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
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Two information disclosure statements submitted on 04/22/2024 ("04-22-24 IDS") and 05/29/2024 (“05-29-24 IDS”) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the 04-22-24 IDS and 05-29-24 IDS are being considered by the examiner.
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 4 and 20 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.
Section 2173.02.I. of the MPEP provides the following guidance on how pre-issuance claims under examination are construed differently than patented claims:
Patented claims are not given the broadest reasonable interpretation during court proceedings involving infringement and validity, and can be interpreted based on a fully developed prosecution record. While "absolute precision is unattainable" in patented claims, the definiteness requirement "mandates clarity." Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 527 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2120, 2129, 110 USPQ2d 1688, 1693 (2014). A court will not find a patented claim indefinite unless the claim interpreted in light of the specification and the prosecution history fails to "inform those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention with reasonable certainty." Id. at 1689.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The Office does not interpret claims when examining patent applications in the same manner as the courts. In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1312, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1028 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The Office construes claims by giving them their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution in an effort to establish a clear record of what the applicant intends to claim. Such claim construction during prosecution may effectively result in a lower threshold for ambiguity than a court's determination. Packard, 751 F.3d at 1323-24, 110 USPQ2d at 1796-97 (Plager, J., concurring). However, applicant has the ability to amend the claims during prosecution to ensure that the meaning of the language is clear and definite prior to issuance or provide a persuasive explanation (with evidence as necessary) that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the claim language unclear. In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)( claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution "to facilitate sharpening and clarifying the claims at the application stage"); see also In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 322, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Claim 4 is indefinite, because the term “uniform” is a relative and subjective term that creates a zone of uncertainty around what would be considered to be uniform electrical conductivity as the Applicant has not defined what the extent of the electrical conductivity needs to be in order to be considered as uniform.
Claim 20 is indefinite for three reasons:
First, it is unclear what is meant by D and G peaks in a Raman spectrum as the Applicant neither defines nor provides example(s) of what a D peak or a G peak is.
Second, “the nanocrystal” lacks antecedent basis.
Third, the term “dominant” is a relative and subject term that creates a zone of uncertainty around what are considered as dominant peaks.
A. Prior-art rejections based on Chen NPL
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1021
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 15, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abbas G. et al. in “Effectively modulating vertical tunneling transport by mechanically twisting bilayer graphene within the all-metallic architecture,” (“Chen NPL”).
PNG
media_image2.png
407
1035
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Chen NPL teaches a spiral graphene nanocrystal (Twisted bilayer graphene) having interlayer covalent bonding (p. 8794, col. 1 - “At a small twist angle of 6°, the Fermi level of the channel region was located
on the van Hove singularities, which led to unique interlayer electronic hybridization and significantly promoted the vertical tunneling transport.”; p. 8797, col. 1 to col. 2 - “It is worth mentioning that non-negligible “off” state current density (∼104 A cm−2) exists at large twist angles, which prevents the further enhancement in the on/off ratio. Here, to be clear, the current density of the “on” state corresponds to the density value when the interlayer twist angle is 6°, while the current density of the “off” state is the density value when the interlayer twist angle is 13.2°. This is because the passage of the corresponding incoming state wave function at larger angles cannot be absolutely forbidden. Although the translational symmetry rules limit the passage of the corresponding wave function through the tBLG channel region around the Dirac cone, a small transmission coefficient (∼0.01) is still present at the Dirac cone for each twist angle due to the interlayer intravalley–intervalley coupling; this makes the π states of each graphene layer strongly hybridize with each other and consequently, no transport gap appears in vertical commensurate BLG (Fig. 2b), which limits the further enhancement in the ION/IOFF ratios.”; that is, even at the large twist angle, there is vertical electrical conductivity.).
A limitation of “electrical conductivity in a vertical direction” is a statement of intended property that necessarily flows from the interlayer covalent bonding in the spiral graphene nanocrystal. Since the spiral graphene nanocrystal taught by Chen NPL has the interlayer covalent bonding, it is reasonably capable of having electrical conductivity in a vertical direction.
Regarding independent claim 3, Chen NPL teaches a graphene thin film comprising spiral graphene nanocrystals (Twisted bilayer graphene) having interlayer covalent bonding (p. 8794, col. 1 - “At a small twist angle of 6°, the Fermi level of the channel region was located on the van Hove singularities, which led to unique interlayer electronic hybridization and significantly promoted the vertical tunneling transport.”; p. 8797, col. 1 to col. 2 - “It is worth mentioning that non-negligible “off” state current density (∼104 A cm−2) exists at large twist angles, which prevents the further enhancement in the on/off ratio. Here, to be clear, the current density of the “on” state corresponds to the density value when the interlayer twist angle is 6°, while the current density of the “off” state is the density value when the interlayer twist angle is 13.2°. This is because the passage of the corresponding incoming state wave function at larger angles cannot be absolutely forbidden. Although the translational symmetry rules limit the passage of the corresponding wave function through the tBLG channel region around the Dirac cone, a small transmission coefficient (∼0.01) is still present at the Dirac cone for each twist angle due to the interlayer intravalley–intervalley coupling; this makes the π states of each graphene layer strongly hybridize with each other and consequently, no transport gap appears in vertical commensurate BLG (Fig. 2b), which limits the further enhancement in the ION/IOFF ratios.”; that is, even at the large twist angle, there is vertical electrical conductivity.), wherein the spiral graphene nanocrystals are connected in the horizontal direction (each graphene crystal unit is connected or bonded to each other in the sp2 direction thereby forming a sheet.).
A limitation of “electrical conductivity in a vertical direction” is a statement of intended property that necessarily flows from the interlayer covalent bonding in the spiral graphene nanocrystal. Since the spiral graphene nanocrystal taught by Chen NPL has the interlayer covalent bonding, it is reasonably capable of having electrical conductivity in a vertical direction.
Regarding claim 4, the entirety of the wherein clause is directed to an intended property conferred by the structural features recited in the base claim 1. Since Chen NPL teaches all of the claimed structural features of the claimed graphene thin film, Chen NPL’s graphene thin film is reasonably capable of having the intended property as recited in the wherein clause of claim 4.
Regarding independent claim 5, Chen NPL teaches an interconnect structure, comprising a spiral graphene nanocrystal (Twisted bilayer graphene electrically connecting the source and the drain.) having interlayer covalent bonding (p. 8794, col. 1 - “At a small twist angle of 6°, the Fermi level of the channel region was located
on the van Hove singularities, which led to unique interlayer electronic hybridization and significantly promoted the vertical tunneling transport.”; p. 8797, col. 1 to col. 2 - “It is worth mentioning that non-negligible “off” state current density (∼104 A cm−2) exists at large twist angles, which prevents the further enhancement in the on/off ratio. Here, to be clear, the current density of the “on” state corresponds to the density value when the interlayer twist angle is 6°, while the current density of the “off” state is the density value when the interlayer twist angle is 13.2°. This is because the passage of the corresponding incoming state wave function at larger angles cannot be absolutely forbidden. Although the translational symmetry rules limit the passage of the corresponding wave function through the tBLG channel region around the Dirac cone, a small transmission coefficient (∼0.01) is still present at the Dirac cone for each twist angle due to the interlayer intravalley–intervalley coupling; this makes the π states of each graphene layer strongly hybridize with each other and consequently, no transport gap appears in vertical commensurate BLG (Fig. 2b), which limits the further enhancement in the ION/IOFF ratios.”; that is, even at the large twist angle, there is vertical electrical conductivity.).
A limitation of “electrical conductivity in a vertical direction” is a statement of intended property that necessarily flows from the interlayer covalent bonding in the spiral graphene nanocrystal. Since the spiral graphene nanocrystal taught by Chen NPL has the interlayer covalent bonding, it is reasonably capable of having electrical conductivity in a vertical direction.
Regarding claim 6, Chen NPL teaches a pillar shape (Fig. 1 shows the bilayer graphene that project upwards from layers interfacing the Source) and at least an end of the pillar shape is connected to an electrode (Source or Drain).
Regarding independent claim 15, Chen NPL teaches an interconnect structure comprising a stack, wherein the stack comprises a pillar (Fig. 1 shows the bilayer graphene that project upwards from layers interfacing the Source.) of a spiral graphene nanocrystal (Twisted bilayer graphene electrically connecting the source and the drain.) having interlayer covalent bonding (p. 8794, col. 1 - “At a small twist angle of 6°, the Fermi level of the channel region was located on the van Hove singularities, which led to unique interlayer electronic hybridization and significantly promoted the vertical tunneling transport.”; p. 8797, col. 1 to col. 2 - “It is worth mentioning that non-negligible “off” state current density (∼104 A cm−2) exists at large twist angles, which prevents the further enhancement in the on/off ratio. Here, to be clear, the current density of the “on” state corresponds to the density value when the interlayer twist angle is 6°, while the current density of the “off” state is the density value when the interlayer twist angle is 13.2°. This is because the passage of the corresponding incoming state wave function at larger angles cannot be absolutely forbidden. Although the translational symmetry rules limit the passage of the corresponding wave function through the tBLG channel region around the Dirac cone, a small transmission coefficient (∼0.01) is still present at the Dirac cone for each twist angle due to the interlayer intravalley–intervalley coupling; this makes the π states of each graphene layer strongly hybridize with each other and consequently, no transport gap appears in vertical commensurate BLG (Fig. 2b), which limits the further enhancement in the ION/IOFF ratios.”; that is, even at the large twist angle, there is vertical electrical conductivity.), and an electrode (Source or Drain) electrically connected to an end of the pillar.
A limitation of “electrical conductivity in a vertical direction” is a statement of intended property that necessarily flows from the interlayer covalent bonding in the spiral graphene nanocrystal. Since the spiral graphene nanocrystal taught by Chen NPL has the interlayer covalent bonding, it is reasonably capable of having electrical conductivity in a vertical direction.
Regarding independent claim 18, Chen NPL teaches an electronic device (see Fig. 1) comprising the interconnect structure of claim 5 (see rejection of claim 5 above).
Regarding claim 19, Chen NPL teaches a transistor (p. 8798, col. 2 - “Unlike the traditional gate voltage modulation, which only tunes the Fermi energy level, the
current strategy efficiently modulates both the Fermi energy level and van Hove singularities by twisting the bilayer graphene in the channel region, thus providing a new potential means for designing high-performance vertical transistors.”).
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 of this title, 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen NPL.
Regarding claim 2, Chen NPL teaches a general condition of electrical conductivity in a vertical direction. Graphene inherently has electrical conductivity in the horizontal direction.
Chen NPL does not teach a specific condition of a ratio of the electrical conductivity in a vertical direction to electrical conductivity in the horizontal direction that is about 1:1 to about 1:100.
According to Section 2144.05 of the MPEP, "[W]here 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 (CCPA 1955).
Here, Chen NPL teaches the general condition. Unless the Applicant can show that the specific condition produces unexpected results that are different in kind and not different in degree over said general condition as taught by Chen NPL, claim 2 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, because it would not be inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. The burden shifts to the Applicant to show that the claimed range provides unexpected result that is difference in kind and not difference in degree. See In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
B. Prior-art rejections based on Dimitrakopoulos
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2019/0055129 A1 to Dimitrakopoulos et al. ("Dimitrakopoulos").
Fig. 8 of Dimitrakopoulos has been provided to support the rejection below:
PNG
media_image3.png
227
526
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Dimitrakopoulos teaches a spiral graphene nanocrystal (para [0053] - “In yet another embodiment, a multi-layer graphene article includes at least three graphene layers, each graphene layer being oriented at an interlayer twist angle with respect to an adjacent graphene layer and bonded by interlayer covalent bonds to the adjacent graphene layer. The interlayer twist angle can be in a range of between 0° and about 16°, or between about 44° and 60°. Interlayer covalent bonding in the multi-layer graphene article is accomplished by any of the methods taught herein.”; see para [0059] for further details. Para [0051] discloses that the first and second interlayer twist angles can be equal and that “at least one of the first graphene layer, the second graphene layer, and the third graphene layer is a polycrystalline graphene layer.” Since each graphene layer is twisted with respect to each other with the first and second twist angle being equal, the three-layered graphene would have a spiral geometry. The three-layered graphene can be polycrystalline as disclosed by para [0051].) having interlayer covalent bonding.
A limitation of “electrical conductivity in a vertical direction” is a statement of intended property that necessarily flows from the interlayer covalent bonding in the spiral graphene nanocrystal. Since the spiral graphene nanocrystal taught by Dimitrakopoulos has the interlayer covalent bonding, it is reasonably capable of having electrical conductivity in a vertical direction.
Regarding independent claim 17, Dimitrakopoulos teaches a method of manufacturing an interconnect structure, comprising:
growing spiral graphene nanocrystals (para [0053] - “In yet another embodiment, a multi-layer graphene article includes at least three graphene layers, each graphene layer being oriented at an interlayer twist angle with respect to an adjacent graphene layer and bonded by interlayer covalent bonds to the adjacent graphene layer. The interlayer twist angle can be in a range of between 0° and about 16°, or between about 44° and 60°. Interlayer covalent bonding in the multi-layer graphene article is accomplished by any of the methods taught herein.”; see para [0059] for further details. Para [0051] discloses that the first and second interlayer twist angles can be equal and that “at least one of the first graphene layer, the second graphene layer, and the third graphene layer is a polycrystalline graphene layer.” Since each graphene layer is twisted with respect to each other with the first and second twist angle being equal, the three-layered graphene would have a spiral geometry. The three-layered graphene can be polycrystalline as disclosed by para [0051].) in a mold (CVD reactor as disclosed in para [0068] for example) using a deposition method (para [0066] - “FIG. 8 is a schematic block diagram of a method in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. Here hydrogenation is performed, using plasma, on a second layer of graphene, the third layer is transferred, and then an annealing process is performed. On the two-layer graphene, a 10 W hydrogen plasma process is performed for 1 minute, to produce hydrogenated two-layer graphene; then a third layer of graphene is transferred on top; and then a one hour 500° C./100° C. annealing is performed.”).
A limitation of “electrical conductivity in a vertical direction” is a statement of intended property that necessarily flows from the interlayer covalent bonding in the spiral graphene nanocrystal. Since the spiral graphene nanocrystal taught by Dimitrakopoulos has the interlayer covalent bonding, it is reasonably capable of having electrical conductivity in a vertical direction.
Regarding claim 20, Dimitrakopoulos teaches the nanocrystal that exhibit D and G peaks in a Raman spectrum (Fig. 2 shows two peaks in the Raman spectrum. See also Fig. 3, 4 and 5).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 7 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 5, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 5 and the intervening claim 6 or the base claim 5 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 7 and the intervening claim 6.
Claims 8-14 are allowable for depending on the allowable claim 7.
Claim 16 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 15, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 15 or the base claim 15 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2023/0002231 A1 to Bishop et al.
Pub. No. US 2019/0189754 A1 to Liu
Abbas, Ghulam et al. "Recent advances in twisted structures of flatland materials and crafting moiré superlattices." Advanced Functional Materials 30, no. 36 (2020), p. 2000878.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on (571) 272-7925. 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.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 02 July 2026
1 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 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
Prosecution Insights