layer is detachable from the carrier base substrate together with the protective layer by the laser radiation acting on the at least one release layer.
Regarding claim 17, Veerasamy teaches the thin films as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, the graphene layer is considered the transfer layer.
Regarding claim 20, Veerasamy teaches the thin films as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, the various layers of Veerasamy are identical to the preferred materials as applicant’s invention and would act in a similar manner.
Regarding claim 21, Veerasamy teaches the thin films as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, the catalyst layer is formed from nickel, which is appreciated as being a preferred material having a solubility for carbon in applicant’s specification (PGPUB, Paragraph [0032]-[0033]; [0035]-[036]).
Regarding claim 22, Veerasamy teaches the thin films as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, the catalyst layer is formed from nickel, which is appreciated as being a preferred material having impermeability to electromagnetic radiation (PGPUB, Paragraph [0032]-[0033]; [0035]-[036]).
Regarding claim 24, Veerasamy teaches the thin films as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, the catalyst layer may be formed from nickel (“monocrystalline metal layer”).
Regarding claim 34, Veerasamy teaches the thin films as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, the catalyst layer may be formed from nickel.
Regarding claim 38, Veerasamy teaches the thin films as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, the polymer layer is formed from silicon oxide as taught by Dimitrakopoulos.
Regarding claim 39, Veerasamy teaches the thin films as discussed above with respect to claim 16. As discussed above, the various layers of Veerasamy are identical to the preferred materials as applicant’s invention and would act in a similar manner, including the polymer layer being configured to form a fusion bond with a further contact layer arranged on the product substrate.
Regarding claim 40, Veerasamy teaches the thin films as discussed above with respect to claim 39. As discussed above, the various layers of Veerasamy are identical to the preferred materials as applicant’s invention and would act in a similar manner, including being configured to form a fusion bond with a further contact layer made from the same material.
Claims 18 and 32-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veerasamy (US 2011/0030991) in view of Dimitrakopoulos et al. (US 2014/0342127) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Chiba et al. (US 2014/0353278).
Regarding claims 18 and 32-33, Veerasamy teaches the thin films as discussed above with respect to claim 16. Veerasamy further teaches the catalyst layers being formed from an alloy of nickel and copper (Paragraph [0040]). Additionally, after the debonding of the catalyst and graphene layer from the back support, the catalyst layer may be also released from the graphene layer allowing the polymer layer to act as the support for the graphene layer (Paragraph [0055]-[0057]).
Veerasamy is silent with respect to the roughness between the catalyst layer and the graphene layer being less than 100 microns (claim 18), being less than 10 microns (claim 32) and being less than 1 micron (claim 33).
Chiba teaches a copper foil for producing graphene (Paragraph [0001]). The copper foil has a roughness of less than 0.25 microns in order to ease transfer of the graphene sheet (Paragraph [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the invention to form the nickel/copper alloy catalyst layer to be later removed with a surface roughness of less than 0.25 microns in order to ease transfer of the graphene layer as taught by Chiba.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-10, applicant argues that Veerasamy and Dimitrakopoulos fails to teach or render each of the limitations of claim 16 as obvious. The limitations of claim 16 are not taught such that the carrier substrates of Veerasamy are separated using chemical means rather than the laser radiation required by the claims. As such, Veerasamy may teach identical materials for the layers, but fails to teach the layers being configured to direct the laser radiation in order remove the transfer layer from the carrier substrate. Furthermore, Veerasamy only teaches a contact layer being a polymer layer and not an oxide layer. Dimitrakopoulos fails to cure this deficiency such that the reference fails to disclose both a protective layer and a contact layer on a transfer layer.
The examiner is unpersuaded by applicant’s arguments such that each of the limitations concerning the laser radiation are limitations which are specific to the use of the carrier substrates rather than the final product itself. While the limitations attempt to define the materials based on how they react, the instant specification lists various preferred materials for each of the layers and if the prior art teaches each of the layers and their preferred materials, the multilayer structure is capable of acting in the same manner as applicant’s invention including all of the limitations concerning the “configured to” language. This is the case for the combination of Veerasamy and Dimitrakopoulos such that the combination teaches each of the layers required by applicant’s invention and their preferred materials (See rejection above). Therefore, the examiner contends that the identical structures of the combination and applicant’s invention are additionally capable of acting in identical manners, including having all of the “configured to” limitations.
Concerning the combination of Veerasamy and Dimitrakopoulos, the examiner still believes the combination is proper such that Dimitrakopoulos is not relied upon in order to teach the limitations of the release layer and the protective layer which are already taught by Veerasamy. Instead, the Dimitrakopoulos reference is relied upon in order to teach the polymer layer to be formed from silicon oxide which is described to be a sufficient material for holding graphene (Paragraph [0059]). Furthermore, as shown in figures 3A-3B and 4 of Dimitrakopoulos, the silicon oxide layer is located closer to the handle substrate (Paragraphs [0053]-[0058]). Therefore, the examiner contends that the silicon oxide layer is considered equivalent to the polymer layer of Veerasamy and it would have been obvious to form the polymer layer from silicon oxide which is described as a material capable of holding graphene.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL P DILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, MARIA V EWALD can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/DANIEL P DILLON/Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights