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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, “Cullen does not disclose depositing a protection layer on at least a portion of the low surface energy surface”.
The Examiner has considered the Applicant’s argument but respectfully disagrees for the following reasons;
The notes that the present claim language is directed to a method and not a structural dynamic.
Furthermore, the release liner (fig. #1, item 155), however, is configured to have reduced adhesive force with the pressure sensitive adhesive as compared to the adhesive force between the pressure sensitive adhesive and the second layer (paragraph 0027); i.e. low energy material.
With regard the protection layer, the Examiner directs the Applicant to the collection of layers that create a structural first layer;
First face; item 115
Second face; item 120
First coating; item 125, silicone; grafted silicone coatings (specifically polydimethylsiloxane, or PDMS) can form molecularly smooth, non-stick layers.
The Examiner further notes that the present arguments are directed to structural dynamics of the claim language while the claims are directed to a method of forming.
For these reason, the Examiner takes the position that Cullen indeed shows a low energy layer with a molecularly smooth layer deposited therewith.
Applicant argues, “Cullen does not disclose a protection layer that is atomically thin or
atomically smooth”.
The Examiner directs the applicant to the description of the protection layer as shown in the answer to the Applicant’s first argument. For these reasons, the Applicant takes the position that Cullen indeed shows a deposition of a molecularly smooth layer.
Applicant argues, “Cullen does not disclose depositing one or more thin film materials on the protection layer”.
The Examiner takes the position that Cullen indeed shows at least on layer being deposited on the protection layer; fig. #1, item 150.
For the above reasons, the Examiner takes the position that the claimed invention as presently claimed is indeed shown by the invention of Cullen. Therefore this action is being made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) #58-61, 63, 65, 72, 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Cullen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2020/0223180), hereinafter referred to as "Cullen".
Cullen shows, with respect to claim #58, a method of forming a multi-layer structure comprising: providing a substrate (fig. #1, item 155) having a low surface energy surface (paragraph 0025, 0033-0034); depositing a protection layer (fig. #1, item 110) on at least a portion of the low surface energy surface (paragraph 0033-0034), wherein the protection layer is atomically thin and/or atomically smooth depositing one or more thin film materials on the protection layer to provide one or more layers of thin film materials (paragraph 0028): and detaching the multi-layer structure from the substrate (paragraph 0033-0034); wherein the multi-layer structure comprises the protection layer (fig. #1, item 110) and the one or more layers (fig. #1, item 125, 130, 140) of thin film materials (paragraph 0034).
Cullen shows, with respect to claim #59, method of forming a multi-layer structure comprising wherein the low surface energy surface (fig. #1, item 155) comprises a low surface energy coating (fig. #1, item 145) or modification disposed on at least a portion of the substrate (paragraph 0020, 0033).
Cullen shows, with respect to claim #60, a method wherein the method further comprises, prior to step (iv), depositing a capping layer (fig. #1, item 150) on the one or more layers of thin film materials (paragraph 0008, 0021, 0033).
Cullen shows, with respect to claim #61, a method wherein the method further comprises, prior to step (iv), providing a delamination promoting layer (fig. #1, item 145) in contact with the capping (fig. #1, item 150) (paragraph 0033).
Cullen shows, with respect to claim #63, a method wherein the low surface energy surface (fig. #1, item 155) has a surface energy (polyethylene ≈ 30-36 mJ/m2) of less than about 50 mJ/m2 (paragraph 0025, 0033).
Cullen shows, with respect to claim #65, a method wherein the low surface energy surface comprises one or more monolavers of fluorine atoms, fluorinated molecules, or long-chain aliphatic molecule (paragraph 0022).
Cullen shows, with respect to claim #69, a method wherein the one or more thin film materials are selected from the group consisting of a photosensitive material, a photoemissive material, a photoactive material, an air-sensitivematerial, an oxygen sensitivematerial, and a material sensitive to an exposing environment, or a combination thereof (Photoinitiator; paragraph 0022).
Cullen shows, with respect to claim #72, a method wherein step (ii) comprises epitaxially growing the protection layer on the substrate in-situ, or transferring the protection layer from a source layer (Photoinitiator; paragraph 0021).
Cullen shows, with respect to claim #73, a method wherein the source layer is silicon carbide (SiC),a metal thin film of copper (Cu) or gold (Au), or a polymeric thin film (paragraph 0004) of thermal release tape (paragraph 0022, 0029).
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 #62 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2020/0223180), hereinafter referred to as "Cullen" as shown in the rejection of claim #58 above and in view of Williams et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0284887), hereinafter referred to as "Williams".
Cullen substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #58 above.
Cullen fails to show, with respect to claim #62, a method wherein the delamination promoting layer comprises a stressed metal film or a tape.
Williams teaches, with respect to claim #62, a method wherein the delamination promoting layer comprises a stressed metal film or a tape (paragraph 0051, 0215).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #62, to modified the invention of Cullen as modified by the invention of Williams, which teaches, a method wherein the delamination promoting layer comprises a stressed metal film or a tape, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a mechanical reinforcement layer or intermediate barrier layer with additional mechanical strength enabling the article to be self-supporting and not very fragile, even when the molding substrate is removed, as taught by Williams.
//
Claim #64, 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2020/0223180), hereinafter referred to as "Cullen" as shown in the rejection of claim #58 above and in view of Rabnawaz et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0253901), hereinafter referred to as "Rabnawaz".
Cullen substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #58 above.
Cullen fails to show, with respect to claim #64, a method wherein the low surface energy surface has a water contact angle of greater than 1200.
Rabnawaz teaches, with respect to claim #64, a method wherein the low surface energy surface has a water contact angle of greater than 1200 (paragraph 0019, 0051).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #64, to modified the invention of Cullen as modified by the invention of Rabnawaz, which teaches, a method wherein the low surface energy surface has a water contact angle of greater than 1200, to incorporate a structural condition that promotes the omniphobic polymeric micelles to structurally re-orient themselves, such that the hydrophilic portion that generally fills the pores of the porous substrate, as taught by Rabnawaz.
Cullen fails to show, with respect to claim #67, a method wherein the protection layer comprises one or more materials selected from the group consisting of graphene. graphene oxide. hexagonal boron nitride (hBN), transition metal dichalcogenides, and silica (SiO2), or a combination thereof.
Rabnawaz teaches, with respect to claim #67, a method wherein the protection layer comprises one or more materials selected from the group consisting of graphene. graphene oxide. hexagonal boron nitride (hBN), transition metal dichalcogenides, and silica (SiO2), or a combination thereof (paragraph 0028, 0051).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #67, to modified the invention of Cullen as modified by the invention of Rabnawaz, which teaches, a method wherein the protection layer comprises one or more materials selected from the group consisting of graphene. graphene oxide. hexagonal boron nitride (hBN), transition metal dichalcogenides, and silica (SiO2), or a combination thereof, to incorporate a structural condition that would promote the sealing of the substrate pores, as taught by Rabnawaz.
///
Claim #66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2020/0223180), hereinafter referred to as "Cullen" as shown in the rejection of claim #58 above and in view of Sieber et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0189898), hereinafter referred to as "Sieber".
Cullen substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #58 above.
Cullen fails to show, with respect to claim #66, a method wherein the low surface energy surface comprises an atomically smooth surface having a roughness of less than 1 monolayer of deviation from the mean line.
Sieber teaches, with respect to claim #66, a method wherein the low surface energy surface comprises an atomically smooth surface having a roughness of less than 1 monolayer of deviation from the mean line (paragraph 0206).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #66, to modified the invention of Cullen as modified by the invention of Sieber, which teaches, a method wherein the low surface energy surface comprises an atomically smooth surface having a roughness of less than 1 monolayer of deviation from the mean line to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a condition for preparing hydrophobic surfaces with low water permeability, as taught by Sieber.
////
Claim #68 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2020/0223180), hereinafter referred to as "Cullen" as modified by Rabnawaz et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0253901), hereinafter referred to as "Rabnawaz", as shown in the rejection of claim #67 above and in view of Koloski et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 6,608,129), hereinafter referred to as "Koloski".
Cullen as modified by Rabnawaz, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #67 above.
Cullen as modified by Rabnawaz, fails to show, with respect to claim #68, a method wherein the transition metal dichalcogenide is molybdenum (Mo) or tungsten(W) combined with sulfur(S) selenium(Se), or tellurium (Te).
Koloski teaches, with respect to claim #68, a method wherein the transition metal dichalcogenide is molybdenum (Mo) or tungsten(W) combined with sulfur(S) selenium(Se), or tellurium (Te) (column #16, line 35-52; column #36, line 24-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #68, to modified the invention of Cullen as modified by Rabnawaz, with the invention of Koloski, which teaches, a method wherein the transition metal dichalcogenide is molybdenum (Mo) or tungsten(W) combined with sulfur(S) selenium(Se), or tellurium (Te), to incorporate a structural condition such as inorganic molecules which can be polymerized into macromolecular networks or which can be treated so that the inorganic molecules interact with the polymer matrix's functionality, as taught by Koloski.
/////
Claim #70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2020/0223180), hereinafter referred to as "Cullen" as shown in the rejection of claim #69 above and in view of GASTON et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0201205), hereinafter referred to as "Gaston"
Cullen substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #69 above.
Cullen fails to show, with respect to claim #70, a method wherein the one or more photoemissive, photoactive, photosensitive, or air-sensitive materials are selected from the group consisting of Ag, Mg, Cs3Sb. gallium arsenide (GaAs), an alkali antimonide, indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs), cesium telluride (CsTe), and cesium iodide (Csl), or a combination thereof.
Gaston teaches, with respect to claim #70, a method wherein the one or more photoemissive, photoactive, photosensitive, or air-sensitive materials are selected from the group consisting of Ag, Mg, Cs3Sb. gallium arsenide (GaAs), an alkali antimonide, indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs), cesium telluride (CsTe), and cesium iodide (Csl), or a combination thereof, (paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #70, to modified the invention of Cullen as modified by the invention of Gaston, which teaches, a method wherein the one or more photoemissive, photoactive, photosensitive, or air-sensitive materials are selected from the group consisting of Ag, Mg, Cs3Sb. gallium arsenide (GaAs), an alkali antimonide, indium gallium arsenide (InGaAs), cesium telluride (CsTe), and cesium iodide (Csl), or a combination thereof, to incorporate a structural condition with characteristics that would allow light conversion to electrical energy, as taught by Gaston.
//////
Claim #71 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2020/0223180), hereinafter referred to as "Cullen" as modified by GASTON et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0201205), hereinafter referred to as "Gaston", as shown in the rejection of claim #70 above and in view of Moody et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0201205), hereinafter referred to as "Gaston".
Cullen as modified by Gaston, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #70 above.
Cullen as modified by Gaston fails to show, with respect to claim #71, a method wherein the alkali antimonide is of the formula KxNayRbwCszSb wherein each of x, y, w, and z is independently 0, 1, 2, or 3, provided that x+y+w+z is 3.
Moody teaches, with respect to claim #71, a method wherein the alkali antimonide is of the formula KxNayRbwCszSb wherein each of x, y, w, and z is independently 0, 1, 2, or 3, provided that x+y+w+z is 3 (paragraph 0013-0015, 0039).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #71, to modified the invention of Cullen as modified by Gaston, with the invention of Moody, which teaches, a method wherein the alkali antimonide is of the formula KxNayRbwCszSb wherein each of x, y, w, and z is independently 0, 1, 2, or 3, provided that x+y+w+z is 3, to incorporate a structural condition with characteristics that would allow light conversion to electrical energy, as taught by Moody.
//////
Claim #74, 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2020/0223180), hereinafter referred to as "Cullen" as shown in the rejection of claim #73 above and in view of Sieber et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0189898), hereinafter referred to as "Sieber".
Cullen substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #73 above.
Cullen fails to show, with respect to claim #74, a method wherein step (ii) comprises epitaxially growing the protection layer on the substrate in-situ by physical vapor deposition or molecular beam epitaxy.
Sieber teaches, with respect to claim #74, a method wherein step (ii) comprises epitaxially growing the protection layer on the substrate in-situ by physical vapor deposition or molecular beam epitaxy (paragraph 0206).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #74, to modified the invention of Cullen as modified by the invention of Sieber, which teaches, a method wherein step (ii) comprises epitaxially growing the protection layer on the substrate in-situ by physical vapor deposition or molecular beam epitaxy, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a mechanical reinforcement layer or intermediate barrier layer with additional mechanical strength enabling the article to be self-supporting and not very fragile, even when the molding substrate is removed, as taught by Sieber.
Cullen fails to show, with respect to claim #75, a method wherein the physical vapor deposition comprises sputter deposition.
Sieber teaches, with respect to claim #75, a method wherein the physical vapor deposition comprises sputter deposition (paragraph 0206).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #75, to modified the invention of Cullen as modified by the invention of Sieber, which teaches, a method wherein the physical vapor deposition comprises sputter deposition, to incorporate a structural condition that would provide a mechanical reinforcement layer or intermediate barrier layer with additional mechanical strength enabling the article to be self-supporting and not very fragile, even when the molding substrate is removed, as taught by Sieber.
///////
Claim #76, 77 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2020/0223180), hereinafter referred to as "Cullen" and in view of Liu et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0348639), hereinafter referred to as "Liu".
Cullen shows, with respect to claim #76, a multi-layer structure comprising; a protection layer (fig. #1, item 110) and one more layers of one or more thin film materials (fig. #1, item 125, 1220, 130, 145)(paragraph 0033-0034); wherein the protection layer is atomically thin and/or atomically smooth in ta local surface (paragraph 0028).
Cullen substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #76 above.
Cullen fails to show, with respect to claim #76, a method wherein the area is observed by visual inspection, optical microscope, AFM, electron microscope, or any combination thereof.
Liu teaches, with respect to claim #76, a method wherein the area is observed by visual inspection, optical microscope, AFM, electron microscope, or any combination thereof (paragraph 0124).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #76, to modified the invention of Cullen as modified by the invention of Liu, which teaches, a method wherein the area is observed by visual inspection, optical microscope, AFM, electron microscope, or any combination thereof, to verify the mechanical stability of the template, as taught by Liu.
Cullen shows, with respect to claim #77, a method further comprising a capping layer (fig. #1, item 150) in contact with the one or more layers of one or more thin film materials (paragraph 0008, 0021, 0033).
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
05/04/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights