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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/16/2026 has been entered.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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, 4-7, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura US 20100320546 in view of Anderson et al. 20090020764.
Regarding claim 1, Tamura discloses a layer structure comprising:
a lower layer (Figure 1A, layer 1 is a silicon substrate [0033])
a carbon ion implantation layer in the lower layer (figures 1S- 1Y, layer 23/24 is a carbon doped silicon layer, [abstract and 0065]) and
a carbon-based material layer on the carbon ion implantation layer ([0080] layer 25 is silicon carbide.) and
a concentration of carbon in the carbon ion implantation layer is greater than a concentration of carbon in the lower layer (As the lower layer 1 is silicon, the carbon doped silicon layer 23/24 has a higher concentration of carbon.)
Tamura lacks wherein the carbon-based material layer includes a graphene layer, a layered graphene layer, an amorphous carbon layer, or a nanocrystalline graphene layer.
However, Anderson discloses a similar layer structure wherein the carbon-based material layer includes a graphene layer (element 20 in figure 21, described in paragraph [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to include a graphene layer in the carbon-based material layer of Tamura in order to improve the electrical conductivity and heat dissipation of the layer structure.
Regarding claim 2, Tamura as modified by Anderson discloses the layer structure of claim 1, wherein
the carbon ion implantation layer includes a trench (Trenches are formed by shallow trench isolation structure 4 [0038]), and
the carbon-based material layer is in the trench (figure 1Y, layer 25 is in the trench formed by STI structures 4).
Regarding claim 4, Tamura as modified by Anderson discloses the layer structure of claim 2, wherein the carbon ion implantation layer has an ion implantation concentration gradient in a given direction of the carbon ion implantation layer (Annotated figure 2 shows that film 23/24 has ion implantation concentration gradients for both phosphorus and carbon.)
PNG
media_image1.png
635
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Tamura as modified by Anderson discloses the layer structure of claim 4, wherein the carbon ion implantation layer includes a plurality of layers that are sequentially stacked and have different ion implantation concentrations from each other (The carbon ion implantation layer 23/24 includes at least 2 layers 23 and 24 that are sequentially stacked and have different ion implantation concentrations from each other, as shown in annotated figure 2.)
Regarding claim 6, Tamura as modified by Anderson discloses the layer structure of claim 1, further comprising: an upper layer on a portion of the lower layer around the carbon ion implantation layer (Figure 1Y, layer 37 is an upper layer on a portion of the lower layer around the carbon ion implantation layer.).
Regarding claim 7, Tamura as modified by Anderson discloses the layer structure of claim 6, further comprising: a barrier layer between the lower layer and the upper layer around the carbon ion implantation layer (figure 1Y layer 34, described in paragraph [0103]).
PNG
media_image2.png
502
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Tamura as modified by Anderson discloses the layer structure of claim 5, the plurality of layers include a first ion implantation layer (layer 1 drawn in the annotated figure 2 from Tamura- a plot of distance through the layers horizontally vs. carbon concentration vertically), a second ion implantation layer on the first ion implantation layer (layer 2 annotated figure 2), and a third ion implantation layer on the second ion implantation layer (layer 3 annotated figure 2), and a carbon concentration in the second ion implantation layer is less than a carbon concentration in the first ion implantation layer and greater than a carbon concentration in the third ion implantation layer (carbon concentrations that fit these limitations are indicated on the y-axis of the graph). In the rejection of claim 5, layers 23 and 24 were considered to be a plurality of layers because at least two layers with different carbon concentrations could be delineated. It is also possible to delineate three layers as illustrated above, wherein a carbon concentration in the second ion implantation layer is less than a carbon concentration in the first ion implantation layer and greater than a carbon concentration in the third ion implantation layer, as indicated on the vertical axis of the graph in annotated figure 2.
Regarding claim 21, Tamura as modified by Anderson discloses the layer structure of claim 1, wherein the carbon ion implantation layer includes carbon atoms dispersed in a non- carbon layer, and a material of the non-carbon layer is same as a material of the lower layer (The material of the non-carbon substrate layer 1 is silicon, and the material of the carbon implanted layer 23/24 is silicon carbide, which may be formed by ion implantation of carbon ions into silicon [abstract and 0065].)
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura as modified by Anderson as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kim et al. US 20170179234.
Regarding claim 8 , Tamura as modified by Anderson as applied to claim 1 discloses the layer structure of claim 1,
Tamura as modified by Anderson as applied to claim 1 lacks wherein the carbon-based material layer includes a hetero material and carbon.
However, Kim discloses a carbon-based hetero material, heteroatom-doped graphene with nitrogen and/or boron included in the hexagonal crystal structure (Figures 11 and 12 show the placement of the nitrogen and/or boron atoms within the heteroatom-doped graphene crystal structure), which could be layered together with graphene ([0139] and [0146]), to produce a layer including hetero material and carbon.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data to replace the graphene layer of Tamura in view of Anderson with the heteroatom-doped graphene incorporating nitrogen and/or boron atoms as disclosed by Kim in order to enhance and tune the electrical properties of the layer. For example, adding dopants to the graphene could create a bandgap, which is not characteristic of undoped graphene, while preserving the desirable electrical and physical characteristics of graphene (Kim [0005-0006]).
Regarding claim 9, Tamura as modified by Anderson as applied to claim 1, and further modified by Kim as applied to claim 8, discloses the layer structure of claim 8, wherein the hetero material includes nitrogen, boron, or both nitrogen and boron, as described in the rejection of claim 8 above, where Kim discloses a carbon-based hetero material, heteroatom-doped graphene with nitrogen and/or boron included in the hexagonal crystal structure (Figures 11 and 12 show the placement of the nitrogen and/or boron atoms within the heteroatom-doped graphene crystal structure), which could be layered together with graphene ([0139] and [0146]), to produce a layer including hetero material and carbon.
Regarding claim 10, Tamura as modified by Anderson as applied to claim 1 and further modified by Kim as applied to claim 8, discloses the layer structure of claim 8, wherein the carbon-based material layer is a carbon compound layer including the hetero material (Layer 25 figure 1Y is a carbon compound silicon carbide, which is a hetero material [0080]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura as modified by Anderson as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Lee et al. 20150235959.
Regarding claim 12 , Tamura as modified by Anderson as applied to claim 1 discloses the layer structure of claim 1.
Tamura as modified by Anderson lacks an electronic device comprising: a data storage element; a transistor connected to a first side of the data storage element; and a conductive layer connected to a second side of the data storage element through the layer structure of claim 1.
However, Lee discloses an electronic device (In figure 10, the device comprises memory cell MC1 connected to a bit line BL1 [0153]) comprising:
a data storage element (Element MR1 of figure 10 is a magneto resistive data storage element [0153].);
a transistor (In figure 10, TR1 is a switching element that may be a transistor [0157].) connected to a first side of the data storage element (TR1 is connected to a first side of MR1 in figure 10 [0153].); and
a conductive layer (Figure 10, BL1 is a bit line) connected to a second side of the data storage element [0155]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the filing data to add the layer structure of Tamura as modified by Anderson as in claim 1 to the circuit of the memory device between the conductive layer (bit line) and the second side of the data storage element of the electronic device disclosed by Lee to act as an efficient access transistor between the memory cell and the bit line, to improve access speed and reduce power consumption.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments stating that the amended subject matter overcomes the prior art cited are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the obviousness rejection of claim 11 is not proper because the primary and secondary references are not similar devices. In response to applicant's argument that the devices of Tamura and Anderson are nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, both the inventions of Tamura and Anderson are for use in electronic devices, and they both comprise layer structures including a carbon-based material. Therefore, as devices in the same field of endeavor, it is proper to combine them in an obviousness rejection.
Applicant further argues that the office action does not articulate a reason with rational underpinning to modify Tamura in view of Anderson. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Anderson, in the abstract and background/summary section [0004 and 0009], describes advantages of the use of graphene in semiconductor devices. In particular, Anderson points out that graphene has a large carrier mobility, which allows electrons to travel faster and more freely. It is well known, to persons having ordinary skill in the art, that increasing carrier mobility, according to basic principles of physics and thermodynamics, predictably improves heat dissipation and conductivity of a material. For this reason, the argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references is not persuasive.
Finally, the Applicant argues that the Office has not articulated how replacing Tamura’s SiC layer 25 with Anderson’s graphene 20 would improve Tamura’s device. This argument is not persuasive, as the rejection of claim 11 stated that it would have been obvious to include a graphene layer in the carbon-based material layer of Tamura.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATRINA M H WALJESKI-MOSES whose telephone number is (571)272-0731. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 7:30 am- 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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at (571) 272-2266. 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.
/KATRINA WALJESKI-MOSES/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights