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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Gamo does not teach a rms surface roughness of the film. Gamo teaches surface roughness in three ways. 1. Gamo teaches that the RMS should not exceed 10 nm (para 0094), thus rendering obvious and operational the claimed range within that disclosed.
2. Further, the rejection is based upon what Gamo generally teaches about surface roughness, and from this Gamo renders the claimed RMS obvious. Gamo directly relates the size of the diamond to the surface roughness in para 0063, determining that if it is too high, the roughness of the film is prominent and thus unsuited for patterning or a laminate structure. Gamo does not suggest that the size of the diamond is the same as surface roughness, but it does play a significant part in that the size of the diamond determines whether or not it extends from the layer and creates a roughenss (para 0009). Therefore, Gamo optimizes its surface roughness for the end result of being able to used the film in patterning or a laminate structure. RMS is a measurement of surface roughness, so if Gamo is modifying the roughness by routine experimentation, it follows that it modifies the RMS by routine experimentation absent unexpected results shown commensurate in scope with the claim language. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed surface RMS, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955).
3, Further still, it is submitted that surface roughness is a naturally occurring result of the claimed method. The method steps themselves are not distinguished from those claimed that are taught by the prior art, only the claimed result. As the prior art teaches the claimed method, it follows that the surface roughness (measured as RMS) as claimed will naturally flow.
Therefore, for at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gamo et al. (US 2010/0084634 A1) in view of Asmussen et al. (US 2010/0034984 A1) and Chua et al. (US 2020/0402769 A1)
As to claim 1, Gamo et al. teaches loading a silicon wafer (para 0007) into a microwave plasma enhanced CVD chamber (para 0051) and processing the wafer with a plasma of CxHy (y > x), CO2 and H2 (para 0075-0077), at power greater than 50 W (para 0186, 0205, 0216 etc.) , to form a layer of nanocrystalline diamond thereon. Gamo et al. does not teach that the wafer is seeded before it is introduced to the chamber.
Asmussen et al. teaches seeding wafers before creating crystalline diamond film by microwave plasma (paras 0009-0010) with nano or micro particles on silicon wafers (para 0067, 0087) to grow diamond of high quality (para 0111) on non-diamond substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gamo et al. to include seeding the wafer with nanodiamond before it is introduced to the chamber as taught by Asmussen et al. in order to grow high quality diamond on a variety of substrates.
Asmussen et al. teaches that the deposition rate is dependent upon reaction conditions in paragraphs 0009-0010, and cites deposition rates of 3-21 microns/hr (3000-21000 nm/hr), also paras 0070-0078 of 50-500 nm/hr that includes the claimed range of over 85 nm/hour. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gamo et al. to include the claimed deposition rate as taught by Asmussen et al. in order to modify the rate according to the reaction conditions, and that Asmussen et al. teaches the art recognized utility and suitability of such.
Gamo et al. does not teach that the plasma chamber is coupled to a microwave plasma source comprising a plurality of dielectric resonance antennas. Chua et al. teaches a microwave plasma source with a plurality of applicators coupled to the source in para 0042. These applicators are dielectric resonance antennas (para 0042-0043, Fig. 3A-3B) and are suitable for use for PECVD or PEALD applications in para 0032 to achieve better power densities and enhanced tunability of the plasma (para 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gamo et al. to include teach that the plasma chamber is coupled to a microwave plasma source comprising a plurality of dielectric resonance antennas as taught by Chua et al. in order to achieve better power densities and enhanced tunability of the plasma.
Gamo teaches that the RMS should not exceed 10 nm (para 0094), thus rendering obvious and operational the claimed range within that disclosed. In addition, Gamo directly relates the size of the diamond to the surface roughness in para 0063, determining that if it is too high, the roughness of the film is prominent and thus unsuited for patterning or a laminate structure. Therefore, Gamo optimizes its surface roughness for the end result of being able to be used the film in patterning or a laminate structure. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed surface roughness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955). Further, it is submitted that surface roughness is a naturally occurring result of the claimed method. As the prior art teaches the claimed method, it follows that the surface roughness as claimed will naturally flow.
As to claim 2, Gamo et al. teaches an embodiment where a hydrocarbon, hydrogen and carbon dioxide are only used in paras 0075-0077.
As to claim 3, Gamo et al. teaches the claimed temperature in para 0043.
As to claim 4, paras 0095-0096 of Asmussen et al. describe process variations based upon the gap between a plasma source and the wafer in a similar chamber. The gap is modified based upon other desired factors such as plasma power and temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the gap size according to Asmussen et al. by routine experimentation to optimize the process parameters.
As to claim 7, Gamo et al. operates its microwave continuously, not pulsed, in para 0056, 0079 and Examples et seq.
As to claim 8, Gamo et al. teaches loading a silicon wafer (para 0007) into a microwave plasma enhanced CVD chamber (para 0051) and processing the wafer with a plasma of CxHy (y > x), CO2 and H2 (para 0075-0077), at power greater than 50 W (para 0186, 0205, 0216 etc.) , to form a layer of nanocrystalline diamond thereon. Gamo et al. does not teach that the wafer is surface treated and incubated before introduction to the chamber.
Asmussen et al. teaches seeding wafers, or surface treating, before creating crystalline diamond film by microwave plasma (paras 0009-0010) with particles on silicon wafers (para 0067, 0087) and incubating as broadly claimed (in acetone, etc. para 0087, plasma para 0107) to grow diamond of high quality (para 0111) on non-diamond substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gamo et al. to include surface treating and incubating the wafer before it is introduced to the chamber as taught by Asmussen et al. in order to grow high quality diamond on a variety of substrates.
Asmussen et al. teaches that the deposition rate is dependent upon reaction conditions in paragraphs 0009-0010, and cites deposition rates of 3-21 microns/hr (3000-21000 nm/hr), also paras 0070-0078 of 50-500 nm/hr that includes the claimed range of over 85 nm/hour. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gamo et al. to include the claimed deposition rate as taught by Asmussen et al. in order to modify the rate according to the reaction conditions, and that Asmussen et al. teaches the art recognized utility and suitability of such.
Gamo et al. does not teach that the plasma chamber is coupled to a microwave plasma source comprising a plurality of dielectric resonance antennas. Chua et al. teaches a microwave plasma source with a plurality of applicators coupled to the source in para 0042. These applicators are dielectric resonance antennas (para 0042-0043, Fig. 3A-3B) and are suitable for use for PECVD or PEALD applications in para 0032 to achieve better power densities and enhanced tunability of the plasma (para 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gamo et al. to include teach that the plasma chamber is coupled to a microwave plasma source comprising a plurality of dielectric resonance antennas as taught by Chua et al. in order to achieve better power densities and enhanced tunability of the plasma.
Gamo directly relates the size of the diamond to the surface roughness in para 0063, determining that if it is too high, the roughness of the film is prominent and thus unsuited for patterning or a laminate structure. Therefore, Gamo optimizes its surface roughness for the end result of being able to used the film in patterning or a laminate structure. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include the claimed surface roughness, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 223 (CCPA 1955). Further, it is submitted that surface roughness is a naturally occurring result of the claimed method. As the prior art teaches the claimed method, it follows that the surface roughness as claimed will naturally flow.
As to claims 13-14, these limitations are taught as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights