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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
Method for preparing a single-crystal copper layer by atomic deposition onto a substrate with a surface of a graphene layer
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites that the single-crystal copper layer is formed by “atomic deposition.” The specification merely repeats the claim language by reiterating that “atomic deposition” is used to form the single-crystal copper layer in at least ¶¶[0012]-[0013], ¶¶[0068]-[0074], ¶[0143], and ¶[0145] of the published application without further elaborating on what, exactly, constitutes “atomic deposition.” In Example 1 at ¶¶[0102]-[0103] of the published application, deposition of the single crystal copper layer is disclosed as being performed using a “6N high-purity copper target material as the copper source, in a mixed gas atmosphere” which is understood as utilizing sputter deposition. Thus, the process of “atomic deposition” as recited in at least claim 1 is interpreted to mean any vapor deposition technique which is known in the art such as sputter deposition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, and 16 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The term “low-transmission-loss” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low-transmission-loss” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since neither the claims nor the specification identify how low the transmission loss must be in order to be considered as a low-transmission-loss copper material, its recitation in claim 1 is therefore considered to be indefinite. Dependent claims 4 and 16 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 4, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Appl. Publ. No. CN 107354506 A to Peng, et al. (hereinafter “Peng”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2020/0402796 to Ning, et al. (“Ning”).
Regarding claim 1, Peng teaches a preparation method for a low-transmission-loss single-crystal copper material (see the Abstract, Figs 1-12, and entire reference which teach a method of depositing a single crystal Cu(111) film), wherein the preparation method comprises:
forming a single-crystal copper layer on a substrate with a surface by atomic deposition, in an atmosphere of a mixed gas of argon and hydrogen at a temperature of 800-1065 °C (see the Invention Contents section at pp. 2-3 as well as Example 1 at p. 4 which teach that a single-crystal copper layer is formed on the surface of a sapphire single crystal by sputter deposition in an atmosphere of a mixed gas having a pressure of 4×10-4 Pa followed by post-deposition annealing at a final temperature of 1,000 °C in a reducing atmosphere comprised of hydrogen and argon);
wherein a volume ratio of argon to hydrogen in the mixed gas is (10-20):1 (see the Invention Contents section at pp. 2-3 as well as Example 1 at p. 4 which teach that post-deposition annealing is performed in a reducing atmosphere comprised of hydrogen and argon with a flow ratio of argon to hydrogen of 500:10 to 50 which necessarily encompasses a 50 to 10:1 argon to hydrogen ratio).
Peng does not teach that the single-crystal copper layer is formed on a substrate with a surface of a graphene layer, that the graphene layer is a single-crystal graphene layer, or that this is followed by peeling off the single-crystal copper layer from the substrate. However, in Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0039]-[0066] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Ning teaches a method of depositing and transferring a Group III-nitride such as GaN from a sapphire substrate to a second target substrate. This is achieved by initially growing one or more layers of single-crystal graphene on a copper foil by CVD and then transferring the graphene onto a sapphire substrate. The graphene-transferred sapphire substrate was then placed in a reaction chamber and an epitaxial GaN layer was grown thereupon by MOCVD from ammonia and a Ga precursor gases. The presence of graphene at the film-substrate interface facilitates lift-off of the epitaxially grown GaN layer such that it may be transferred to a different substrate such as Si, flexible PMMA, or to a diamond substrate. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Ning and would be motivated to provide a single-crystal graphene layer on the surface of the sapphire substrate in the method of Peng for the epitaxial growth of a higher quality single crystal copper layer with fewer defects thereupon in order to facilitate release of the deposited single crystal copper layer so that it may become free-standing or transferred to a different support substrate for further processing.
Even if it is assumed arguendo that Peng and Ning do not teach that the atomic deposition process itself is performed in a mixed gas atmosphere of argon and hydrogen while the substrate is maintained at a temperature of 800-1065°C as claimed, this would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Peng. In pp. 2-3 of the Invention Contents and Example 1 at p. 4 Peng teaches performing a post-deposition annealing step at a final temperature of 1,000 °C in a reducing atmosphere comprised of hydrogen and argon gas in order to avoid oxidizing the copper and, as shown specifically in Figs. 7-9, to promote the formation of a single crystal with a smooth and high quality surface. In this regard it is noted that sapphire and copper have melting points of approximately 2,030 and 1,085 °C, respectively, and the annealing step itself is performed at a final temperature of 1,000 °C in an atmosphere comprised of hydrogen and argon. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would start with a deposition temperature in the vicinity of 1,000 °C and would utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal substrate temperature during an atomic deposition process such as sputter deposition using an argon and hydrogen gas mixture with an overlapping 50 to 10:1 argon to hydrogen ratio to generate the sputtering plasma with the motivation for doing so being to produce a higher quality copper single crystal with fewer defects, a smooth surface, and no contamination by copper oxides. The combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. All the claimed elements are known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, with the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, __, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007). See also, MPEP 2143(A).
Regarding claim 4, Peng teaches that a temperature of preparing the single-crystal copper layer is 900-1000°C and the volume ratio of argon and hydrogen in the mixed gas is (13-15):1; and optionally, the substrate is a sapphire substrate whose surface is the graphene layer (see the Invention Contents section at pp. 2-3 as well as Example 1 at p. 4 which teach the sputter-deposited single-crystal copper layer is subject to post-deposition annealing at a final temperature of 1,000 °C in a reducing atmosphere comprised of hydrogen and argon with a flow ratio of argon to hydrogen of 500:10 to 50 which necessarily encompasses a 50 to 10:1 argon to hydrogen ratio which encompasses the entirety of the claimed range).
Regarding claim 16, Peng teaches that a preparation step of the single crystal copper layer comprises: forming the single-crystal copper layer on the substrate by atomic deposition (see the Invention Contents section at pp. 2-3 as well as Example 1 at p. 4 which teach that a single-crystal copper layer is formed on the surface of a sapphire single crystal by sputter deposition in an atmosphere of a mixed gas having a pressure of 4×10-4 Pa), but does not teach that the single-crystal layer is formed on the graphene layer. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 1, in Figs. 1-3 and ¶¶[0039]-[0066] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Ning teaches a method of depositing and transferring a Group III-nitride such as GaN from a sapphire substrate to a second target substrate. This is achieved by initially transferring initially growing one or more layers of crystalline graphene on a copper foil by CVD and then transferring the graphene onto a sapphire substrate. The graphene-transferred sapphire substrate was then placed in a reaction chamber and an epitaxial GaN layer was grown thereupon by MOCVD from ammonia and a Ga precursor gases. The presence of graphene at the film-substrate interface facilitates lift-off of the epitaxially grown GaN layer such that it may be transferred to a different substrate such as Si, flexible PMMA, or to a diamond substrate. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Ning and would be motivated to provide a crystalline graphene layer on the surface of the sapphire substrate in the method of Peng for the epitaxial growth of single crystal copper thereupon in order to facilitate release of the deposited single crystal copper layer so that it may become free-standing or transferred to a different support substrate for further processing.
Peng and Ning do not teach that the deposition itself is performed in a mixed gas atmosphere of argon and hydrogen at the temperature of 800-1065°C. However, in pp. 2-3 of the Invention Contents and Example 1 at p. 4 Peng teaches performing a post-deposition annealing step at a final temperature of 1,000 °C in a reducing atmosphere comprised of hydrogen and argon gas in order to avoid oxidizing the copper and, as shown specifically in Figs. 7-9, to promote the formation of a single crystal with a smooth and high quality surface. In this regard it is noted that sapphire and copper have melting points of approximately 2,030 and 1,085 °C, respectively, and the annealing step itself is performed at a final temperature of 1,000 °C in an atmosphere comprised of hydrogen and argon. Accordingly, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would start with a deposition temperature in the vicinity of 1,000 °C and would utilize routine experimentation to determine the optimal substrate temperature during sputter deposition using an argon and hydrogen gas mixture to generate the sputtering plasma with the motivation for doing so being to produce a higher quality copper single crystal with fewer defects, a smooth surface, and no contamination by copper oxides.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed April 20, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ proposed title has been reviewed by the Examiner, but it is noted that the elected invention relates specifically to a method and the submitted title recites both the method and product. A proposed replacement title has been supplied by the Examiner.
Applicants contend that the term “atomic deposition” as used in the present application can be ascertained from the disclosed examples and refers to “a vapor deposition method in which a high-purity solid target material is used as the copper source” and “[u]nder a specific mixed gas atmosphere and high-temperature conditions, atoms on the surface of the target are caused to detach from the target and are transported in the vapor phase as atoms or atomic clusters to the substrate surface.” See applicants’ 4/20/2026 reply, pp. 8-9. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive since, for one, it is based on arguments of counsel rather than factually supported objective evidence. Applicants appear to be generally describing the term “atomic deposition” as being sputter deposition, but with the added constraints of a specific mixed gas atmosphere and high-temperature conditions. It is noted, however, that there is no specific art-recognized definition for the term “atomic deposition” and the specification itself also does not provide a clear and explicit definition for the term “atomic deposition.” Thus, it appears as if applicants are attempting to read more limitations into the claim than what is actually present. Accordingly, it is the Examiner’s position that the term “atomic deposition” is properly interpreted as any vapor deposition technique which is known in the art and includes, but is not limited to techniques such as sputter deposition.
Applicants argue against the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 1 by arguing that the term “low-transmission-loss” is a well-recognized standard term in the field of PCBs and copper foil technology and that the most essential and defining characteristic being “extremely low surface roughness.” Id. at pp. 9-10. Applicants then contend that there are industry standards which clarify the meaning of “low-transmission-loss” since there are loss levels which are defined based on specific surface roughness ranges such as RTF, VLP, HVLP4, and HVLP5. Id. at pp. 10-11. Applicants’ arguments are noted, but are unpersuasive. The use of another relative term such as “extremely low surface roughness” to define the relative term “low-transmission-loss” does not provide further clarification for the claim scope as it remains unclear as to how low the surface roughness needs to be in order to be considered as having an extremely low surface roughness. With respect to the alleged industry standards it is the Examiner’s position that the presence of these standards still does not provide any clarification as to what, exactly, is considered a “low-transmission-loss single-crystal copper material” as recited in claim 1. There is nothing that says this term is limited to materials having the specific surface roughness range for those standards. Instead, it appears applicants are attempting to read limitations into the claim that are not present in the claim itself and are not explicitly defined in the specification. Applicants are reminded that although claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. The Examiner suggests removing the phrase “low-transmission-loss” or amending the claim such that it does not use a relative term to describe the copper material.
Applicants initially argue that the claimed argon to hydrogen gas ratio of 10:1 to 20:1 is not anticipated by Peng because Peng discloses the broader range of 10:1 to 50:1. Id. at pp. 12-13. Applicants’ argument is noted, but it is pointed out that the present rejection is under 35 U.S.C. 103 rather than 102. Since the recited range is encompassed within the range disclosed by Peng and does not produce unexpected results it is, at the very least, considered to be obvious in view of Peng for the reasons noted.
Applicants then contend that the process of “atomic deposition” as recited in claim 1 is different from the magnetron sputtering process disclosed in Peng because “atomic deposition” itself involves high-temperature-driven atom detachment from a high-purity solid copper target and atomic-level epitaxial growth. Id. at pp. 13-14. This argument is not found persuasive since, as discussed supra, applicants are attempting to read limitations into the claim that are not specifically recited in the claim itself and are not explicitly defined in the specification. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case the term “atomic deposition” is given its BRI in light of the specification and is understood to mean any deposition process which involves thin film growth from the vapor phase and is not specifically limited to sputter deposition. Moreover, applicants’ alleged definition for the “atomic deposition” process itself utilizes relative terms such as “high-temperature conditions,” a “high-purity” target material, and a “dense” single-crystal film, all of which do not further clarify the scope of the claim since the precise temperature, purity, and density ranges that are considered as “high” or “dense” are not clearly defined. Since the magnetron sputter deposition process disclosed by Peng is a vapor-deposition process it therefore is considered to be an ”atomic deposition” process and meets the claim.
Applicants then argue that the temperatures disclosed by Peng relate to the pre- and post-deposition annealing steps and that Peng does not specifically teach the use of a temperature of 800 to 1,065 °C during sputter deposition. See applicants’ 4/20/2026 reply, p. 15. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. Although Peng appears to be silent regarding the exact substrate temperature and gas atmosphere used during sputter deposition, it is the Examiner’s position that the language of claim 1 does not specifically require that the temperature of the substrate is in the 800 to 1,065 °C range with a 10:1 to 20:1 ratio of argon to hydrogen during the sputter deposition process itself. At most, claims 1 and 4 recite that the single crystal copper layer is formed in a process which involves utilizing an atmosphere of argon and hydrogen a temperature of 800 to 1,065 °C. Since the annealing processes utilized in the method of Peng are performed in a mixed gas atmosphere comprised of hydrogen and argon with a 50 to 10:1 ratio at a temperature of 1,000 °C it therefore meets the claim. In any case, the previous rejection of cancelled claim 3 and now amended claim 1 provides an obviousness analysis in which it is the Examiner’s position that it would have been obvious to optimize the substrate temperature and argon to hydrogen ratio utilized during sputter deposition through routine experimentation. Since argon and hydrogen are utilized during the Cu annealing process due to their inert nature and the reducing properties of H2, a PHOSITA would be motivated to also utilize these gases in a similar ratio during sputter deposition to generate the plasma and provide a higher purity atmosphere which minimizes the formation of copper oxide. Moreover, in view of the melting points of Cu and the annealing temperatures utilized in the method of Peng it would have been within the capabilities of a PHOSITA to start with, for example, a substrate temperature of 1,000 °C and systematically vary the temperature until the conditions that favor the growth of a high quality single crystal Cu layer are determined. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CPA 1955). See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Applicants then argue that the prior art does not teach or recognize that the deposition temperature and volume ratio of argon to hydrogen in the atmosphere can influence the surface roughness of the resulting single crystal Cu film. See applicants’ 4/20/2026 reply, pp. 15-16. Applicants’ argument is noted, but unpersuasive since, for one, it appears to be based upon features which are not claimed. There is no specific recitation of the surface roughness in the pending claims and applicants have not provided any evidence or otherwise which demonstrates that the specific growth conditions recited in the claims are critical or produce unexpected results. Moreover, since the combination of Peng and Ning teach or render obvious each and every step recited in claim 1 it must necessarily produce the same results, namely a high quality single crystal Cu layer with a low surface roughness.
Applicants subsequently argue that Ning does not recognize that the use of single crystal graphene for the deposition of single crystal Cu thereupon results in a significant improvement in the surface roughness of the copper material. Id. at pp. 16-17. This argument also is unpersuasive since the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). In this case the teachings of Ning show that the use of graphene as a release layer for GaN grown on sapphire substrates is known in the art. Moreover, since Cu is routinely utilized as a catalyst for graphene growth, the compatibility of Cu and graphene surfaces is well-known in the art. Consequently, the Examiner has provided a suitable motivation for utilizing graphene as a release layer during the growth of single crystal Cu thin films. The fact that this also produces a smoother Cu surface cannot, by itself, be the basis for patentability when there is a suitable motivation to combine the cited references in order to perform each and every step of the claimed process. Finally, it is again pointed out that applicants’ argument appears to be based on features which are not claimed since the pending claims do not appear to recite a specific surface roughness that is obtained as a result of the claimed process and there is no indication that the results obtained are critical or unexpected.
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 KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights