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 .
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.
Status of Claims
Examiner notes that in the instant application:
-Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 10-20 are pending.
-Claims 3 and 9 are cancelled.
-Claims 1, 4, 7, 16, and 19 are amended.
-Claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed June 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Based on the Applicant’s arguments as presented, it’s the Examiner’s understanding that the primary point of traversal is against a possible incorporation of Kurganova (U.S. Pub. 2020/0406244) into the method of Seacrist (U.S. Pat. 8,884,310) as modified by Ahn (U.S. Pub. 2014/0175458), as would cover the newly amended limitations of Claim 1 (including limitations from the now cancelled Claims 3 and 9). This argument is most focused on the limitation “comprising molybdenum in direct contact with” and an embodiment provided by Kurganova which incorporates an interlayer between the metal catalyst and the semiconductor substrate.
Examiner disagrees with the argument on two grounds.
The first is in the fact that Kurganova provides an embodiment wherein an interlayer nor a SiO2 layer is present (e.g. Paragraphs [0077] and [0080], Figs. 4a and 4b). And if the Examiner intended to incorporate the embodiments of the invention of Kurganova, he may reference this embodiment over one with intervening layers between the catalyst and the substrate.
Secondly, and more generally, Kurganova explicitly discloses that the usage of molybdenum as a metal catalyst for the synthesis of graphene is well known in the art (Paragraphs [0010] and [0011]). Thus, independent of the specific invention/embodiment of Kurganova, it would’ve been obvious of one of ordinary skill in the art to modify a method of Seacrist and Ahn such that the metal catalyst is Molybdenum. Notably the metal catalyst is already in direct contact with the semiconductor substrate in the methods of Seacrist and Ahn, and there is nothing provided to teach against using Molybdenum within these methodologies.
Examiner further notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
At the end of this Office Action, Examiner will provide a couple additional prior art publications wherein a metal catalyst of Molybdenum is used to facilitate graphene growth.
The rejection has been updated to address the newly amended limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 10 is 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.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “the metal catalyst layer comprises nickel” is unclear as to whether a new metal catalyst layer is being claimed or whether the initial metal catalyst layer further comprises nickel.
For the purposes of this Office Action, the Examiner will read the limitation of Claim 10 above as —the metal catalyst layer further comprises nickel—
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitation “the metal catalyst layer further comprises nickel” is not supported by the Applicant’s disclosure. In the amended Claim 1, the applicant has already limited the metal catalyst to comprising molybdenum. However, the Specification states the metal catalyst layer may comprise “molybdenum or nickel” (Paragraph [0044]) but no reference is made to an embodiment wherein both are present (i.e. an alloy or dopants). As such it is unclear whether a process which uses a metal catalyst with both materials present is intended or possible with the disclosed method.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seacrist et al. (U.S. Pat. 8,884,310), hereinafter Seacrist, in view of Ahn et al. (U.S. Pub. 2014/0175458), and Kurganova et al. (U.S. Pub. 2020/0406244), hereinafter Kurganova.
Regarding Claim 1, Seacrist teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer on a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, Lines 14-15), the method comprising:
-depositing a metal catalyst layer (‘metal film’; Col. 2, Lines 23-29) in direct contact with a top surface of the semiconductor substrate (Col. 2, Lines 18-23);
-patterning the metal catalyst layer, such that one or more portions of the top surface of the semiconductor substrate are covered by one or more metal catalyst layer structures (‘pattern of metal deposition’; Col. 4, Lines 44-49 and Col. 7, Lines 30-35); and
-facilitating a graphene growth process on an exposed surface of the one or more metal catalyst layer structures (Col. 2, Lines 33-35), wherein
-the graphene growth process forms the graphene layer on the exposed surfaces of the one or more metal catalyst layer structures (‘precipitate at the front metal film surface’; Col. 11, Lines 18-19).
Seacrist does not explicitly disclose:
-wherein the metal catalyst layer forms a metal silicide with the one or more portions of the semiconductor substrate covered by the one or more metal catalyst layer structures.
Ahn teaches a method (Paragraph [0035]) of disposing a graphene layer ((20); Fig. 2E, Paragraph [0076]) on a semiconductor substrate ((10); Fig. 2E, Paragraph [0071]) utilizing a metal catalyst layer ((40); Fig. 2C, Paragraph [0075], wherein:
-the metal catalyst layer (40) forms a metal silicide ((50a) as part of layer (50); Figs. 2D-3C, Paragraph [0079]) with the one or more portions of the semiconductor substrate (10) covered by the one or more metal catalyst layer structures (40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Ahn into the method of Seacrist such that the metal catalyst layer forms a metal silicide with the one or more portions of the semiconductor substrate covered by the one or more metal catalyst layer structures. Futhermore, the incorporation would be done such that the entire one or more metal catalyst layer structure underlying the graphene layer is transitioned to the metal silicide (Ahn, Fig. 3B, Paragraph [0079]). This would be due to the fact that doing so would ensure the graphene layer is uniformly formed (Ahn, Paragraph [0081]).
Neither Seacrist nor Ahn explicitly disclose:
-a metal catalyst layer comprising molybdenum
Kurganova teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer (Paragraph [0073]) on a semiconductor substrate ((20); Fig. 4a, Paragraph [0080]) utilizing a metal catalyst layer comprising molybdenum ((19); Fig. 4a, Paragraphs [0080]) in direct contact with a top surface of the semiconductor substrate (20), and further discloses that within the state of the art:
-Molybdenum catalysts are used in the synthesis of graphene layers (Paragraph [0011]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kurganova into the method of Seacrist as modified by Ahn such that the metal catalyst layer comprises molybdenum. This would be due to the fact that doing so would reduce thermal stress (Kurganova, Paragraph [0011]). In particular the Examiner notes that this incorporation is simply to utilize Molybdenum and in no way imparts additional changes to the methodology or the resultant structure.
Regarding Claim 2, Seacrist as modified by Ahn and Kurganova teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer on a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, Lines 14-15) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the semiconductor substrate comprises Silicon Carbide (Seacrist, Col. 5, Line 15).
Regarding Claim 7, Seacrist as modified by Ahn and Kurganova teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer on a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, Lines 14-15) of Claim 2, wherein:
-wherein the one or more metal catalyst layer structures are patterned (Seacrist, ‘metal films’) such that during the graphene growth process, the entire one or more metal catalyst layer structure underlying the graphene layer is transitioned to the metal silicide (As provided in the incorporation of the teachings of Ahn into Seacrist of Claim 3 above, See Ahn Figs. 3A-3C and Paragraph [0079]).
Regarding Claim 8, Seacrist as modified by Ahn and Kurganova teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer on a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, Lines 14-15) of Claim 7, wherein:
-wherein the metal catalyst layer comprises a thickness between 45 nanometers and 55 nanometers (Seacrist, e.g. ’50 nanometers’; Col. 8, Lines 10-11).
Regarding Claim 10, Seacrist as modified by Ahn and Kurganova teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer on a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, Lines 14-15) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the metal catalyst layer comprises nickel (Seacrist, Col. 7, Line 66).
Examiner notes both Seacrist and Ahn provide for the use of multi-element metal catalysts (i.e. alloys) (See Seacrist, Col. 8, Line 1 and Ahn, Paragraph [0075])
Regarding Claim 11, Seacrist as modified by Ahn and Kurganova teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer on a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, Lines 14-15) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the metal catalyst layer is deposited by sputtering (Seacrist, Col. 8, Lines 2-4).
Regarding Claim 12, Seacrist as modified by Ahn and Kurganova teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer on a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, Lines 14-15) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the one or more metal catalyst layer structures are patterned using a metal etching photolithography process (Seacrist Col. 4, Lines 44-50 and Col. 7, Lines 30-35).
Regarding Claim 13, Seacrist as modified by Ahn and Kurganova teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer on a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, Lines 14-15) of Claim 1, wherein:
-the graphene growth process is facilitated using a chemical vapor deposition process (Seacrist, Col. 4, Lines 1-4 and 13-15), and wherein the chemical vapor deposition process utilizes a carbon precursor (e.g. a carbon-rich gas).
Regarding Claim 14, Seacrist as modified by Ahn and Kurganova teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer on a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, Lines 14-15) of Claim 1, wherein:
-methane gas is used as the carbon precursor in the chemical vapor deposition process (Seacrist, Col. 4, Line 14).
Regarding Claim 15, Seacrist as modified by Ahn and Kurganova teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer on a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, Lines 14-15) of Claim 13, wherein:
-during the chemical vapor deposition process, the metal catalyst layer is exposed to the carbon precursor for a duration between 600 seconds and 700 seconds (Seacrist, e.g. ‘600 seconds’; Col. 10, lines 48-51).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seacrist in view of Ahn and Kurganova, in further view of Wenxu et al. (U.S. Pub. 2016/0247906), hereinafter Wenxu.
Regarding Claim 4, Seacrist as modified by Ahn and Kurganova teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer on a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, Lines 14-15) of Claim 2, but does not explicitly teach:
- the semiconductor substrate comprises one or more contact points, and wherein one or more of the one or more metal catalyst layer structures are patterned in alignment with the one or more contact points.
Seacrist does teach the method disclosed may be used for graphene formation within the context of device manufacturing e.g. transistors (Col. 11, Lines 52-55)
Wenxu teaches a transistor (Fig.1, Paragraph [0055]) including graphene ((GP10); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0059]) and a method of manufacturing the same (Figs. 7A-7H; Paragraph [0081]), wherein:
- the semiconductor substrate ((SUB1); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0056]) comprises one or more contact points (e.g. the top surfaces of (S10) and (C10); Fig. 1, Paragraph [0056]) where the graphene layer ((GP10), see also in Fig. 7D) is present.
The limitation “wherein one or more of the one or more metal catalyst layer structures are patterned in alignment with the one or more contact points.” Would necessarily be fulfilled if the graphene is formed at the contact points, as the metal catalyst layer defines the location of the graphene growth.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wenxu into the method of Seacrist as modified by Ahn and Kurganova such that the semiconductor substrate comprises one or more contact points, and wherein one or more of the one or more metal catalyst layer structures are patterned in alignment with the one or more contact points. This would be due to the fact that doing so would result in the manufacturing of a device (transistor) with improved charge mobility and current density (Wenxu, Paragraph [0002]).
Regarding Claim 5, Seacrist, Ahn, and Kurganova as modified by Wenxu teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer on a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, Lines 14-15) of Claim 4, wherein:
-the one or more contact points comprise an n-type or p-type semiconductor region with a low doping concentration (Wenxu, e.g. (C10) with ‘n-type impurity or a p-type impurity’, Paragraph [0056]), and wherein the metal catalyst layer forms a Schottky contact between the graphene layer (GP10) and the semiconductor substrate (at (C10)) (Wenxu, ‘the contact between the graphene layer GP10 and the semiconductor region C10 may be a Schottky contact.’ Paragraph [0059], See also Paragraph [0061])).
Regarding Claim 6, Seacrist, Ahn, and Kurganova as modified by Wenxu teaches a method of disposing a graphene layer on a semiconductor substrate (Col. 1, Lines 14-15) of Claim 4, wherein:
the one or more contact points comprise an n-type or p-type semiconductor region with a high doping concentration (Wenxu, e.g. (S10) with ‘n-type impurity or a p-type impurity’ and ‘highly doped’, Paragraph [0056]), and wherein the metal catalyst layer forms an ohmic contact between the graphene layer and the semiconductor substrate (at (S10)) (Wenxu, ‘the contact between the graphene layer GP10 and the source region S10 may be an ohmic contact.’ Paragraph [0059])).
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
-Son et al. (U.S. 2014/0255500): Discloses a method for disposing a graphene layer (Fig. 1, Paragraph [0056]) including depositing a metal catalyst layer comprising molybdenum (‘Catalyst Metal’ of Mo; Figs. 1-2(b), Paragraph [0057]) in direct contact with a top surface of the semiconductor substrate (‘Carrier’; Figs. 1-2(b), Paragraph [0023])
-Lin et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0309404): Discloses a method for disposing a graphene layer ((106); Figs. 1A and 1B, Paragraphs [0010] and [0013]) including depositing a metal catalyst layer comprising molybdenum ((104); Fig. 1A, Paragraph [0012]) in direct contact with a top surface of the semiconductor substrate ((102); Fig. 1A, Paragraph [0011])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DMITRI MIHALIOV whose telephone number is (571)270-5220. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays 7:30 - 17:30 US Eastern Time.
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571) 272-1945. 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.
/DMITRI MIHALIOV/ Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights