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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 15 June 2023, 21 July 2023, 19 October 2023, 22 November 2023, 17 January 202, 04 March 2024, 18 June 2024, 18 July 2024, 12 August 2024, 04 September 2024, 10 October 2024, 06 February 2025, 29 May 2025 and 29 January 2026 were filed prior to the mailing date of this office correspondence. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, line 2, “wherein the temperature is in the range of approximately 90 degrees Celsius to approximately 180 degrees Celsius.” should read:
-- wherein the temperature is in the range between 90 degrees Celsius to 180 degrees Celsius. --
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 15 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.
In claim 5, the limitation “a resiliency to a Hydrogen score” and in claim 15, “a potential of Hydrogen score” renders claim indefinite because both claim and specification fail to define what does “Hydrogen score” mean. “Hydrogen score” is not a common term in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret the ordinary and customary meaning of the term “Hydrogen score”. As best understood, it appears that the limitation “a resiliency to a Hydrogen score” actually intends that Hydrogen reducing power, or the like.
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) 1-4, 6-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis (WO 2014124308) in view of Treossi (US 20170338312) and further in view of Sun (CN 110602871).
[AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (opening)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (core)]
PNG
media_image1.png
270
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2D, Davis.
Regarding claim 1, Davis teaches, a method of forming a lamination stack (method for fabricating multilevel stacked graphene structures, Figs. 1A to 2J) comprising:
providing a core (foundation material layer 230 and substrate 220, see annotated Fig. 2D above);
applying a first graphene layer (graphene layer 250, Fig. 2D) to a surface portion of the core;
applying a metal layer (second foundation material layer 232, Fig. 2D, foundation materials are catalytic metals, e.g., Pt, Au, Fe, Rh, Ti, Ir, Ru, Ni, or Cu, para. [0036]) to the first graphene layer;
applying a second graphene layer (graphene layer 252) to the metal layer;
applying a photoresist layer (photoresist layer 240, Fig. 2A, a light (not shown) is shined onto photoresist layer 240 through the mask (not shown), para. [0071]);
Davis does not teach applying the photoresist layer to the second graphene layer; or a protective layer to the photoresist layer; or drilling through the protective layer; or applying a metallic plating to the lamination stack, wherein the metallic plating is applied to the lamination stack, such that the metallic plating covers an internal surface of the lamination stack formed by the drilling; or removing the protective layer from the photoresist layer. However, Treossi teaches a lamination stack in Fig. 1A, comprising a core 102; applying a first graphene layer 104 to a surface portion of the core; applying a metal layer 106 to the first graphene layer; applying a second graphene layer 108 to the metal layer, and applying a protective layer (second substrate layer 110, see annotated Fig. 1A below, first or second substrate layers 102 and 110 is a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) layer, para. [0050], see the protective layer disclosed in the instant application claim 6); and removing the protective layer from the photoresist layer, wherein the removal of the protective layer causes a removal of the metallic plating in contact with the protective layer (coating over the graphene permitting the etching and removal of the underlying metal substrate used for growth, para. [0008]).
[AltContent: textbox (second graphene layer)][AltContent: textbox (protective layer)][AltContent: ][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (first graphene layer)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (metal layer)]
PNG
media_image2.png
211
186
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1A, Treossi.
Though, Treossi teaches applying a protective PMMA layer 110 to the graphene layer 108 and Davis teaches applying a photoresist layer to the first metal layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that applying a photoresist layer to the second graphene layer and applying a protective layer to the photoresist layer would not inhibit the process steps because, claim fails to further limit the process of applying the photoresist layer or applying the protective layer. Further, applying a photoresist layer and applying a protective layer such as a photomask over the photoresist layer and etching the exposed areas are routine steps in photolithography. See Davis, para. [0054]. Such a combination would have been done by one of ordinary skill in the art without any need for experimentation and with reasonable expectations of success (see the Note below). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Treossi, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a lamination stack of Davis and to apply a protective layer to the photoresist layer and etching the coating over the graphene layer that permits the removal of the metal substrate as taught Treossi in para. [0008] so that it enables the lamination layers to attach one another during the application of heat and pressure.
Modified Davis does not teach drilling through the protective layer; or applying a metallic plating to the lamination stack. However, Sun teaches a method of forming a graphene lamination stack in Fig. 1, comprising a core 1, graphene layer 2, in which,
[AltContent: textbox (through hole)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (core)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (graphene layer)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image3.png
334
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1, Sun.
drilling through the protective layer and at least one of the photoresist layer, the second graphene layer, the metal layer, the first graphene layer, or the core (graphene sheet is drilled using mechanical drilling…when drilling holes in the graphene sheet, a protective film is applied to the upper and lower surfaces of the graphene sheet, para. [0014-0016], see the protective film 9 in Fig. 5);
applying a metallic plating (copper is uniformly plated on the hole walls to obtain the PCB board shown in Figure 1, para. [0037]) to the lamination stack, wherein the metallic plating is applied to the lamination stack, such that the metallic plating covers an internal surface of the lamination stack formed by the drilling (see the through hole 7).
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Sun, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a lamination stack of Davis and to include drilling through the protective layer and applying metallic plating that fills the through hole as Sun taught in Fig. 1 so that it enables electrically connecting the upper and lower surfaces of the substrate by the through hole conductive material. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant invention that any surprising results were derived, or that any special steps were devised in order to drilling through the protective layer or applying a metallic plating to the through hole. Such a combination would have been done by one of ordinary skill in the art without any need for experimentation and with reasonable expectations of success.
Note: the recited limitations “drilling through the protective layer…applying a metallic plating to the lamination stack…and removing the protective layer from the photoresist layer” are routine conventional steps in printed circuit board art, and does not add any patentable weight unless otherwise defined.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. See MPEP §2113.
Regarding claim 2, modified Davis does not teach, the metallic plating is a material comprising at least one of palladium, tin, or copper. However, Sun further teaches, the method according to claim 1, wherein the metallic plating is a material comprising at least one of palladium, tin, or copper (copper plating is performed on the through holes, and copper is uniformly plated on the hole walls to make the inner core boards that need to be interconnected, para. [0013]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Sun, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a lamination stack of Davis and to include drilling through the protective layer and applying metallic plating that fills the through hole as Sun taught in Fig. 1 so that it enables electrically connecting the upper and lower surfaces of the substrate by the through hole conductive material.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 6-8, modified Davis does not teach, the recited limitations. However, Treossi further teaches,
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein removing the protective layer comprises applying heat at a predefined temperature to the lamination stack, wherein the temperature is based on the protective layer (first and second substrates can be directly attached to the first and second graphene layers,…use of heat, pressure, heat and pressure, para. [0012]).
4. The method according to claim 3, wherein the temperature is in the range of approximately 90 degrees Celsius to approximately 180 degrees Celsius (polymers used in the substrate layer have a glass transition temperature between −5 and 430° C. and/or a Vicat softening temperature between 50 and 200° C, para. [0064]).
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the protective layer is a material comprising at least one of a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (first or second substrate layers 102 and 110 is a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) layer, para. [0050]), a polydimethyloxyaniline (PDMA), a polyethylene vinyl acetate, a water-insoluble film polymer, a polyetherimide, a thermoplastic polymer, or an elastomeric polymer.
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the protective layer comprises at least one of an adhesive tape, a thermal release tape (each of the first and/or second substrate layers can be …a thermal release tape, para. [0012]), a dry film photoresist, an atomic deposition layer, or a photoresist.
8. The method according to claim 1, wherein the protective layer is applied in a room- temperature environment (see, para. [0064], it is obvious to apply the protective layer at room temperature if the glass transition temperature is between −5 and 430° C, see para. [0064]).
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Treossi, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a lamination stack of Davis and to apply a protective PMMA layer to the photoresist layer and etching the coating over the graphene layer that enables etching the protective layer in an aqueous solution.
Regarding claim 9, Davis teaches, a lamination stack integrating copper-graphene laminate (multilevel stacked graphene structures, Figs. 1A to 2J) comprising:
a core (foundation material layer 230 and substrate 220, see annotated Fig. 2D above);
a first graphene layer (graphene layer 250, Fig. 2D) disposed on a surface portion of the core;
a metal layer (second foundation material layer 232, Fig. 2D, foundation materials are catalytic metals, e.g., Pt, Au, Fe, Rh, Ti, Ir, Ru, Ni, or Cu, para. [0036]) disposed on the first graphene layer;
a second graphene layer (graphene layer 252) disposed on the metal layer;
a photoresist layer (photoresist layer 240, Fig. 2A, a light (not shown) is shined onto photoresist layer 240 through the mask (not shown), para. [0071]); and
wherein the lamination stack defines an opening (see annotated Fig. 2D above) through the protective layer and at least one of the photoresist layer, the second graphene layer, the metal layer, the first graphene layer, or the core.
Davis does not teach the photoresist layer to the second graphene layer; or a protective layer to the photoresist layer. However, Treossi teaches a lamination stack in Fig. 1A, comprising a core 102; applying a first graphene layer 104 to a surface portion of the core; applying a metal layer 106 to the first graphene layer; applying a second graphene layer 108 to the metal layer, and applying a protective layer (second substrate layer 110, see annotated Fig. 1A, first or second substrate layers 102 and 110 is a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) layer, para. [0050]). Though, Treossi teaches applying a protective PMMA layer to the graphene layer 104 and Davis teaches applying a photoresist layer to the first metal layer, one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that applying a photoresist layer to the second graphene layer and applying a protective layer to the photoresist layer would not inhibit the process steps because, claim fails to further limit the process of applying the photoresist layer or applying the protective layer. Therefore, in view of the teachings of Treossi, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a lamination stack of Davis and to apply a protective PMMA layer to the photoresist layer and etching the coating over the graphene that permits the removal of the metal substrate as taught Treossi in para. [0008] so that it enables the lamination layers to attach one another during the application of heat and pressure.
Regarding claim 10, modified Davis does not teach, a metallic plating disposed on the surface of the lamination stack, such that the metallic plating covers an internal surface of the lamination stack defined by the opening. However, Sun teaches a method of forming a graphene lamination stack in Fig. 1, comprising a core 1, graphene layer 2, in which, the lamination stack according to claim 9, further comprising a metallic plating disposed on the surface of the lamination stack, such that the metallic plating covers an internal surface of the lamination stack defined by the opening (copper is uniformly plated on the hole walls to obtain the PCB board shown in Figure 1, para. [0037]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Sun, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a lamination stack of Davis and to include applying metallic plating that fills the through hole as Sun taught in Fig. 1 so that it enables electrically connecting the upper and lower surfaces of the substrate by the conductive material filled in the opening.
Regarding claim 11, modified Davis does not teach, the metallic plating is a material comprising at least one of a palladium or copper. However, Sun further teaches, the lamination stack according to claim 10, wherein the metallic plating is a material comprising at least one of a palladium or copper (copper plating is performed on the through holes, and copper is uniformly plated on the hole walls to make the inner core boards that need to be interconnected, para. [0013 Therefore, in view of the teachings of Sun, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a lamination stack of Davis and to include applying metallic plating that fills the through hole as Sun taught in Fig. 1 so that it enables electrically connecting the upper and lower surfaces of the substrate by the conductive material filled in the opening.
Regarding claim 12, modified Davis does not teach, the metallic plating in contact with the protective layer and the protective layer are removed. However, Treossi further teaches, the lamination stack according to claim 10, wherein the metallic plating in contact with the protective layer and the protective layer are removed (coating over the graphene permitting the etching and removal of the underlying metal substrate used for growth, para. [0008]). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Treossi, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a lamination stack of Davis and to apply a protective layer to the photoresist layer and etching the coating over the graphene layer that permits the removal of the metal substrate as taught Treossi in para. [0008] so that it enables the lamination layers to attach one another during the application of heat and pressure.
Regarding claim 13, Davis in view of Treossi and Sun teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 9. Davis further teaches, the lamination stack according to claim 9, wherein the metal layer defines a gap (see the metal layer 232 in annotated Fig. 2D below).
[AltContent: textbox (gap)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (metal layer)][AltContent: ][AltContent: textbox (core)]
PNG
media_image1.png
270
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2D, Davis.
Regarding claim 14, Davis in view of Treossi and Sun teaches the recited limitations with respect to claim 13. Davis further teaches, the lamination stack according to claim 13, wherein the first graphene layer and the second graphene layer are cut to correspond to the gap (see the first graphene layer 250 and the second graphene layer 252 in Fig. 2D).
Regarding claims 16-18, modified Davis does not teach, the recited limitations. However, Treossi further teaches,
16. The lamination stack according to claim 9, wherein the protective layer is a material comprising at least one of a polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) (first or second substrate layers 102 and 110 is a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) layer, para. [0050]), a poly (PDMA), a polyethylene vinyl acetate, polyetherimide, a water-insoluble film polymer, a thermoplastic polymer, or an elastomeric polymer.
17. The lamination stack according to claim 9, wherein the protective layer comprises at least one of an adhesive tape (each of the first and/or second substrate layers can be …a thermal release tape, para. [0012]), a dry film photoresist, an atomic deposition layer, or a photoresist.
18. The lamination stack according to claim 9, wherein the protective layer is applied in a room-temperature environment (see, para. [0064], it is obvious to apply a protective layer at room temperature if the glass transition temperature is between −5 and 430° C).
Therefore, in view of the teachings of Treossi, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a lamination stack of Davis and to apply a protective PMMA layer to the photoresist layer and etching the coating over the graphene that permits the removal of the metal.
Regarding claim 19, modified Davis does not teach, a via. However, Sun further teaches, the lamination stack according to claim 9, wherein the opening is a via (see via hole 7, Fig. 1). Therefore, in view of the teachings of Sun, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of forming a lamination stack of Davis and to include drilling thorough the protective layer and applying metallic plating that fills the through hole as Sun taught in Fig. 1 so that it enables electrically connecting the upper and lower surfaces of the substrate by the through hole conductive material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Claims 5 and 15 would be allowable for disclosing a method of forming a lamination stack, wherein the protective layer is a material comprising a resiliency to a Hydrogen score of at least one, two, three, four, eleven, twelve, thirteen, or fourteen.
Though, prior art of record Treossi teaches a protective layer, Treossi fails to teach the protective layer is a material comprising a resiliency to hydrogen.
Prior art Davis does not teach a protective layer, or Sun does not teach the protective layer is a material comprising a resiliency to a hydrogen.
Therefore, claims 5 and 15 would be allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Prior art Min (US 20160249445) teaches a method of forming a lamination stack including a core, a first graphene layer, a metal layer, a second graphene layer and a protective layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE K. ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1087. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30-4:30 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, THOMAS J. HONG can be reached at (571) 272-0993. 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.
/JOSE K ABRAHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3729