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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on May 5, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-25 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bedell (US 2014/0291282 A1) IDS 10/15/2024.
Regarding Claim 1, Bedell anticipates a method for transferring a material from a flexible intermediate substrate to a second substrate (Figs. 3A, 4 paragraphs [0041] [0046] handle or flexible substrate – 20 in a device stack – 24 to transfer the monolayer or monolayer – 14a, 15 of the spreading layer (monolayer) – 14 to another wafer or substrate – 22), the flexible intermediate substrate comprising a support layer and a metallic adhesion layer (Figs. 2A 2B paragraphs [0031] [0037] flexible substrate (support layer ) – 20 stressor layer – 16 which may include a metal), the method comprising:
depositing the material (Fig. 1 paragraph [0028] two-dimensional material forms a spreading or separation layer – 14 formed on substrate – 12) from the intermediate substrate on to the second substrate (], the depositing comprising adhering the material to the second substrate by Van der Waals adhesion between the material and the second substrate (Fig.4 paragraphs [0021] [0046] s 2D material relies on weak Van der Waals forces to hold the monolayers together, 2D material may be chemically bonded to the substrate; spreading layer (monolayer) – 14 is brought into contact with the substrate – 22) and delaminating the material from the metallic adhesion layer of the intermediate substrate (Figs. 4, 5 paragraphs [0046] t[0047] he handle substrate (flexible substrate ) – 20 is then removed by removing the stressor layer (metallic adhesion layer) – 16; monolayer (material) – 14 is shown over the substrate – 22). .
Regarding Claim 2, Bedell anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the depositing is a dry process. (paragraphs [0004] [0030] where deposition is described as dry; and the 2D material layer – 14 is deposited and is inherently dry).
Regarding Claim 3, Bedell anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the support layer of the intermediate substrate is formed of an inorganic material (Fig. 2A paragraph [0031] ionic bonds may be formed between the substrate – 12 and the spreading layer – 14 depending on the material selection which inherently included inorganic materials forming ionic bonds).
Regarding Claim 4, Bedell anticipates all the limitations of claim 3 and further anticipates that the support layer of the intermediate substrate comprises an oxide or a nitride (Fig.1 paragraphs [0030] [0041] where the spreading layer – 14 may include boron nitride which includes the support layer for the material; flexible substrate – 20 adhered by an adhesive or adhering layer – 18 to the stressor layer (metallic adhesion layer – 16)).
Regarding Claim 8, Bedell anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the method further comprises controlling the Van der Waals adhesion at least in part by controlling a thickness and/or composition of the metallic adhesion layer (paragraph [0039] the stressor (metallic adhesion layer) – 16 should be deposited with a particular thickness).
Regarding Claim 17, Bedell anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 and further anticipates that the second substrate comprises an outer layer of a heterostructure having one or more layers, and wherein depositing the material on to the second substrate comprises depositing the material on the outer layer to form another layer of the heterostructure (Fig.4 paragraph [0046] the monolayer – 14 is brought into contact with the substrate – 22 and bonded or adhered to the substrate – 22 while the substrate – 22 is depicted as a single layer, it may include multiple layers)
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell (US 2014/0291282 A1) IDS 10/15/2024 with evidence provided by Chang (WO 2010/033609 A2)
Regarding Claim 5, Bedell anticipates all the limitations of claim 4 and while it discloses that the spreading layer may include 2D materials including boron nitride and complex oxides (paragraph [0030]). it does not disclose that the support layer of the intermediate substrate comprises silicon nitride or silicon dioxide.
However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have silicon nitride or silicon dioxide comprising the support layer of the intermediate substrate because this would applying a known technique to a known metho read for improvement to produce predictable results (MPEP § 2143 I (C): “The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that a method of enhancing a particular class of devices (methods, or products) has been made part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art based upon the teaching of such improvement in other situations.” ).
Evidence for this technique comes from Chang where a method for transferring thin film to a substrate is disclosed with a flexible intermediate substrate (abs temporary transfer substrate) where a single layer of thin film of conductive material may be patterned onto a base layer (abs). This base layer which is on a surface of a fabrication sheet may include on its temporary platform an etch stopping material such as silicon nitride or silicon dioxide, which is a suitable material that is inert to chemicals that are inert to etching chemicals such as hydrogen fluoride used to remove the sheet material by chemical etching (paragraph [0031]).Therefore, one with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use these materials due to their chemical inertness or resistance (paragraphs [0032] [0046]).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell (US 2014/0291282 A1) IDS 10/15/2024 in view of Liu. Y, et al, "Recent Progress of Heterostructures Based on Two Dimensional Materials and Wide Bandgap Semiconductors", Arxiv.org, Cornell University Library, 201 Olin Library Cornell University, Ithaca NY 14853 (2022). IDS 10/15/2024
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Bedell anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose that the metallic adhesion layer comprises at least one of: gold, copper, platinum, chromium, or palladium nor that an interfacial layer between the support layer and the metallic adhesion layer, the interfacial layer comprising at least one of: tantalum, chromium, titanium, tungsten, niobium, aluminum, or nickel.
Liu discloses in a non-patent literature treatise on two dimensional (2D) materials for atomically thin layer films forming heterostructures (abs), A step in the procedure for obtaining these films is through exfoliating by means of a tape-peeling technique where 2D monolayers are formed that comprise gold (Au) (bottom paragraph, p. 6) and copper (Cu) where monolayer graphene films were grown on copper foil (2nd paragraph, p. 9).
Additionally, Liu discloses that interfacial materials are used to create various 2D heterostructures with different materials to display large energy bandgap (last paragraph p.3) which include niobium, tantalum and tungsten for wide and narrow bandgap regions (beginning of last paragraph, p. 4 variety of bandgap is a zoo of metal).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Bedell with the teachings of Liu whereby a method for transferring a material from a flexible intermediate substrate to a second substrate where the flexible intermediate substrate comprises a support layer and a metallic adhesion layer, as disclosed by Bedell, would include that the metallic adhesion layer would comprise gold or copper and that an interfacial layer would comprise tantalum, tungsten or niobium.
The skilled artisan would be motivated to use materials including gold and or copper because the metallic adhesion layer could then be readily etched to exfoliated the desired monolayer (last paragraph, p.6) and would further be motivated to use materials as tantalum, tungsten or niobium in an interfacial layer between the support layer and the metallic adhesion layer because these metals provide a variety of properties to heterostructures (beginning of last paragraph p. 4).
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bedell (US 2014/0291282 A1) IDS 10/15/2024 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zaretski (WO 2015/196066 A2) IDS 05/05/2026.
Regarding Claim 9, Bedell anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose controlling the Van der Waals adhesion at least in part by controlling a temperature of one or more of the substrates.
Zaretski in a method for the fabrication and transfer of single layer graphene to a flexible substrate with adhesion to thin metallic film followed by a lamination of the metalized graphene layers to a flexible target substrate (abs). Zaretski further discloses that a step of removed the metallized graphene to an intermediary substrate via van Der Waals forces (p. 10 ll.15-20). Zaretski also teaches that the metalized graphene layer is applied to a second substrate and laminated at a temperature range within which the adhesive within which the adhesive of the adhesive thermal release tape is deactivated and in some embodiment the lamination step and removal of the thermal release adhesive tape are completed concurrently (p. 12 ll, 5-12).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bedell with Zaretski whereby a method for transferring a material from a flexible intermediate substrate to a second substrate where the flexible intermediate substrate comprises a support layer and a metallic adhesion layer would also include controlling the Van der Waals adhesion by controlling a temperature of one or more of the substrates. This would be considered advantageous because this would enable a combined lamination to a second substrate while being detached from a flexible intermediate substrate in one step (p. 12, ll. 10-12).
Regarding Claim 10, Bedell anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose controlling the Van der Waals adhesion at least in part by controlling a speed of movement of the intermediate substrate.
Zaretski discloses that in its process of laminating the adhesive thermal release tape (flexible intermediate substrate) onto the metal layer formed on the graphene, that the adhesive thermal release tap can be applied using a specific machine with controlled pressure and speed (p. 12, ll. 13-18). One with ordinary skill would consider this advantageous because this controlled speed avoids the formation of bubbles between the metal layer and the adhesive tape and thus avoiding the need to apply the tape by hand (p. 12, ll. 19-21)
Regarding Claim 11, Bedell anticipates all the limitations of claim 1 but does not disclose lifting the material from a first substrate with the intermediate substrate, the lifting comprising adhering the material to the metallic adhesion layer by Van der Waals adhesion between the material and the metallic adhesion layer.
Zaretski discloses a method step of exfoliating the metalized graphene layer from a first substrate by adhering an intermediary substrate to the metal and applying force to the intermediary substrate sufficient to overcome the interaction between the first substrate and the graphene layer to remove the metallized graphene from the first substrate (p. 4 ll. 20-25). This interaction between the first substrate and the graphene layer is by means of van Der Waals forces which causes the exfoliation to occur as well as the lamination onto the final receiving substrate by terminating the van Der Waals bonds (p. 10 ll. 18-28).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Bedell and Zaretski disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Zaretski further discloses lifting the material comprises bringing the metallic adhesion layer of the intermediate substrate proximate to the first substrate and depositing the material comprising bringing the metallic adhesion layer of the intermediate substrate proximate to the second substrate (p. 10 ll. 15-28 metalized graphene layer removed from the first substrate by peeling layer away by exfoliation through adhering the metallized graphene to the intermediary substrate through van Der Waals forces then laminating the graphene onto the final receiving substrate (the second substrate with the intermediary substrate being disengaged form the metallized graphene by terminating the van Der Waals bonds).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Bedell and Zaretski disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Bedell further discloses that the Van der Waals adhesion between the material and the metallic adhesion layer is greater than Van der Waals adhesion between the material and the first substrate (Fig. 2A paragraph [0031] the bond strength is preferably greater between the stressor layer (metallic adhesion layer) – 16 and the monolayer (material) – 14 than the Van der Waals forces between the spreading layer (material) – 14 and the substrate – 12, which can also be applied to the first substrate of Zaretski) .
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Bedell and Zaretski disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and Zaretski further discloses that lifting the material comprises lifting a portion of the first substrate which is bonded to the material, the method further comprising:
removing the portion of the first substrate from the intermediate substrate before depositing the material on to the second substrate (p. 10 ll. 18-25 applying force to the intermediary substrate to overcome the first substrate comes first and then the exfoliated graphene can be laminated onto the final receiving substrate).
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Bedell and Zaretski disclose all the limitations of claim 14 and, Zaretski further discloses removing the portion of the first substrate is a wet process (p.17 l 30-p.18 l. 4 where the metallic film is removed from the surface of the graphene using a conventional wet-transfer method using iron (III)chloride (FeCl3 1 M).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Bedell and Zaretski disclose all the limitations of claim 11 and, Zaretski further discloses depositing the metallic adhesion layer on the support layer in accordance with a predetermined pattern; wherein
lifting the material comprising lifting the material in accordance with the predetermined pattern (p. 14 l 24-p. 15 l. 3; or p. 15 ll. 4-14 where one embodiment has a patterning through selective etching of the metallize graphene and a second embodiment has and additional step of exposing the metallic previously patterned graphene to oxygen plasma in order to remove exposed (unpatterned) graphene).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE K. SWIER whose telephone number is (571)272-4598. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8:30 am - 5:30 pm PST.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/WAYNE K. SWIER/ Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights