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 Claims 4-8, 14, 15, and 19 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species A1, B1, C2, E1, and F1 in the reply filed on 11/17/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 4-8, 14, 15, and 19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/17/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 59 from Fig. 6. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and Xu, US 2010/0006812 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 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.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Yang in view of Hassan and Xu 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 and Xu 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 and Xu 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 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 and Yu 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 and Xu 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 and Xu 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 and Xu 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goto, WO 2021240610 A1 (provided on the IDS of 8/14/2024).
The following citations for Goto, WO 2021240610 A1 are in reference to the machine translation provided by Espacenet and the figures in the original document (provided on the IDS or 8/14/2024).
Regarding claim 1, Goto teaches forming a multilayer graphene film by stacking a plurality of graphene films (104) on a sacrificial film (107) on a substrate (110) and forming a stress adjustment film on a portion of the multilayer graphene film followed by removing the sacrificial film to form a self-assembled portion (0012, 0027, 0029, 0031, Fig. 4, and Fig. 6A-B). They teach that the difference in Young’s modulus between the stress adjustment film 105 and the multilayer graphene film 104 causes an internal stress gradient to cause the multilayer graphene film to self-form into a warped state (0034 and Fig. 1). They teach that the number of stacked graphene films constituting the multilayer graphene is preferably 10 to 300 (0017). Therefore, the stress adjustment film is considered to be the underlying layer, where the multilayered graphene film is formed on a surface of the underlying layer and when the sacrificial layer is removed, the internal stress gradient will result in the formation of the first, second, and third graphene layers having different stresses, where the number of graphene layers is greater than 3 so as to provide at least a first, second, and third graphene layer.
Claims 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai, WO 2021/130815 A1 and for claims 2-3 and 9 as evidenced by McNamara, US 201/0330697 A1.
The following citations for Sakai, WO 2021/130815 A1 are in reference to Sakai, US 2023/0022519 A1 which is considered to be the English translation of Sakai, WO 2021/130815 A1 because it is the US national stage of the PCT application.
Regarding claim 1, Sakai teaches providing a three-dimensional structure in which a multilayer film is three-dimensionally curved to form an interior space (abstract). They teach that the multilayer film includes a layer containing a carbon monoatomic layer substance, a support layer, and a curve induction layer that induces a curved structure (abstract, 0034, and Fig. 1A). They teach that the layer 10 containing the carbon monoatomic layer substance can be single-layer or multilayer graphene (0035, 0036, and 0038). They teach that when the layer 10 containing the carbon monoatomic layer substance is constituted of multilayer graphene, the number of layers is not limited, but it is preferable for the layer to be constituted of 1 to 30 layers or more preferably of one to four layers of single-layer graphene (0039). They teach that the support layer 11 contains a polymer compound (0041). They teach that curve induction layer 12 is constituted of a material having deformability, where it may include graphene (0045 and 0048). They teach that when graphene is used as the curve induction layer, the layer may be constituted of single-layer graphene or multilayer graphene (0048). They teach that when the layer 10 containing the carbon monoatomic substance is also constituted of graphene, the number of layers of graphene in the curve induction layer 12 is preferably greater than the number of layers of graphene in the layer 10 containing the carbon monoatomic layer substance (0048). They teach that by increasing the number of layers of graphene in the curve induction layer 12, a gradient of stress is generated in the multilayer film 1, so that a curve in which the layer 10 containing the carbon monoatomic layer substance is set on the inner side is likely to be generated (0048). They teach that it is preferably for the cure induction layer 12 to be constituted with one to four layers of graphene (0048). They teach that the curve induction layer has a curving drive force stronger than that of the graphene of layer 10, and thus a stress gradient is generated in the multilayer film causing the film to curve with the layer 10 being on the inner side (055 and Fig. 2B).
They teach forming the layers by providing a substrate 14, applying a sacrifice layer 13 to the substrate, and then applying the curve induction layer (0093-0094, 0097, 0100, and Fig. 6). They teach forming a multilayer graphene curve induction layer by growing a first layer on copper foil by CVD, dissolving the copper, and transferring the graphene layer to the sacrifice layer, where the process is repeated to provide the multiple layers (0100). They teach that the support layer 11 is then formed followed by applying the layer 10 containing the carbon monoatomic layer substance (0101-0102). They teach that when layer 10 is formed of graphene, the layer may be formed using the same method as that for the curve induction layer (0102). They then form the strain or stress gradient by dissolving the sacrifice layer (0105).
Therefore, Sakai provides a substrate processing method, where a substrate is prepared having an underlying layer, i.e., where the substrate is provided having the sacrifice layer, a first process of forming a first graphene film, a second process of forming a second graphene film, and a third process of forming a third graphene film, where the first through third graphene films can be formed in the curve induction layer or the layer 10 containing the carbon monoatomic substance because they teach that each layer can include 1-4 layers of graphene, such that the range overlaps a range where either layer can have 3 layers. 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.” They then remove the sacrifice layer so the structure has a stress gradient, providing a first, second, and third graphene layer having a stress gradient.
Alternatively, the substrate can be considered the support layer with the underlying layer being the curve induction layer, where the first through third graphene layers are in layer 10 which will also have a stress gradient.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Sakai suggests the process of claim 1, where since the films have a stress gradient and the films of layer 10 are rolled in and the films of layer 12 are rolled out, the graphene films of each respective layer are considered to be in the same direction with different values, with one of layer being under compressive stress and the other under tensile stress, with the films of layer 10 and the films of layer 12 having different absolute values due to the gradient. As evidenced by McNamara, a coiled or rolled up structure will result in a top layer having a tensile stress and the bottom layer has a compressive stress (0055 and Fig. 3). From this, the rolled-up structure of Sakai is also expected to have the curve induction layer 12 under a tensile stress and the bottom layer 10 under a compressive stress.
Regarding claim 9, Sakai as evidenced by McNamara suggests the process of claim 2. Since they provide two layers of multilayered graphene films 10 and 12, where layer 12 rolls outward so as to be the top layer and layer 10 rolls inward so as to be the bottom layer, the first and second layer having the same direction and different values can be considered the layers from the curve induction layer under tensile stress and the third layer can be considered a graphene film from the layer 10 of the carbon monoatomic substance under a compressive stress, and because there is a stress gradient with multiple layers it is also expected to include a range overlapping a range in which the layers will have different absolute values. 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.”
Claims 10-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Chua, US 2022/0254641 A1.
Regarding claims 10 and 13, Sakai suggests the process of claim 1.
They do not teach the specifics of forming the graphene film.
Chua teaches methods to deposit graphene layers on a substrate by plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (title, abstract, and 0019). They teach loading a substrate into a processing chamber, where the substrate may include a copper surface (0041, 0043, and Fig. 4). They teach cleaning the surface and the initiating a plasma process the comprises flowing a carbon source gas and a hydrogen source gas into the chamber (0044, 0045, and Fig. 4). They teach that the carbon source gas may comprise any carbon containing molecules and may comprise methane and/or ethane (0046). They teach that the pressure in the chamber is 225 mTorr or lower (0047). They teach depositing graphene on the surface of the substrate, where the substrate may comprise copper (0049-0050 and Fig. 4). They teach that the process provides an ID/IG ratio that is 1.0 or smaller and an I2D/IG ratio that is approximately 1.0 or greater so as to provide good quality graphene (0006 and 0023).
From the teachings of Chua, 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 Sakai to have formed the graphene layers using the PECVD process of Chua because Chua teaches that such a process provides good quality graphene. Therefore, the first process of forming the first graphene film will be done at a first pressure or second pressure are required by claim 13 by using a plasma from a process gas containing a first carbon-containing gas such as methane and/or ethane, where the layer will be subsequently transferred to form the multilayer film of Sakai.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Sakai in view of Chua suggest the process of claim 10. Chua teaches forming the graphene at a pressure of 225 mTorr or lower (0047). As noted above they teach using methane and/or ethane as the carbon-containing gas (0046). 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 any pressure in the range taught by Chua will provide a suitable graphene film and that using methane and/or thane will deposit the film as desired such that selecting a pressure equal to or different from the pressure used for the first film forming process and selecting a carbon-containing precursor the same as or different from that used in the first film forming process will also provide the graphene film as desired. 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 a different pressure and the same gas as in the first process for forming the second film and the same pressure and different gas than the first process for forming the third film with the expectation of providing the graphene layers as desired.
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Sakai in view of Chua suggest the process of claims 10 an 11. As noted above, Chua suggests using a pressure in the range of approximately 225 mTorr or less (0047), such that the pressure range for the first and second pressure 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 18, Sakai in view of Chua suggest the process of claim 12. As noted above, Chua suggests using ethane and/or methane as the carbon-containing gas, such that the first carbon-containing gas and the second carbon-containing gas are one of ethane and methane.
Conclusion
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