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 .
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 1 to 6, 9 and 11 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 claims are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. The term “given monocrystalline semiconductor” is not clear as to the meets and bounds of the limitation. The term is not a normal term in the art and therefore, not clear as to which semiconductors would be in the group of “given” Correction and/or explanation is required.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 9 and 11 recites the broad recitation of hole size amounts and the claim also recites a narrower range which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1 to 3, 6 to 8, 10, 12 and 18 to 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Chen et al (CN202120651499).
The Chen et al reference teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, note entire translation. The substrate is a monocrystalline material onto to which graphene is deposited, note translation page 3. The graphene is then patterned in a manner in which the substrate is exposed, note translation page 2. Then next step is a growth of a second semiconductor material which starts on the exposed substrate and then grows over the graphene layer, note translation page 2. The second semiconductor is monocrystalline.
With respect to claim 2, the Chen et al reference teaches the opening having a monocrystalline semiconductor in it, note translation page 2.
With respect to claim 3 and 20, the Chen et al reference teaches a non-polar, note page 1.
With respect to claims 6 and 7, the Chen et al reference teaches the second semiconductor to be different then the substrate but lattice matched, note translation page 2.
With respect to claim 8, the Chen et al reference teaches the opening in the graphene layer to be missing carbon atoms, note translation page 3.
With respect to claim 10, the Chen et al reference teaches spaced apart pattern in the graphene with exposed substrate, note page 3.
With respect to claim 12, the Chen et al reference teaches depositing graphene and then removing some, note page 2.
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Chen et al (CN202120651499) in view of Cheng et al (10,388,522).
The Chen et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the substrate. However, the Cheng et al reference teaches growing graphene on a silicon or germanium substrate for device formation, note col 4 lines 12-30. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Chen et al reference by the teachings of the Cheng et al reference to use different substrates in order to better match the lattice with the second semiconductor making it more uniform.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Chen et al (CN202120651499) in view of Cheng et al (10,388,522).
The Chen et al reference is relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the substrate and grown material being the same. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have the substrate match the growth in order to match the lattices.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Chen et al (CN202120651499) in view of Cheng et al (10,388,522).
The Chen et al and Cheng et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the pattern hole size. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have the a pattern hole size in order to allow for growth and then overgrowth.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Chen et al (CN202120651499) in view of Cheng et al (10,388,522).
The Chen et al and Cheng et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the number of holes. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to have the number of holes in order to allow for growth and then overgrowth uniformly.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Chen et al (CN202120651499) in view of Cheng et al (10,388,522).
The Chen et al and Cheng et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claims in the graphene patterning means. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to use an oxygen plasma to remove specific pattern of graphene in order to have a uniform pattern.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Chen et al (CN202120651499) in view of Cheng et al (10,388,522).
The Chen et al and Cheng et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the use of a mask to pattern the graphene. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to use a mask to pattern in order to have the wanted pattern.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Chen et al (CN202120651499) in view of Cheng et al (10,388,522).
The Chen et al and Cheng et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differs from the instant claim in the separation. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to separate the grown layer in order to reuse the substrate.
Examiner’s remarks
The remaining references are merely cited of interest as showing the state of the art in overgrowth on graphene.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights