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 .
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.
Status of Application
Claims 5-7, 9-20 and 22-26 are pending and presented for examination. The preliminary amendment dated 28 February 2026 is hereby acknowledged and entered.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant's request for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. §119(a)-(d). Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
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.
Claims 5, 6, 9-15, 17-19, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over “Understanding the growth mechanism of graphene on Ge/Si(001) surfaces” to Dabrowski et al. (hereinafter, “Dabrowski at __”; cited and provided by Applicants) in view of US Patent No. 10593546 to Thomas with “Self-Limitation of Native Oxides Explained” to Bohling et al., as a evidentiary reference to the native oxide layer of silica being ~2 nm (Bohling at “Abstract”).
Regarding claims 5 and 25, Dabrowski discloses a method for the growth of a graphene structure on a substrate (Dabrowski at “Abstract”) comprising:
Providing a substrate, wherein the substrate has a first surface and a second surface for the formation of a graphene layer (Id.);
Providing a carbon-containing precursor (C2H4, Id.);
Introducing the carbon-containing precursor into the reaction chamber into the CVD reaction chamber ot provide a flow of the precursor across the second surface and to thereby form the graphene layer (Id.),
wherein the substrate is a laminate wafer comprising a Si support (Dabrowski at 1) providing a surface and a Ge layer providing a second surface wherein the Ge layer has a thickness of 2 microns (Dabrowski at 8), wherein the substrate further requires a native oxide barrier layer of silica (Id., as silicon naturally forms a native oxide layer), the barrier layer thickness is 2 nm per Bohling, and a cold-wall CVD is utilized (Dabrowski at 8).
However, Dabrowski does not expressly state usage of a susceptor and nor that this susceptor is the only source of heat.
Thomas, also in a method of making graphene (Thomas at “Abstract”) discloses that a susceptor can be utilized and that it is the only source of heat (Thomas at 16:33-35)) and that this is the only source of heat (Thomas at 9:67). The susceptor is heated to 250-1500 C which is based on the chosen decomposition temperature of the organic material (6:35-50) so less than 940 C is well within the level of ordinary skill depending upon the utilized precursor (i.e., for ethane it would be 550-900 C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Dabrowski in view of the susceptor usage of Thomas. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being production of a temperature gradient which means there is a low likelihood of precursor being decomposed until it hits the heated substrate (6:10-18).
As to claims 6 and 10, ethane is a C2 organic compound consisting of oxygen and hydrogen, a hydrocarbon.
Turning to claim 9, methane can be a precursor (Thomas at 11:47).
As to claim 11, given application of a high temperature at the susceptor and the same thickness of germanium layer is claimed (2 microns), one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence to the contrary, would expect the Ge surface to be at least 250 C less than the susceptor though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-34 (CCPA 1977))". This also covers claim 17 for the second surface being below 900 C.
As to claim 12, Dabrowksi does not want surface roughness so this is considered to be met (Dabrowski at 2).
Regarding claim 13, monolayer is grown (Dabrowki at “Abstract”).
With respect to claim 14, the wafer size is 6” in diameter (Thomas at 4:63).
Turning to claim 15, graphene is grown on CMOS (Dabrowski at 8).
Concerning claims 18 and 19, the substrate is formed in situ (Dabrowski at 8) wherein the barrier layer is formed also in situ via native oxidation (Id).
As to claim 24, ~2 nm reads on “at least 2 nm” as about makes “at least 2” prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 5-7, 10-14, 16-20, 22, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Centimeter-Scale Ge-Assisted Grown Graphene Directly on SiO2/Si for NO2 Gas Sensors” to Li et al. (hereinafter, “Li at __”; cited and provided by Applicants) in view of Thomas with Bohling as a evidentiary reference to the native oxide layer of silica being ~2 nm (Bohling at “Abstract”).
Regarding claims 5-7, 10, 16, 22, and 25, Li discloses a method for the growth of graphene layer structure on a substrate (Li at”Abstract”) comprising the steps of:
Providing a substrate (Si wafer; Id.)in a CVD reaction chamber wherein the substrate has a first surface and a second surface wherein the second surface is used for forming the graphene layer (and the first surface would be opposite and would touch the susceptor in this combination);
Providing a carbon-containing precursor (methane; Li at 5166 L col);
Heating the reactor to 916 C (Id.) which thermally decomposes the methane and produces graphene after it is introduced across the second surface,
Wherein the substrate is a laminate wafer comprising a silicon support sa the first surface and a germanium layer as the second surface having a thickness of 1 microns (Li at 5157 L col). While Li does not disclose the silica thickness, as it is a native oxide layer Bohling states it is about 2 nm.
However, Li does not expressly state that the CD reactor is acold-walled reactor and a suceptor is the only source of heat in the reaction chamber.
Thomas, also in a method of making graphene (Thomas at “Abstract”) in a cold-wall CVD (9:65) discloses that a susceptor can be utilized and that it is the only source of heat (Thomas at 16:33-35)) and that this is the only source of heat (Thomas at 9:67). The susceptor is heated to 250-1500 C which is based on the chosen decomposition temperature of the organic material (6:35-50) so less than 940 C is well within the level of ordinary skill depending upon the utilized precursor (i.e., for methane it would be 916 C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Dabrowski in view of the susceptor usage of Thomas. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being production of a temperature gradient which means there is a low likelihood of precursor being decomposed until it hits the heated substrate (6:10-18).
As to claim 11, given application of a high temperature at the susceptor and the same thickness of germanium layer is claimed (1 microns), one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence to the contrary, would expect the Ge surface to be at least 250 C less than the susceptor though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-34 (CCPA 1977))". This also covers claim 17 for the second surface being below 900 C.
Turning to claims 12 and 20, given that the Ge is subjected to hydrogen/argon (5166 L col) this is considered to be equivalent to the treatment laid out in the Instant Specification at [0042] so the roughness of 0.5 nm for the Ge layer is expected absent evidence to the contrary, though the Office cannot test for this. It should be noted that since the silica barrier layer that is natively formed is beneath the Ge at this point that it would not be removed and thusly it would not be “present” with respect to the reaction for claim 20.
Concerning claim 13, the graphene is monolayer (Li at “Abstract”).
As to claim 14, the diameter is 6” (5166 R col).
Turning to claims 18 and 19, the structure is formed in situ in the reactor via EVG (5166 R col) and the barrier silica is formed natively.
Claims 5, 6, 9-15, 17-19 and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Dabrowski in view of US Patent No. 12275640 to Dixon et al. (hereinafter, “Dixon at __”) with Bohling as an evidentiary reference to the native oxide layer of silica being ~2 nm (Bohling at “Abstract”). The applied reference has a common assignee (Paragraf) and three inventors ( with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Regarding claims 5 and 25, Dabrowski discloses a method for the growth of a graphene structure on a substrate (Dabrowski at “Abstract”) comprising:
Providing a substrate, wherein the substrate has a first surface and a second surface for the formation of a graphene layer (Id.);
Providing a carbon-containing precursor (C2H4, Id.);
Introducing the carbon-containing precursor into the reaction chamber into the CVD reaction chamber ot provide a flow of the precursor across the second surface and to thereby form the graphene layer (Id.),
wherein the substrate is a laminate wafer comprising a Si support (Dabrowski at 1) providing asurface and a Ge layer providing a second surface wherein the Ge layer has a thickness of 2 microns (Dabrowski at 8), wherein the substrate further requires a native oxide barrier layer of silica (Id., as silicon naturally forms a native oxide layer), the barrier layer thickness is 2 nm per Bohling, and a cold-wall CVD is utilized (Dabrowski at 8).
However, Dabrowski does not expressly state usage of a susceptor and nor that this susceptor is the only source of heat.
However, Dabrowski does not expressly state usage of a susceptor and nor that this susceptor is the only source of heat.
Dixon, in a method of making graphene via CVD (Dixon at “Examples”) discloses a graphite susceptor to which a Si wafer is applied (6:35) and that heating of the susceptor occurs up to the 50-100 C less than the precursor decomposition temperature (Dixon at 7:1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Dabrowski in view of the susceptor of Dixon. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being better quality graphene (5:16-16).
As to claims 6, 9, 10 and 26, Dixon discloses that a C6-C7 organic compound can be utilized (Dixon at 10:2).
As to claim 11, given application of a high temperature at the susceptor and the same thickness of germanium layer is claimed (2 microns), one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence to the contrary, would expect the Ge surface to be at least 250 C less than the susceptor though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-34 (CCPA 1977))". This also covers claim 17 for the second surface being below 900 C.
As to claim 12, Dabrowksi does not want surface roughness so this is considered to be met (Dabrowski at 2).
Regarding claim 13, monolayer is grown (Dabrowki at “Abstract”).
Turning to claim 14, the wafer size can be 15 cm (Dixon at 7:15).
Regarding claim 15, graphene is grown on CMOS (Dabrowski at 8).
Concerning claims 18 and 19, the substrate is formed in situ (Dabrowski at 8) wherein the barrier layer is formed also in situ via native oxidation (Id).
As to claim 24, ~2 nm reads on “at least 2 nm” as about makes “at least 2” prima facie obvious (see MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 5-7, 9-14, 16-20, 22, 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Dixon with Bohling as a evidentiary reference to the native oxide layer of silica being ~2 nm (Bohling at “Abstract”).
Regarding claims 5-7, 10, 16, 22, and 25, Li discloses a method for the growth of graphene layer structure on a substrate (Li at”Abstract”) comprising the steps of:
Providing a substrate (Si wafer; Id.)in a CVD reaction chamber wherein the substrate has a first surface and a second surface wherein the second surface is used for forming the graphene layer (and the first surface would be opposite and would touch the susceptor in this combination);
Providing a carbon-containing precursor (methane; Li at 5166 L col);
Heating the reactor to 916 C (Id.) which thermally decomposes the methane and produces graphene after it is introduced across the second surface,
Wherein the substrate is a laminate wafer comprising a silicon support sa the first surface and a germanium layer as the second surface having a thickness of 1 microns (Li at 5157 L col). While Li does not disclose the silica thickness, as it is a native oxide layer Bohling states it is about 2 nm.
However, Dabrowski does not expressly state usage of a susceptor and nor that this susceptor is the only source of heat.
Dixon, in a method of making graphene via CVD (Dixon at “Examples”) discloses a graphite susceptor to which a Si wafer is applied (6:35) and that heating of the susceptor occurs up to the 50-100 C less than the precursor decomposition temperature (Dixon at 7:1-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to perform the method of Li in view of the susceptor of Dixon. The teaching or suggested motivation in doing so being better quality graphene (5:16-16).
As to claims 6, 9, 10 and 26, Dixon discloses that a C6-C7 organic compound can be utilized (Dixon at 10:2).
As to claim 11, given application of a high temperature at the susceptor and the same thickness of germanium layer is claimed (1 microns), one of ordinary skill in the art, absent evidence to the contrary, would expect the Ge surface to be at least 250 C less than the susceptor though the Office cannot test for this. See MPEP 2112 V, "[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on inherency' under 35 U.S.C. 102, on prima facie obviousness' under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (quoting In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430,433-34 (CCPA 1977))". This also covers claim 17 for the second surface being below 900 C.
Turning to claims 12 and 20, given that the Ge is subjected to hydrogen/argon (5166 L col) this is considered to be equivalent to the treatment laid out in the Instant Specification at [0042] so the roughness of 0.5 nm for the Ge layer is expected absent evidence to the contrary, though the Office cannot test for this. It should be noted that since the silica barrier layer that is natively formed is beneath the Ge at this point that it would not be removed and thusly it would not be “present” with respect to the reaction for claim 20.
Concerning claim 13, the graphene is monolayer (Li at “Abstract”).
As to claim 14, the diameter is 6” (5166 R col).
Turning to claims 18 and 19, the structure is formed in situ in the reactor via EVG (5166 R col) and the barrier silica is formed natively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is 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.
As to claim 23, as the barrier layer in Darowski or Li, which are the closest piece of prior art, is silica it cannot be any of the species of claim 23.
Conclusion
Claims 5-7, 9-20, 22 and 24-26 are rejected. Claim 7 is objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD M RUMP whose telephone number is (571)270-5848. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 06:45 AM to 04:45 PM.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
RICHARD M. RUMP
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1759
/RICHARD M RUMP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights