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 .
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 1, 3-6, 12, 15, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US Publication No. 2019/0345609) in view of Sinitskii et al (US Publication No. 2022/0333234).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a method of depositing nano-graphene, the method comprising: flowing one or more hydrocarbon precursors (0009,0025,0029-0030) into a reaction chamber to adsorb onto a metal layer Fig 5, 304 of a substrate Fig 5, 302 at a temperature equal to or less than about 400°C ¶0030, wherein the metal layer interacts with the adsorbed hydrocarbon precursors to produce a nano-graphene layer on the metal layer¶0030; and exposing the nano-graphene layer to a remote inert gas plasma to treat the nano-graphene layer on the metal layer of the substrate¶0030-0032; Fig 5 and Claim 1, wherein the remote inert gas plasma generated in a remote plasma source coupled to the reaction chamber ¶0029,0030,0031. Chen discloses all the limitations but silent on the temperature and the plasma. Whereas Sinitskii discloses
a reaction chamber to adsorb onto a metal layer of a substrate at a temperature equal to or less than about 350°C ¶0053, 0070-0075, wherein the metal layer interacts with the adsorbed hydrocarbon precursors to produce a nano-graphene layer on the metal layer without assistance from plasma¶0053, 0070-0075. Chen and Sinitskii are analogous art because they are directed to a method of forming graphene and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chen because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chen and incorporate the teachings of Sinitskii to improve film quality and device performance.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses wherein the metal layer comprises copper, ruthenium, nickel, molybdenum, cobalt, or combinations thereof ¶0028.
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses wherein the metal layer comprises cobalt ¶0028.
Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses wherein the one or more hydrocarbon precursors comprise an unsubstituted alkene, a substituted alkene, aromatic hydrocarbon, an unsubstituted alkyne, or substituted alkyne group ¶0030.
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses wherein the one or more hydrocarbon precursors comprise toluene, benzene, ethylene, propylene, butene, pentene, pentadiene, hexene, acetylene, propyne, butyne, or pentyne ¶0030.
Regarding claim 12, Chen discloses wherein a thickness of the metal layer is between 10 A and about 20A ¶0028.
Regarding claim 15, Chen discloses a method of depositing nano-graphene, the method comprising :flowing carbon-containing radicals into a reaction chamber to expose a metal layer Fig 5, 304 of a substrate Fig 5, 302 to the carbon-containing radicals(0009,0025,0029-0030), wherein the carbon-containing radicals are generated from a source gas comprising one or more hydrocarbon precursors in a remote plasma source upstream of the reaction chamber(0009,0025,0029-0030), and wherein the metal layer interacts with the carbon- containing radicals to produce a nano-graphene layer on the metal layer¶0030; and exposing the nano-graphene layer to a remote inert gas plasma to treat the nano-graphene layer on the metal layer of the substrate¶0030-0032; Fig 5 and Claim 1; wherein the remote inert gas plasma generated in a remote plasma source coupled to the reaction chamber ¶0029,0030,0031. Chen discloses all the limitations but silent on the temperature and the plasma. Whereas Sinitskii discloses
a reaction chamber to adsorb onto a metal layer of a substrate at a temperature equal to or less than about 350°C ¶0053, 0070-0075, wherein the metal layer interacts with the adsorbed hydrocarbon precursors to produce a nano-graphene layer on the metal layer without assistance from plasma¶0053, 0070-0075. Chen and Sinitskii are analogous art because they are directed to a method of forming graphene and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chen because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chen and incorporate the teachings of Sinitskii to improve film quality and device performance.
.
Regarding claim 16, Chen discloses wherein exposing the nano-graphene layer to plasma comprises treating the nano-graphene layer with inert gas plasma generated from a remote plasma source to form a high-quality nano-graphene layer ¶0029,0030,0031.
Regarding claim 18, Chen discloses wherein the metal layer comprises copper, ruthenium, nickel, molybdenum, cobalt, or combinations thereof ¶0028.
Regarding claim 19, Chen discloses wherein the metal layer comprises cobalt ¶0028.
Regarding claim 20, Chen discloses wherein the one or more hydrocarbon precursors comprise an unsubstituted alkene, a substituted alkene, aromatic hydrocarbon, an unsubstituted alkyne, or substituted alkyne group ¶0030.
Regarding claim 21, Chen discloses wherein the one or more hydrocarbon precursors comprise toluene, benzene, ethylene, propylene, butene, pentene, pentadiene, hexene, acetylene, propyne, butyne, or pentyne ¶0030.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US Publication No. 2019/0345609) and Sinitskii et al (US Publication No. 2022/0333234) and in further view of Kroeger et al (US Publication No. 2019/0382272).
Regarding claims 7 and 22, Chen discloses all the limitations but silent on the specific material. Whereas Kroeger discloses wherein the one or more hydrocarbon precursors comprise propadiene, allene, cyclopropene, 1,3-butadiene, 1,2-butadiene, cyclobutene, isoprene, piperylene, cyclohexene, dimethylbutadiene, 1,5-hexadiene, norbornene, or 1,7-octadiene ¶0201. Chen and Kroeger are analogous art because they are directed to a method of forming graphene and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chen because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the precursor of Chen and incorporate the material used by Kroeger since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (1960).
Claims 8-11, 14, 17, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US Publication No. 2019/0345609) and Sinitskii et al (US Publication No. 2022/0333234) and in further view of Huang et al (US Publication No. 2021/0217660).
Regarding claim 8, Chen discloses all the limitations but silent on the type of additional gas added to the precursor. Whereas Huang discloses wherein flowing the one or more hydrocarbon precursors into the reaction chamber comprises flowing the one or more hydrocarbon precursors with hydrogen- helium (H2-He) into the reaction chamber ¶0068 and 0087. Chen and Huang are analogous art because they are directed to a method of forming graphene and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chen because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the precursor of Chen and incorporate the material used by Huang since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (1960).
Regarding claim 9, Huang discloses wherein flowing the one or more hydrocarbon precursors into the reaction chamber comprises flowing the one or more hydrocarbon precursors with oxygen (02) into the reaction chamber ¶0090.
Regarding claims 10 and 23, Huang discloses wherein exposing the nano-graphene layer to plasma comprises exposing the nano-graphene layer to remote hydrogen-helium plasma ¶0068 and 0087.
Regarding claim 11, Huang discloses wherein exposing the nano-graphene layer to plasma comprises exposing the nano-graphene layer to remote oxygen-helium plasma ¶0068, 0087 and 0090.
Regarding claim 14, Huang discloses repeating operations of flowing one or more hydrocarbon precursors into the reaction chamber and plasma exposure in order to form a desired thickness of the nano-graphene layer on the metal layer of the substrate ¶0053.
Regarding claim 17, Huang discloses wherein the source gas comprises a mixture of hydrogen (H2) and the one or more hydrocarbon precursors, wherein carbon-containing radicals and hydrogen radicals are generated in the remote plasma source and flowed into the reaction chamber¶0068, 0087 and 0090.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US Publication No. 2019/0345609) and Sinitskii et al (US Publication No. 2022/0333234) and in further view of Shin et al (US Publication No. 2021/0210346).
Regarding claim 13, Chen discloses all the limitations but silent on the pretreatment. Whereas Shin discloses pretreating the metal layer with plasma to reduce metal oxides from the metal layer prior to flowing the one or more hydrocarbon precursors into the reaction chamber ¶0062-0063. Chen and Shin are analogous art because they are directed to a method of forming graphene and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Chen because they are from the same field of endeavor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill of the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Chen and incorporate the teachings of Shin to improve device performance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-15, 17-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 CHRISTINE A ENAD whose telephone number is (571)270-7891. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30 am -4:30 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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571 272 1670. 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.
/CHRISTINE A ENAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights