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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 56-71, 73 are pending in this application, which is a 371 of PCT/IL2022/050701.
The preliminary amendments dated 12/25/2023 and 06/29/2025 adding claims 56-73 and canceling claims 1-55, 72 have been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 56-64 in the reply filed on 09/05/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that independent claims 65, 68 are directed to a similar method using different molecules (p.3. lines 14-15 This is not found persuasive because the compounds are different as confirmed by the applicant.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 65-71, 73 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.
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.
It is noted that the claimed invention is directed solely to a method. The examiner suggests amending the title to reflect same.
The lengthy 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.
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 56-64 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 56 line 8, the elements of a Markush group must be separated with the word –and--. MPEP 2117I. The same issue applies to claim 57
In claim 56 line 11, the term “said first graphene molecular precursor” lacks antecedent basis. The same issue applies to claim 57.
In claim 56 line 13, the term “the graphene molecular precursor” lacks antecedent basis and/or is confusing as to which graphene molecular precursor is being referred to.
In claim 56 line 14, the term “the X1 tethering groups” lacks antecedent basis and/or is confusing as to which tethering group is being referred to.
In claim 56 lines 18-19, the phrase “to obtain … connected to the graphene layer” is confusing as to what said phrase is modifying. It is not clear whether it is referring to the transforming step or not. If it is, the examiner suggests deleting the comma in line 17.
In claim 57 lines 8-10, the tethering groups listed are confusing as to whether they are the same materials or not. For example, X2 can be one material attached to a different surface/layer thus making the selection grouping confusing.
In claim 58 line 1, the word “hods” is confusing.
In claim 58, the plurality of groups and combinations are deemed confusing.
In claim 58 lines 5-10, it is not clear what the elements of the Markush group is. Elements in a Markush group is separated by the word -- and-- such as selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C. The only use of the word “and” is used in line 7 and appears to be referring to the functional groups not X1. The same issue applies to the Markush groups listed in 11-12, 13-14. The same issue also applies to claim 59.
In claim 59 , the plurality of Markush groups are extremely confusing as to what materials or functional groups are being required.
In claim 61 line 2, the term “the Raman scattering” lacks antecedent basis and/or is confusing as to what it is referring to.
In claim 61 line 2, the term “IR light” is deemed confusing as to whether it is the second radiation source or not. Clarification and appropriate amendments are requested.
In claim 61 line 3, the term “the radiation of light” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 63 line 2, the term “the … formation of graphene layer” lacks antecedent basis and/or is confusing as to what it is referring to. To be clear, there is no layer formation step recited in independent claim 56.
In claim 64 line 2, the term “the graphene layer pattern” lacks antecedent basis.
In claim 64 line 3, the term “the bottom of a conducting wire” lacks antecedent basis and is confusing as to what wire is being referred to. The same issue applies to “the sidewalls” in line 4.
In claim 64 line 4, the term “a dielectric layer” is confusing as to what dielectric layer is being referred to.
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.
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.
Claims 56, 61-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kub et al. (2012/0141799) in view of Sinitskii et al. (WO 2021/138665).
Kub teaches a method of depositing a graphene film on a substrate (title) followed by a semiconductor material film or graphene interface transition layer (0109). Specifically, the graphene interface transition layer is formed on a graphene sheet on the first surface of the graphene material layer (0109) and results in covalent boding (0114). However, the reference fails to teach the claimed compound.
Sinitskii teaches a method of forming graphene films (title) on a catalytic substrate (0007) using several different precursors (0015-0036). In one embodiment, the precursor can be 6, 11-dibromo-1,2,3,4-tetraphenyltriphenylene (0008). To utilize the graphene precursor of Sinitskii in the process of Kub would have been obvious with the expectation of success because Sinitskii teaches of using a variety of graphene precursors to form graphene films.
Regarding 61, Sinitskii teaches Raman spectroscopy (0074-0076).
Regarding claim 62, Kub teaches a temperature from room temperature to 1100oC (0076).
Regarding claim 63, the applicant requires the surface remaining intact. It is noted that Kub does not teach the degradation of the surface and thus reads on the claim.
Claim 64 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kub et al. (2012/0141799) in view of Sinitskii et al. (WO 2021/138665) and further in view of Di et al. (2016/0202613). The combination of Kub/Sinitskii fails to teach an interconnect wire pattern.
Di teaches a method of fabricating a graphene sensor (title) by depositing a graphene layer on a substrate followed by a metal layer and a photoresist layer followed by removal steps (abstract). The underlying metal layer which remains has a wire pattern and a graphene layer pattern (0054). It would have been obvious to utilize a wire pattern in the combination with the expectation of success depending on the desired final product because Di teaches of using an interconnect wire pattern for use as a graphene sensor.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 57-60 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims AND the 112 rejections are overcome.
The references fail to teach or suggest the claimed materials.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRET CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-8:30 MT.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at (571) 272-5166. 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.
/BRET P CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718 02/02/2026