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
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 9-13, and 16-18 are pending and rejected. Claims 4-8, 14, 15, and 19 are withdrawn. Claim 1 is amended.
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 1-3, 9-13, and 16-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim has been amended to require that the second graphene film has properties as a graphene bulk layer, where it is unclear what properties are for a graphene bulk layer. Specifically, graphene is a single layer, where the properties can vary depending on various factors, making it unclear what “bulk layer” properties are. For the purposes of examination, forming one or more layer of graphene at a second stress is considered to provide a graphene film having properties of a bulk layer. Since none of the dependent claims remedy the clarity of claim 1, they are also rendered indefinite. Appropriate action is required without adding new matter.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang, CN 105349964 A in view of Hassan, US 2022/0122821 A1, Xu, US 2010/0006812 A1, and Dimitrakopoulos, US 2014/0342127 A1.
The following citations for Yang, CN 105349964 A are in reference to the machine translation provided by Espacenet.
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches preventing the deposition of reactants and byproducts on MOCVD reaction chamber components by using a graphene material for surface coating protection (0009). They teach that for the corresponding parts of the MOCVD reaction chamber components where graphene cannot be deposited, a high-temperature resistant catalytic reaction layer is used as a transition layer and then graphene material is deposited on this catalytic reaction layer, which in turn adheres to the corresponding parts of the MOCVD reaction chamber components (0009). They teach using electrochemical polishing to remove surface impurities and contaminating particles from the parts of the MOCVD reaction chamber that need to be protected, depositing the high-temperature resistant catalytic reaction layer, and then depositing a graphene film on the catalytic reaction layer as a deposition barrier layer using CVD (0010-0012). They teach that the graphene layer may be a single layer or multiple layers of graphene (0012). They teach that the deposition temperature is 800-1000°C and the deposition gases include argon, hydrogen, and a hydrocarbon chemical as the carbon source gas (0012). They teach that the hydrocarbon chemical is methane or acetylene (0015). They teach depositing on the MOCVD reaction chamber wall and tray (0021). They teach that the catalytic reaction layer is one of Ni/Cu alloy, Pt/Ni alloy, Pt/Re allow, etc. (0011). Therefore, they provide an underlying layer that is a metal-containing film.
They do not teach depositing the graphene multilayer film having different stresses.
Hassan teaches methods for seasoning one or more components of a process chamber (abstract). They teach that the methods can provide reduced flaking of protective materials and improved adhesion of the deposition film to a chamber component by providing a seasoning film disposed between the deposition film and the chamber component (0018). They teach that by controlling the intrinsic stress of a seasoning film, a seasoning film can be tailored to beneficially adhere to the deposition film on one side of the seasoning film and adhere to the chamber component on an opposite side of the seasoning film (0018). They teach forming multilayer seasoning films by depositing a first seasoning film onto a component of the process chamber at a pressure of about 4 mTorr to about 20 mTorr and a temperature of about 200°C to about 400°C (0054). They teach that a plurality of seasoning films are deposited on to the first seasoning film (0054). They teach that the first seasoning film and/or one or more films of a plurality of additional seasoning films is an amorphous carbon-containing film (0055). They teach that a first seasoning film and/or one or more films of a plurality of additional seasoning films has an intrinsic stress of independently about 300 MPa to about 800 MPa (compressive) (0055). They teach that the first seasoning film has an intrinsic stress of about 550 MPa to about 800 MPa (compressive) and one or more films of a plurality of additional seasoning films has an intrinsic stress of independently 300 MPa to about 550 MPa (compressive) (0055). They teach that depositing the first seasoning film can include flowing a first carbon-containing precursor gas and a first inert precursor gas to the chamber (0056). They teach that a plurality of additional seasoning films may be about 3 additional seasoning films to about 14 additional seasoning films (0057). They teach that depositing the additional seasoning films includes depositing a second seasoning film onto the first seasoning film by flowing a second carbon-containing precursor gas and a second inert gas into the process chamber (0057). They teach that depositing the additional seasoning films can include depositing a third seasoning film onto the second seasoning film by flowing a third carbon-containing precursor gas and a third inert precursor gas into the process chamber (0057). They teach that the second and third carbon-containing gases are independently the same or different than each other, where the first, second, and/or third gas can include acetylene (0057). They teach that each seasoning film of the plurality of additional seasoning films has a different intrinsic stress than an adjacent seasoning film (0060). They teach that in some embodiments a second seasoning film has a different intrinsic stress than a first seasoning film and a third seasoning film, where the first seasoning film has substantially the same intrinsic stress as a third seasoning film (0060). They teach adjusting the flow rate ratio of the carbon-containing precursor gas and the inert precursor to deposit the different seasoning films (0061). They teach that adjusting the flow rate controls the bonding structure (0065). They teach that a first flow ratio, a third flow ratio, a fifth flow ratio, and/or a seventh flow ratio can promote high intrinsic stress of a surface of a seasoning film for beneficial adhesion to a chamber component, whereas a second flow ratio, a fourth flow ratio, a sixth flow ratio, and/or an eighth flow ratio can provide low intrinsic stress (of the overall seasoning film structure) for beneficial adhesion to a deposition layer (0065). They teach that alternating deposition films provide low intrinsic stress of the overall seasoning film structure, which promotes adhesion to adjacent components such as the chamber component and the deposition film (0065). They teach that beneficial adhesion provides reduced flaking of the deposition film and/or seasoning film as compared to materials of conventional seasoning methods (0065). They teach adjusting the RF power when depositing the various seasoning films to provide control of the bonding structure and stress (0066 and 0068).
Xu teaches forming a carbon-based material for a memory device by introducing a processing gas into a processing chamber, wherein the processing gas includes a hydrocarbon compound and a carrier gas, and generating a plasma of the processing gas to deposit a layer of the carbon-based material on a substrate within the chamber (abstract). They teach that the carbon-based material may include carbon in many forms including graphene, amorphous carbon, graphitic carbon, etc. (0024). They teach that a PECVD process is provided that may form graphene and other similar carbon-based materials (0027). They teach that PECVD provides numerous advantages over conventional thermal CVD processes including reduced thermal budget, broad process windows, adjustable programming voltages and current, and a tailored interfaces (0027). They teach that manipulation of plasma processing conditions such as gas flow rates, RF power, chamber pressure, electrode spacing and/or process temperature during PECVD film deposition may provide a broad window for film property engineering such as the film density, stress, or the like may be adjusted based on different etch schemes to be employed during device fabrication (0031). They teach that too much plasma ionization may induce excessive compressive stress in a carbon-based film and cause film “peeling” or “cracking” (0040). They teach that to improve integration of a carbon-based resistivity-switching material with an electronic device, the carbon-based film may be conformal with low stress such that a high-density carbon initiation layer may be used to improve film adhesion (0066). They teach that film density may be increased by lowering deposition rate and modest bombardment to promote dense packing of the film (0066). Therefore, they teach depositing a carbon-based film including graphene by PECVD, where the PECVD conditions can be modified to tune the stress of the film.
From the teachings of Hassan and Xu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Yang to have formed the multi-layered graphene protective film to have at least a first, second, and third graphene film, where the first film has a first stress, the second film has a second stress different from the first stress, and the third film has a third stress different from the second stress because Hassan teaches forming a multi-layer seasoning film on a chamber desirably has first and third seasoning film with the same stress and a second seasoning film with a different stress for improving adhesion and preventing flaking from a chamber component and Xu teaches depositing graphene by PECVD provides benefits including controlling the stress of the film such that by depositing the multilayer film in such a manner it will be expected to improve adhesion of the graphene protective layer to the chamber while also providing the PECVD benefits described by Xu. Therefore, the third film will be formed to have a stress to improve adhesion between the third graphene film and the film to be deposited, i.e., the target film because Hassan teaches that the seasoning film is formed to adhere to the deposition film (target film) on one side and the chamber component on the other side. Further, the second graphene film is considered to have the properties of a bulk graphene layer as discussed in the 112(b) rejection above.
They do not teach that the first process includes controlling the first stress based on a lattice constant of elements that constitute the underlying layer or a crystal plane of the underlying layer.
Dimitrakopoulos teaches a method for transferring a two-dimensional material that includes forming a spreading layer of a two-dimensional material on a first substrate (abstract). They teach forming a stressor layer on the spreading layer to apply stress to a closest monolayer of the spreading layer (abstract). They teach that the closest monolayer of the spreading layer is exfoliated by mechanically splitting the spreading layer wherein at least the closest monolayer remains on the stressor layer (abstract). They teach that the 2D material includes graphene (0032). They teach that the stressor layer is preferably not lattice-matched to the underlying substrate (0044). They teach that stress may be applied based upon differences in thermal conductivities, expansion/contraction, increasing density or thickness or by other methods (0044). They teach that a lattice-mismatch or other stress inducing mechanism is helpful in applying stress to layer 14, which assists during exfoliation (0044). They teach that the stressor layer may be Ni (0044). Therefore, Dimitrakopoulos teaches that lattice mismatch between layers, including graphene and a metal layer, can cause stress in a graphene layer.
From the teachings of Dimitrakopoulos, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the stress of the first layer based on a lattice constant of the underlying layer because Dimitrakopoulos teaches that lattice mismatch between layers, including graphene and a metal layer, can cause stress in the graphene layer, indicating that the lattice constant of the catalytic metal underlying layer will also impact the stress of the deposited first graphene layer, such that by controlling the stress during deposition based on the lattice constant it will be expected to also tune the stress of the seasoning layers.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Yang in view of Hassan, Xu, and Dimitrakopoulos suggest the process of claim 1. Hassan further teaches forming the seasoning films so that they have a compressive stress, where the second film has a different stress than the first (0055 and 0060). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first and second films to have stresses in the same direction (compressive) with different values because Hassan teaches that such a stress gradient is desirable in improving adhesion.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Yang in view of Hassan, Xu, and Dimitrakopoulos suggest the process of claim 1. As discussed above, Xu provides the suggestion to use PECVD to deposit the graphene film. They teach introducing a processing gas into a processing chamber, the processing gas including a hydrocarbon compound and a carrier gas and generating plasma of the processing gas to deposit the carbon-based layer (0009). They teach using hydrocarbon compounds having the formula CxHy, with x ranging from 2 to 4 and y ranging from about 2 to 10, where examples include acetylene, propane, propylene, etc. (0059 and 0060). They teach that the carrier/dilutant gas may be one or more of hydrogen, argon, etc. (0057 and 0059). They teach forming a plasma from the processing gas, where the pressure may be about 0.2 to about 10 Torr (0061-0062). Therefore, when forming the graphene film by PECVD, the first process forming the first graphene film will be done at a first or second pressure (note claim 13) using plasma from a process gas containing a first carbon-containing gas.
Regarding claim 11, Yang in view of Hassan, Xu, and Dimitrakopoulos suggest the process of claim 10. Xu further teaches that manipulation of plasma processing conditions such as gas flow rates, RF power, chamber pressure, electrode spacing and/or process temperature during PECVD film deposition may provide a broad window for film property engineering, for example film density, etch selectivity, stress, conformality, and the like may be adjusted based on different etch schemes to be employed (0031). They teach that too much plasma ionization may induce excessive compressive stress in a C-based film which can cause film peeling or cracking (0040). They teach that the carbon-based film may be conformal with low stress (0066). They teach that a high-density carbon initiation layer may be used to improve film adhesion, where film density may be increased by lowering deposition rate and modest ionized bombardment to promote dense packing of the film (0066). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that forming a high-density film by lowering deposition rate and modest ionized bombardment will also provide the film with lower stress because they indicate forming a low stress film, where it improves adhesion of the film and high stress is indicated as causing peeling or cracking, such that a low-stressed film will have improved adhesion in the process of Xu.
Xu further teaches that reducing process pressure has a similar effect on deposition rate to increasing dilution/carrier gas to precursor gas ratio, where reducing process pressure produces similar conditions by reducing the total amount of reactive precursor molecules at a substrate surface, reducing the deposition rate (0052). They teach that reducing the pressure also increases ion energy (0052). They teach that increasing temperature reduces deposition rate and promotes dense packing and ordering of the structure (0036). Therefore, changing the pressure will also change the deposition rate of the film and the density of the film so as to change the stress.
From the teachings of Xu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have adjusted the pressure between the deposition of the first film and the second film because Xu teaches adjusting PECVD conditions, including pressure, for modulating film properties, including stress, where they indicate that changing pressure will change the deposition rate and density of the film which are also indicated as being factors in controlling film stress such that it will be expected to control deposition so that the first and second film have different stress values.
As to using the first carbon-containing gas, Hassan teaches that when forming the multilayer seasoning film, the second, third, and fourth carbon-containing precursor gases are independently the same as or different than each other (0057). They teach that the first carbon-containing precursor gas and the second carbon-containing gas are the same as or different from one another (0020). They teach that when forming the deposition film using a third carbon-containing gas, the third carbon-containing gas can be the same as or different than the first and second carbon-containing gases (0041).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the same or different gases for the first and second carbon-containing gases because Hassan teaches that when forming carbon-containing films the same or different gases can be used, such that it will be expected to provide the graphene film as desired, where the change in pressure will provide differences in the stress values.
Regarding claim 12, Yang in view of Hassan, Xu, and Dimitrakopoulos suggest the process of claim 11. As discussed above for claim 1, Hassan provides the suggestion of forming the first and third film to have the same stress (0060). As discussed above for claim 11, since Xu suggests that adjusting the pressure modulates the film stress, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the same pressure for the first and third films so as to provide the same stress values.
As to using a second carbon-containing gas different from the first carbon-containing gas, Hassan teaches that when forming the multilayer seasoning film, the second, third, and fourth carbon-containing precursor gases are independently the same as or different than each other (0057). They teach that the first carbon-containing precursor gas and the second carbon-containing gas are the same as or different from one another (0020). They teach that when forming the deposition film using a third carbon-containing gas, the third carbon-containing gas can be the same as or different than the first and second carbon-containing gases (0041).
From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the same or different gases for the first, second, and third carbon-containing gases because Hassan teaches that when forming carbon-containing films the same or different gases can be used, where they indicate that the first and third films can have the same stress such that it will be expected to provide the graphene film as desired.
Regarding claim 16, Yang in view of Hassan, Xu, and Dimitrakopoulos suggest the process of claim 10, where Xu teaches using a pressure from about 0.2 to about 10 Torr, i.e., 200 mTorr to 10 Torr (0061), so as to overlap the claimed range. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 17, Yang in view of Hassan, Xu, and Dimitrakopoulos suggest the process of claim 11, where Xu teaches using a pressure from about 0.2 to about 10 Torr, i.e., 200 mTorr to 10 Torr (0061), so as to overlap the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the same pressure from the overlapping range for the second pressure so as to provide the film as desired. According to MPEP 2144.05, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding claim 18, Yang in view of Hassan, Xu, and Dimitrakopoulos suggest the process of claim 12. As discussed above, Xu provides the suggestion to use PECVD to deposit the graphene film. They teach introducing a processing gas into a processing chamber, the processing gas including a hydrocarbon compound and a carrier gas and generating plasma of the processing gas to deposit the carbon-base layer (0009). They teach using hydrocarbon compounds having the formula CxHy, with x ranging from 2 to 4 and y ranging from about 2 to 10, where examples include acetylene, propane, propylene, etc. (0059 and 0060). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the first carbon-containing gas and the second carbon-containing gas from acetylene, propane, propylene, and more broadly including ethylene and ethane because Xu indicates that such gases are suitable in forming a graphene film by PECVD and that gases having a formula meeting ethane and ethylene are also suitable.
Claims 1, 2, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhuyan, US 2021/0280420 A1 in view of Harriott, EP 0707236 B1, Xu, US 2010/0006812 A1, and Dimitrakopoulos, US 2014/0342127 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Bhuyan teaches methods of forming graphene hard mask films by exposing a substrate to an aromatic precursor to form the graphene hard mask film (abstract). They teach that the substrate is selected from one or more of TiN, TaN, Si, Co, Ti, Cu, etc. (abstract). They teach using plasma-enhanced processes in which the reactive gases are mixed in the chamber to allow gas phase reactions of the reactive gases and deposition of the film (0059 and Fig. 2). They teach using aromatic precursors such as benzene, naphthalene, anthracene, etc. (0062). They teach that the graphene hard mask film is exposed to a plasma comprising one or more of nitrogen, argon, helium, hydrogen, carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide (0066). They teach that the precursor-containing gas mixture may further include one or more of a dilution gas selected from helium, argon, xenon, nitrogen, or hydrogen (0074). They teach that the substrate is exposed to the precursor in a PECVD reaction (0072). They teach that the hard mask film can have a thickness of from about 0.1 to 1000 nm (0076). They teach that the mask includes less than or equal to about 30 monolayers (0055). Therefore, they teach forming a graphene hard mask by PECVD on an underlying layer that is selected from a group including metal-containing films.
They do not teach forming one or more layers with different stresses.
Harriott teaches a process for fabricating a mask with a multilayer film (0010). They teach that the process controls the amount of stress in the multilayer film (0010). They teach that the multilayer film is made of a plurality of individual layers with a series of two or more layers made of different materials (0011). They teach that the series is repeated one or more times in the multilayer film, where each series is referred to as a period and each period has at least two layers (0011). They teach that at least one of the layers of material in each period is under a compressive stress and at least one of the layers of material is under a tensile stress (0012). They teach that if the period has more than two layers, one or more layers is under compressive stress and one or more layers is under tensile stress (0012). They teach that the thickness of the layer or layers under tensile or compressive stress are selected to achieve the desired amount of stress in the multilayer film (0012). They teach using the mask in lithographic processes (0014-0016). They teach that materials such as carbon are typically under compressive stress when formed into films with a thickness of 0.5 nm to 10 nm (0017). They teach that if the multilayer film has a very low stress, the pattern introduced into the film will not distort to an unacceptable degree (0018). They teach that the number of periods in the multilayer film is largely a matter of design choice (0019).
Xu teaches forming a carbon-based material for a memory device by introducing a processing gas into a processing chamber, wherein the processing gas includes a hydrocarbon compound and a carrier gas, and generating a plasma of the processing gas to deposit a layer of the carbon-based material on a substrate within the chamber (abstract). They teach that the carbon-based material may include carbon in many forms including graphene, amorphous carbon, graphitic carbon, etc. (0024). They teach that a PECVD process is provided that may form graphene and other similar carbon-based materials (0027). They teach that PECVD provides numerous advantages over conventional thermal CVD processes including reduced thermal budget, broad process windows, adjustable programming voltages and current, and a tailored interfaces (0027). They teach that manipulation of plasma processing conditions such as gas flow rates, RF power, chamber pressure, electrode spacing and/or process temperature during PECVD film deposition may provide a broad window for film property engineering such as the film density, stress, or the like may be adjusted based on different etch schemes to be employed during device fabrication (0031). They teach that too much plasma ionization may induce excessive compressive stress in a carbon-based film and cause film “peeling” or “cracking” (0040). They teach that to improve integration of a carbon-based resistivity-switching material with an electronic device, the carbon-based film may be conformal with low stress such that a high-density carbon initiation layer may be used to improve film adhesion (0066). They teach that film density may be increased by lowering deposition rate and modest bombardment to promote dense packing of the film (0066). Therefore, they teach depositing a carbon-based film including graphene by PECVD, where the PECVD conditions can be modified to tune the stress of the film.
From the teachings of Harriott and Xu, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Bhuyan to have formed the graphene hardmask to have at least a first, second, and third graphene film, where the first film has a first stress, the second film has a second stress different from the first stress, and the third film has a third stress different from the second stress because Bhuyan teaches forming a graphene hard mask comprising graphene films by PECVD, Harriott teaches that when forming a mask it is desirable to have a low stress to prevent distortion of the mask, where masks can be formed of multiple layers having at least one layer with compressive stress and at least one layer with tensile stress, and Xu teaches depositing graphene by PECVD provides benefits including controlling the stress of the film such that by depositing the multilayer film in such a manner while controlling the stress it will be expected to balance the stress in the graphene hard mask layer to prevent distortion. Further, the second graphene film is considered to have the properties of a bulk graphene layer as discussed in the 112(b) rejection above.
They do not teach that the first process includes controlling the first stress based on a lattice constant of elements that constituted the underlying layer.
As discussed above, from the teachings of Dimitrakopoulos, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have controlled the stress of the first layer based on a lattice constant of the underlying layer because Dimitrakopoulos teaches that lattice mismatch between layers, including graphene and a metal layer, can cause stress in the graphene layer, indicating that the lattice constant of the metal underlying layer will also impact the stress of the deposited first graphene layer, such that by controlling the stress during deposition based on the lattice constant it will be expected to also tune the stress of the hard mask.
As to the target film and the third process including controlling the third stress to improve adhesion between the third graphene film and the target film, as noted above Harriott teaches forming multiple layers of material in a period, where at least one layer is in compressive stress and at least one layer is in tensile stress. From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the stress of the third layer to help balance the stress in the mask layer while improving the adhesion of a subsequent layer in the mask because it will help to prevent distortion while also ensuring that the layers of the film do not delaminate. Therefore, the target film is considered to be a subsequent graphene layer in the mask, where the third stress will also help improve the adhesion between the third layer and the subsequent (target) layer.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Bhuyan in view of Harriott, Xu, and Dimitrakopoulos suggest the process of claim 1, where Harriott suggests using a period having at least one layer under tensile stress and at least one layer under compressive stress. They provide examples of varying the thickness of the material to provide different stress values (Fig. 3). They suggest providing a film having a stress in the range of -50 MPa to about 50 MPa (0010). From this, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the stress in the individual layers to balance the total stress to be within the range of Harriot by providing a first and second stress having the same direction and different absolute values with the second stress and the third stress having different directions and different absolute values because Harriot suggests forming a film having a total stress within a desired range by using different film layers having compressive and tensile stresses such that by providing various layers having different tensile and compressive stresses that balance out it will be expected to provide the mask with a total stress to prevent distortion. According to MPEP 2144.05 II A, “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments dated 6/18/2026 have been fully considered.
In light of the amendment to the specification, the previous drawing objection is withdrawn.
In light of the amendments, Applicant’s arguments are considered persuasive and therefore the rejection has been modified as indicated above.
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 CHRISTINA D MCCLURE whose telephone number is (571)272-9761. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 EST.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
/CHRISTINA D MCCLURE/Examiner, Art Unit 1718 /GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights