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 .
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.
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) 26 to 31, 35 to 38, 41 to 43 and 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (WO 2020/041650) in view of Abhay et al (Chem of Materials article).
The Kim et al reference teaches manufacturing a two-dimensional stack and said stack, note entire reference. On a substrate, a two-dimensional stack is first formed with multiple layers, note page 2. The grown layers can be graphene. The layers can be removed from the growth substrate by applying a transfer film and separating the layer or layers from the growth substrate, note, page 10. This step can be repeated several times, note fig 1a. The difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the specific steps to remove the layers. However, the Abhay et al reference teaches a method of manufacturing a water-soluble transfer stack comprising multilayer two-dimensional (2D) material, see the abstract and the section "Experimental methods" in pages 2329 and 2330. The method consists growing CVD graphene on a copper foil 25 microns thick, a growth stack. Then placing the graphene-copper foil in water for a night to decouple the graphene from copper (page 2330, left-hand column, top) thereby applying an intercalating solution (water) to the growth stack. The next step of laminating a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) film onto the graphene ,a transfer layer comprising a water-soluble polymer film. Finally, delaminating the PVA and the graphene, a delaminated film, from the growth substrate and of multilayer of two or more graphene layers (page 2330, left-hand column, par. 2, last sentence, Fig. 7, 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Kim et al reference by the teachings of the Abhay et al reference to separate a graphene stack by use of water and a polymer in order to not crack the graphene during delamination and still have a flexible structure.
With regards to claim 27, the references both teach graphene stacks as the two-dimensional material, note Kim et al page 2.
With regards to claims 28 and 45, the Abhay et al reference teaches graphene with an area larger than 1cm2, note exp. Section.
With regards to claim 29, the Kim et al reference teaches reusing the growth substrate, note page 11.
With regards to claim 30, the Abhay et al reference teaches using water as the intercalating solution note exp. Section.
With regards to claim 31, the Abhay et al reference teaches oxidization of the substrate, note figure 1 description.
With regards to claim 35, the Abhay et al reference teaches a post bake of the transfer layer at 110c for 30 sec, note fig 1.
With regards to claim 36, the Abhay et al reference teaches a hot roll laminate for the transfer film, note fig 1.
With regards to claim 37, the Abhay et al reference teaches a polyvinyl alcohol as the water soluble polymer, note experimentation section.
With regards to claim 38, the Abhay et al reference teaches the PVA thickness to be 30 microns, note experimental sec.
With regards to claim 41, the Kim et al reference teaches repeat applying of the delamination film, note, page 11.
With regards to claim 42, the Abhay et al reference teaches using a second substrate, note, fig 1.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (WO 2020/041650) in view of Abhay et al (Chem of Materials article).
The Kim et al and Abhay et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the temperature of the intercalation solution. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable temperature of solution in the combined references in order to increase the reaction of the solution with the stack and substrate.
Claim(s) 33,and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (WO 2020/041650) in view of Abhay et al (Chem of Materials article).
The Kim et al and Abhay et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the process conditions of depositing the transfer layer. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable process conditions, temperatures, pressures in the combined references in order to ensure that the layer covers the surface layer of the stack material.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (WO 2020/041650) in view of Abhay et al (Chem of Materials article).
The Kim et al and Abhay et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the addition graphene deposition after delamination. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable further deposition in the combined references in order to reuse the substrate to create more stacks.
Claim(s) 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (WO 2020/041650) in view of Abhay et al (Chem of Materials article).
The Kim et al and Abhay et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the mechanical separation. However, in the absence of unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to determine through routine experimentation the optimum, operable separation method in the combined references in order to remove stack layers without damage to either stack or substrate.
Claim(s) 44 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (WO 2020/041650) in view of Abhay et al (Chem of Materials article).
The Kim et al and Abhay et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the roughness of the stack. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to have a smooth film or stack in the combined references in order to have the layers be used in further devices.
Examiner’s Remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in graphene growth and separation methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714