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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 11-23 in the reply filed on 12/01/25 is acknowledged.
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) 11-15, 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shangguan [CN 110808384].
Claim 11: Shangguan teaches a method of deposition [abstract], where the method comprises a first process of forming a first carbon film on the substrate with a plasma [pg 2, summary of invention] with mixture of gases comprising carbon (hydrogen and carbon) and is maintained at an initial state of pressure in a chamber [pg 7, The method for preparing the graphene]; and a second process of changing a pressure in the deposition to a second pressure higher than the first pressure (7.5-10Kpa is higher than 3-5 Kpa) [pg 7, The method for preparing the graphene]. Although Shangguan does not explicitly teach a carry in process of carrying the substrate into the chamber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that in order to present the substrate in the chamber, one would introduce or have a carry in process of introducing the substrate in the chamber for processing.
Claim 12: Shangguan teaches in the second process, the plasma is maintained (bias is maintained) and after changing the pressure a second carbon film is formed [pg 7, The method for preparing the graphene].
Claim 13: Shangguan teaches the first carbon film is graphene and the second carbon film is amorphous graphene [pg 7, The method for preparing the graphene].
Claim 14: Shangguan teaches introducing hydrogen to activate the plasma for the first process, and since Shangguan teaches maintaining the plasma, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that maintaining the plasma for the second process would also include using hydrogen gas to activate and maintain the plasma in the second process.
Claim 15: although Shangguan does not explicitly teach the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pressure for each of the process as result effective variable through routine experimentation since Shangguan teaches the pressure affects film growth [pg 4, para 2].
Claim 20: Shangguan teaches the second process comprises a hydrogen containing gas that is supplied to activate the plasma the substrate is treated with the activated plasma [pg 7, The method for preparing the graphene].
Claim 21: although Shangguan does not explicitly teach the claimed range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pressure for each of the process as result effective variable through routine experimentation since Shangguan teaches the pressure affects film growth [pg 4, para 2].
Claim(s) 16 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shangguan as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of VARADARAJAN [US 20220375722].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach the limitations of using a microwave plasma. Varadarajan is provided.
Claims 16 and 22: Varadarajan teaches plasmas may be generated using RF plasma, microwave plasma and so forth [0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide microwave plasma as a source for plasma depositing graphene since Varadarajan teaches this is another operable source for activating plasma.
Claim(s) 17 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shangguan in view of Varadarajan as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Gulotty [US 20160332885].
Teaching of the prior art is aforementioned, but does not appear to teach all the limitations of claims 17 and 23. Gulotty is provided.
Claims 17 and 23: Gulotty teaches purging chamber to a pressure that is different from the previous chamber pressures and held at the third pressure [0036-0037]. Although Gulotty does not explicitly teach stopping the plasma, since Gulotty teaches introducing a purging step, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that during the purging step the plasma activation would have been deactivated or stopped. As for the carry out process into a substrate transport chamber, it is well known in the art that substrate deposition can be performed in-situ or ex-situ with different or separate chambers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a purging step and stopping the activation to further control the difficult process of growing graphene [0004].
Claim 18: Gulotty teaches that the pressure can be incrementally increased and higher for each subsequent pressure, for example the third pressure is less than the fourth pressure [abstract]. Although Gulotty does not explicitly teach the claimed pressure range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the pressure for each of the process as result effective variable through routine experimentation since Gulotty teaches the pressure affects graphene growth [0004].
Claim 19: Gulotty teaches intermediate steps of purging, which it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the step of purging would interrupt the supply of carbon gas and switch to a second mixture of gas which does not comprises carbon gas. Gulotty also teaches increasing pressure in subsequent steps [abstract].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANDY C LOUIE whose telephone number is (571)270-5353. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 1:00PM to 4:00PM PT.
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, Timothy Meeks can be reached at (571)272-1423. 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.
/MANDY C LOUIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718