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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 5/4/26 is acknowledged. Claims 19-20 have been withdrawn. Claims 1-18 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
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 14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “thin” and “high” in claims 14 and 16 respectively are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” and “high” are 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (2020/0286786) in combination with Joshi et al. (5,853,500).
Kim et al. (2020/0286786) teaches an epitaxial growth and transfer via patterned two-dimensional (2D) layers. Kim et al. (2020/0286786) teaches forming a two-dimensional (2D) layer (120/220) of graphene or MoS2 directly on a first substrate (110/210) and then forming an epitaxial layer (140/240) on the layer (120/220) and then removing the epitaxial layer (claimed exfoliating) and transferring to a second substrate (250) (Figs. 1A-1D, 2A,2F-2H and [0010]-[0017],[0021]-[0025]). Kim et al. (2020/0286786) teaches the bonding of the epitaxial layer to the substrate by way of the graphene layer can be van der Waals interaction [0016]. Kim et al. (2020/0286786) teaches the epitaxial layer can be the same material as the first substrate which includes an oxide substrate as it teaches strontium titanium oxide [0010].
Kim et al. (2020/0286786) fails to teach forming an oxide film using a pre-oxidized precursor comprising an organic moiety and one or more of the claimed metals forms.
Joshi et al. (5,853,500) teaches a method of fabricating thin films of barium strontium Titanate (BST) without exposure to oxygen whereby the liquid precursor is prepared having moieties and including the metals of barium and strontium (col. 2, lines 22-27 and col. 4, lines 40-65)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kim et al. (2020/0286786) process to include pre-oxidized precursor (already having oxygen and therefore not needed to include oxygen source as evidenced by Joshi et al. (5,853,500) with the expectation of producing the metal oxide film.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kim et al. (2020/0286786) teaches the first substrate comprises an oxide substrate as it teaches strontium titanium oxide [0010].
Regarding claims 4-6, Kim et al. (2020/0286786) teaches the graphene or MoS2 layer can be a monolayer or multilayer [0011].
Regarding claim 7, strontium and barium are alkaline earth metals.
Regarding claim 8, the BST is a metalloid which some properties of metals.
Regarding claim 9, Joshi et al. (5,853,500) teaches metalorganic CVD which would inherently include metal organic precursors (col. 5, lines 55-60).
Regarding claim 10, Joshi et al. (5,853,500) teaches the liquid precursors to have moieties which would be inclusive of the claimed R or OR with the R being an organic moiety (col. 2, lines 20-27).
Regarding claim 11, Joshi et al. (5,853,500) teaches no expose to oxygen which would mean no oxygen source (col. 2, lines 4-15).
Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to teach using a plasma, however, the Examiner takes the position that the use of plasma would be within the skill of one practicing in the art with the recognition of obtaining the benefits of using a plasma during or assisted in the deposition process.
Regarding claim 13, Kim et al. (2020/0286786) teaches strontium titanium oxide which is a perovskite structure (ABO3) ([0010].
Regarding claim 14 and 15, Joshi et al. (5,853,500) teaches film thickness of less than 0.5 microns and less than 200 nm which would make it a “thin” film (col. 4, lines 14-21 and col. 7, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 16, the BST is a known ferroelectric material and hence would have ferroelectricity.
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al. (2020/0286786) teaches a second substrate which can be considered a carrier substrate.
Regarding claim 18, Joshi et al. (5,853,500) teaches annealing the BST film layer (col. 2, lines 4-13 and col. 5, lines 1-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights