DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 14 Jun 2023 for application number 18/209,968. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, and Claims.
Claims 1-21 are presented for examination (Elected claims 1-12 are examined below; claims 13-21 have been withdrawn; see the Election/Restriction below).
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 06 Sep 2023 and 24 Feb 2025 were filed before the mailing of this Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species:
Method Embodiment I., a fabricating method using plasma dry etching
Method Embodiment II., a fabricating method using Si sublimation
The species are independent or distinct because Method Embodiment I. refers to a fabricating method using plasma dry etching, while Method Embodiment II. refers to a fabricating method using Si sublimation. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: there would be serious search and examination burden, since the search for one embodiment would not necessarily result in art applicable to the other embodiments.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Election/Restriction
During a telephone conversation with JAMES MCFARLAND on 18 Nov 2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Method Embodiment I., claims 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 13-21 are withdrawn from further consideration by the Examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patil (US 2013/0287956 A1).
In reference to claim 1, Patil teaches A method of fabricating a reusable template for forming semiconductor membranes, comprising:
providing an SiC substrate [substrate 22, which may be SiC; Fig. 2, para 0023];
epitaxially forming a graphene structure [metal catalyst layer 31 and graphene top layer 53 are formed via a CVD process, i.e. epitaxially; Fig. 5B, paras 0027-0031] on the substrate [22],
the graphene structure [31/53] including a graphene layer [53]; and
a pseudo-graphene (PG) buffer layer [graphene 54; Fig. 5B, para 0031] situated between the graphene layer [53] and the substrate [22]; and
using a plasma dry etching process [Figs. 6-7, paras 0032-0033 discloses an oxygen plasma treatment (a dry etching process) to remove 53] to remove the graphene layer [53] and expose the pseudo-graphene layer [54] without exfoliation [oxygen plasma etching is not an exfoliation process], thereby forming a PG/SiC template [22/54].
In reference to claim 2, Patil teaches The method of claim 1 wherein the plasma dry etching [para 0032] includes applying a predetermined plasma power [plasma etching is performed at certain power levels].
In reference to claim 3, Patil teaches The method of claim 2 wherein the predetermined plasma power [plasma etching is known to be performed at certain power levels] is in a range that removes the graphene layer [53] and leaves the PG layer [54] substantially intact [the plasma etching process leaves 54 intact; further, since the process and structure recited in Patil is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties of claim 3 are presumed to be present; see MPEP 2112.01].
In reference to claim 4, Patil teaches The method of claim 3 wherein the plasma dry etching process includes utilizing a working gas of at least one of 02, H2, Ar, and N2 [para 0032 discloses an oxygen plasma treatment].
In reference to claim 5, Patil teaches The method of claim 3 wherein PG layer is bonded to the adjacent graphene layer with a van der Waals force, and bonded to the SiC substrate with a covalent force, and further comprising: selecting a predetermined plasma power greater than the van der Waals force and less than the covalent force [bonds between graphene and SiC are known to be covalent bonds, while subsequent graphene layers are bonded by van der Waals forces; removing graphene layers via plasma etching would require the claimed plasma power; further, since the process and structure recited in Patil is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties of claim 5 are presumed to be present; see MPEP 2112.01].
In reference to claim 10, Patil teaches The method of claim 1 wherein the graphene layer [53] comprises a plurality of graphene monolayers [para 0024 discloses that the use of a nickel catalyst may create multilayers of graphene].
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) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil in view of Chen et al. [hereinafter as Chen] (US 2013/0048952 A1).
In reference to claim 6, Patil teaches the invention of claim 1.
However, Patil does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1 wherein the SiC substrate is oriented on-axis.
Chen teaches wherein the SiC substrate is oriented on-axis [para 0065 discloses a 4-H SiC (0001), which is on-axis].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, absent unexpected results, having the teachings of Patil and Chen before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the on-axis SiC substrate as disclosed by Chen into the graphene semiconductor device of Patil in order to obtain a graphene semiconductor device with an on-axis SiC substrate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to obtain a graphene semiconductor device with an on-axis SiC substrate to provide the predictable result of growing high-quality, defect-free layer on a substrate to create advanced electronics.
In reference to claim 8, Patil teaches the invention of claim 1.
However, Patil does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1 wherein the SiC substrate is one of 4-H and 6-H.
Chen teaches wherein the SiC substrate is one of 4-H and 6-H [para 0065 discloses a 4-H SiC (0001)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, absent unexpected results, having the teachings of Patil and Chen before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the 4-H SiC substrate as disclosed by Chen into the graphene semiconductor device of Patil in order to obtain a graphene semiconductor device with an 4-H SiC substrate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to obtain a graphene semiconductor device with an 4-H SiC substrate to provide the predictable result of manufacturing smaller, more efficient electronics due to wide bandgap, higher thermal conductivity, and exceptional mechanical strength.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil in view of King (US 2012/0074387 A1)
In reference to claim 7, Patil teaches the invention of claim 1.
However, Patil does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1 wherein the SiC substrate is oriented off-axis.
King teaches wherein the SiC substrate is oriented off-axis [para 0029 discloses off-axis silicon carbide substrate].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, absent unexpected results, having the teachings of Patil and Chen before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the off-axis SiC substrate as disclosed by Chen into the graphene semiconductor device of Patil in order to obtain a graphene semiconductor device with an off-axis SiC substrate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to obtain a graphene semiconductor device with an off-axis SiC substrate to provide the predictable result of effectively allowing certain defects to be eliminated [King, para 0029].
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil in view of Chen further in view of King.
In reference to claim 9, Patil teaches the invention of claim 1.
However, Patil does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1 wherein the SiC substrate is 4-H SiC (0001).
Chen teaches wherein the SiC substrate is 4-H SiC (0001) [para 0065 discloses a 4-H SiC (0001)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, absent unexpected results, having the teachings of Patil and Chen before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the 4-H SiC substrate as disclosed by Chen into the graphene semiconductor device of Patil in order to obtain a graphene semiconductor device with an 4-H SiC substrate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to obtain a graphene semiconductor device with an 4-H SiC substrate to provide the predictable result of manufacturing smaller, more efficient electronics due to wide bandgap, higher thermal conductivity, and exceptional mechanical strength.
However, Patil and Chen do not explicitly teach that the SiC substrate is semi-insulating.
King teaches that the SiC substrate is semi-insulating [para 0030 discloses that a SiC substrate may be made semi-insulating].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, absent unexpected results, having the teachings of Patil, Chen, and King before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the semi-insulating SiC substrate as disclosed by Chen into the graphene semiconductor device of Patil in order to obtain a graphene semiconductor device with an 4-H semi-insulating SiC substrate.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to obtain a graphene semiconductor device with an 4-H semi-insulating SiC substrate to provide the predictable result of allowing for more effect device isolation and faster operation of a graphene transistor [King, para 0030].
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil in view of Bayram et al. [hereinafter as Bayram (US 2015/0084074 A1)
In reference to claim 11, Patil teaches the invention of claim 1.
However, Patil does not explicitly teach The method of claim 1 further comprising: epitaxially forming a membrane comprising GaN on the PG layer of the PG/SiC template; and releasing the membrane from the PG layer.
Patil and Bayram teach epitaxially forming a membrane comprising GaN [Bayram, para 0016 discloses epitaxially grown a GaN layer on a graphene layer] on the PG layer [54 of Patil] of the PG/SiC template [22/54 of Patil]; and releasing [Bayram, para 0055 discloses “cleaving”, i.e. separating, the GaN layer from the graphene layer] the membrane from the PG layer [54 of Patil].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art, absent unexpected results, having the teachings of Pati and Bayram before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include the GaN layer as disclosed by Bayram into the graphene semiconductor device of Patil in order to obtain a graphene semiconductor device with grown GaN layer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to obtain a graphene semiconductor device with grown GaN layer to provide the predictable result of providing a cost-effective way of manufacturing a GaN device [Bayram, para 0005].
In reference to claim 12, Patil and Bayram teach the invention of claim 11.
Patil and Bayram teach The method of claim 11 further comprising reusing the same PG/SiC template [22/54 of Patil] including: epitaxially forming [Bayram, para 0056 discloses that after cleaving, the graphene layer be reused to grow another GaN layer] a second membrane comprising GaN on the same PG/SiC template [22/54 of Patil]; and releasing [Bayram, para 0055 discloses “cleaving”, i.e. separating, the GaN layer from the graphene layer] the second membrane from the PG layer [54 of Patil].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW CHUNG whose telephone number is (571)272-5237. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5pm.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached on 571-272-2339. 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.
/ANDREW CHUNG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2898