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 .
(RCE)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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 of an RCE filed on 01/13/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/30/2026 was filed in a timely manner; thus, the submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 #15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopatin et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2010/0203391)m hereinafter referred to as “Lopatin” and in view of Bondokov et al., (U.S. Pat. No, 11,840,773), hereinafter referred to as "Bondokov".
Lopatin shows, with respect to claim #15, a method of accelerated intercalation doping; insertion of dopant atoms, ions, or molecules into layered 2D materials, said method comprising: loading single or multiple wafers or substrates (fig. #1B, item 101 also, fig. #11, item 1102) (paragraph 0032, 0065) into a reactor chamber (fig. #11, item 1100) (paragraph 0059, 0065), wherein the single or multiple wafers or substrates comprise multi-layer graphene strips (fig. #1A, item 112; paragraph 0013, 0038) define exposed layer edges, wherein the multi-layer graphene strips comprise two or more graphene layers (paragraph 0035, 0038) heating the single or multiple wafers or substrates to a temperature of 25 0C to 500 °C (paragraph 0059)
Lopatin substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #15 above.
Lopatin fails to state explicitly, with respect to claim #15, a method wherein the single or multiple wafers or substrates comprise a diameter or side distance in the range of 25 mm to 450 mm, creating pressure on the single or multiple wafers or substrates in the range of 2 bar to 500 bar; and introducing intercalation doping agents into the reactor chamber to insert the intercalation dopants between the two or more graphene layers via the exposed layer edges.
Bondokov teaches, with respect to claim #15, a method wherein the single or multiple wafers or substrates (column #4, line 49-55; column #5, line 53-58) comprise a diameter or side distance in the range of 25 mm to 450 mm (column 13, line 58-67; column 29, line 7-18), creating pressure on the single or multiple wafers or substrates in the range of 2 bar to 500 bar (column 15, line 64-67; column 16, line 1-2); and introducing intercalation doping agents into the reactor chamber to insert the intercalation dopants between the two or more graphene layers via the exposed layer edges (column #39, line 54-67, column #40, line 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #15, to modified the invention of Lopatin as modified by the invention of Bondokov, which teaches, a method wherein the single or multiple wafers or substrates comprise a diameter or side distance in the range of 25 mm to 450 mm, creating pressure on the single or multiple wafers or substrates in the range of 2 bar to 500 bar; and introducing intercalation doping agents into the reactor chamber to insert the intercalation dopants between the two or more graphene layers via the exposed layer edges, to incorporate a structural condition that controls the temperature gradient to allow the radial temperature gradients to be utilized to control the diameter of the growing crystal and influence its crystalline quality, as taught by Bondokov.
Lopatin shows, with respect to claim #16, wherein said introducing comprises accelerating atoms or molecules of the intercalation dopants via pressure, temperature or electrical bias (paragraph 0045, 0060).
Lopatin shows, with respect to claim #17, a method wherein said heating, creating and introducing are maintained for a specified time (paragraph 0060) wherein said specified time is at least one half of a maximum width of the graphene strips divided by a speed of intercalation doping (paragraph 0060).
Lopatin shows, with respect to claim #18, a method wherein said creating creates the pressure via gaseous pressure (paragraph 0060, 0066).
Lopatin shows, with respect to claim #19, a method wherein said creating creates the pressure via mechanical pressure (paragraph 0060, 0066).
Lopatin shows, with respect to claim #20, a method wherein the single or multiple wafers or substrates comprise layered 2D materials (fig. #2, item 200) (paragraph 0032, 0035).
Lopatin substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #15 above.
Lopatin fails to show, with respect to claim #21, a method wherein said introducing is conducted via a dopant application apparatus.
Bondokov teaches, with respect to claim #21, a method wherein said introducing is conducted via a dopant application apparatus (column #39, line 49-67, column #40, line 1-4).
.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #21, to modified the invention of Lopatin as modified by the invention of Bondokov, which teaches, a method wherein said introducing is conducted via a dopant application apparatus, to incorporate a structural condition that posed an even absorption ban, as taught by Bondokov.
Lopatin shows, with respect to claim #22, a method wherein a space between parallel ones of the exposed layer edges is equal to or greater than 10 times the diameter of a molecule, ion, or atom of said intercalant dopant (paragraph 0037-0038, 0042).
Lopatin shows, with respect to claim #23, a method wherein said introducing comprises injecting dopant gas into the reactor chamber (paragraph 0056).
Lopatin fails to show, with respect to claim #24, a method wherein said introducing comprises hosting liquid or solid dopants in a crucible within the reactor chamber.
Bondokov teaches, with respect to claim #24 a method wherein said introducing comprises hosting liquid or solid dopants in a crucible within the reactor chamber (column #3, line 63-67, column #4, line 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #24, to modified the invention of Lopatin as modified by the invention of Bondokov, which teaches, a method wherein said introducing comprises hosting liquid or solid dopants in a crucible within the reactor chamber, to incorporate to promote and control the growth of the material, as taught by Bondokov.
Lopatin shows, with respect to claim #25, a method wherein the reactor chamber is vertically oriented and the single or multiple wafers or substrates (fig. #11, item 1102) are horizontally oriented (fig. #11, item 1100) (paragraph 0065).
//
Claim #26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lopatin et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2010/0203391)m hereinafter referred to as “Lopatin” as modified by Bondokov et al., (U.S. Pat. No, 11,840,773), hereinafter referred to as "Bondokov" as shown in the rejection of claim #15 above and in further view of Yang et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2022/0371901), hereinafter referred to as "Yang".
Lopatin as modified by Bondokov, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #15 above.
Lopatin as modified by Bondokov fails to show, with respect to claim #26, wherein introducing comprises hosting liquid or solid dopants in a crucible in a separate chamber connected to the reactor chamber and heating the crucible to a different temperature than the single or multiple wafers or substrates.
Yang teaches, with respect to claim #26, wherein introducing comprises hosting liquid or solid dopants in a crucible (fig. #6A item 200) in a separate chamber connected to the reactor chamber (fig. #6A item 240) and heating the crucible to a different temperature than the single or multiple wafers or substrates (paragraph 00325).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #26, to modified the invention of Lopatin as modified by Bondokov, with the invention of Yang, which teaches, wherein introducing comprises hosting liquid or solid dopants in a crucible in a separate chamber connected to the reactor chamber and heating the crucible to a different temperature than the single or multiple wafers or substrates, to incorporate a structural condition that would present chosen gasses for flooding the layer and aiding the plasma process, as taught by Yang.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
02/02/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899