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 of Group I (claims 1-2, and 4-17) in the reply filed on 4/7/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/7/26.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 2014/0056551; hereafter Liu) in view of Tang et al (CN 104701146; citations directed to machine translation provided herein; hereafter Tang). {Nguyen et al “Atomic-scale insights into the oxidation of aluminum” ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2018, 10, 2230-2235; hereafter Nguyen, provided as evidence only}
Claim 1: Liu teaches a method of forming a graphene-containing laminate (modulator) (See, for example, abstract, Fig 2C), the method comprising:
providing a first graphene layer structure (such as 216) on a substrate (such as sio2 wafer / si 220) (see, for example, Fig 2C-D example 2);
forming a first metal oxide layer on the graphene layer structure by depositing and then oxidising a layer of metal (such as Al) (See, for example, [0063-65];
forming a second metal oxide layer on the first metal oxide layer (see, for example, [0063-0065]);
and forming a second graphene layer structure on the second metal oxide layer (See, for example, Fig 2C-D, Example 2),
Liu teaches formation of second and first graphene layers can be achieved via CVD onto a Cu film followed by a mechanical transfer process (see, for example, [0059-0065]), so it does not explicitly teach forming the second graphene layer structure on the second metal oxide layer by CVD. Tang teaches a method of forming a graphene-containing laminate (See, for example, [0001-0002], [0009]. Tang further teaches that the conventional method of fabricating graphene layers via CVD onto a metal catalyst film followed by a mechanical transfer processing can lead to contamination of the film during such processing, and provides a direct chemical vapor deposition method which eliminates the need to transfer the graphene layers and avoids the associated contamination from metal ions; as well as avoiding the problem of multiple layers of graphene stacking, and simplification of the processing steps (See, for example, [0022-23]). Tang further teaches its direct CVD method is simple, fast, and consistent and compatible with semiconductor processes and for large scale production while allowing for more uniform and dense graphene layers, and can predictably be applied to insulting surfaces including coated surfaces comprising metal oxides such as aluminum oxide (See, for example, [0025], [0038], [0041]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated forming the second graphene layer structure on the second metal oxide layer by CVD since such a method is known in the art to predictably deposit graphene onto insulative surfaces, including metal oxide coatings, for graphene laminate devices and as such an incorporation would predictably avoid associated contamination from metal ions observed from transfer methods while providing a simple, fast, consistent process for large scale production while allowing for more uniform and dense graphene layers.
Claim 2: Liu further teaches where the second metal oxide layer is formed by atomic layer deposition (ALD) (see, for example, [0063-0065]).
Claim 4: refer to the rejection of claim 1, wherein the first graphene layer structure is formed by CVD (either by A) Liu’s teaching of CVD deposition on Cu foil and transferred thereafter (see, for example, 0065]) , or alternatively via with combination of Tang, replacement of transferal method via direct CVD (see rejection of claim 1 above, and for example, [0025], [0038], [0041] of Tang).
Claim 6: Liu further teaches wherein the first and / or second metal oxide layer comprises aluminum oxide (see, for example, [0063-5]).
Claim 7: Liu further teaches wherein the step of oxidising the layer of deposited metal comprises heating the layer of metal (deposited via thermal evaporation and immediately oxidized, therefore at least residual heat from deposition contributing as well as ambient heater) under an oxygen-containing environment (such as air) (See, for example, [0063-0065]).
Claim 9: Liu further teaches wherein the metal is aluminum (See, for example, [0063-0065]).
Claim 10: Liu further teaches wherein the layer of metal has a thickness of less than 10 nm (1 nm) (See, for example, [0063]).
Claim 11: Liu further teaches wherein the second metal oxide layer has a thickness of 12 nm (See, for example, [0063].
Claim 12: Liu in view of Tang teach the method of claim 1 (above), wherein Liu has taught oxidizing a layer of aluminum by exposure to air and subsequently depositing a 12 nm layer of ALD Al2O3 (See, for example, [0063-65]), but is silent as to initial aluminum-oxide thickness. {Nguyen evidences that spontaneous aluminum oxide formation possesses a saturation thickness on the order of ~1.5 nm, see for example, pg 2232). Assuming such a thickness, Lin in view of Tang have taught a ratio of first to second oxides of ~1:8.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 9-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalir et al (US 2019/0155068; hereafter Dalir) in view of Liu and Tang. {Nguyen provided as evidence only}
Claim 1: Dalir teaches a method of forming a graphene-containing laminate (modulator) (See, for example, abstract, Fig 1-4), the method comprising:
providing a first graphene layer structure (such as 215) on a substrate (such as 205 and/ or 210) (see, for example, Fig 1-2, [0027-0030]);
forming a first metal oxide layer (such as initial aluminum oxide via PVD) on the graphene layer structure (See, for example, [0031], Fig 2);
forming a second metal oxide layer (via ALD) on the first metal oxide layer (see, for example, [0031], Fig 2);
and forming a second graphene layer structure on the second metal oxide layer (See, for example, Fig 2D,[0033]).
Dalir has taught forming the metal oxide layer (alumina) via PVD / thermal evaporation (see, for example, [0031]), but it does not teach forming it by depositing and then oxidising a layer of metal (Al). Liu teaches a method of forming a graphene-containing laminate (modulator) (See, for example, abstract, Fig 2C), further a laminate comprising a first graphene layer structure (such as 216) a first metal oxide layer (alumina) on the graphene layer, a second metal oxide, and a second graphene layer (See, for example, [0063-65]). Liu, like Dalir, similarly acknowledges the difficulty in directly forming alumina onto graphene via ALD (See, for example, [0063]), and overcomes this hardship by depositing an layer of Al followed by oxidizing it into alumina to serve as a seed layer for the ALD Al2O3 (See, for example, [0063]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated forming the metal oxide layer via depositing and oxidizing a layer of metal (Al) since such a method would predictably achieve the formation of a desired seed al2o3 layer suitable for ALD deposition of further Al2O3, and/ or since where two known alternatives are interchangeable for a desired function, an express suggestion to substitute one for the other is not needed to render a substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297,301 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568 (CCPA 1967).
Dalir teaches formation of second and first graphene layers can be achieved via a CVD wet transfer process (see, for example, [0027], [0033]), so it does not explicitly teach forming the second graphene layer structure on the second metal oxide layer by CVD. Tang teaches a method of forming a graphene-containing laminate (See, for example, [0001-0002], [0009]. Tang further teaches that the conventional method of fabricating graphene layers via CVD onto a metal catalyst film followed by a mechanical transfer processing can lead to contamination of the film during such processing, and provides a direct chemical vapor deposition method which eliminates the need to transfer the graphene layers and avoids the associated contamination from metal ions; as well as avoiding the problem of multiple layers of graphene stacking, and simplification of the processing steps (See, for example, [0022-23]). Tang further teaches its direct CVD method is simple, fast, and consistent and compatible with semiconductor processes and for large scale production while allowing for more uniform and dense graphene layers, and can predictably be applied to insulting surfaces including coated surfaces comprising metal oxides such as aluminum oxide (See, for example, [0025], [0038], [0041]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated forming the second graphene layer structure on the second metal oxide layer by CVD since such a method is known in the art to predictably deposit graphene onto insulative surfaces, including metal oxide coatings, for graphene laminate devices and as such an incorporation would predictably avoid associated contamination from metal ions observed from transfer methods while providing a simple, fast, consistent process for large scale production while allowing for more uniform and dense graphene layers.
Claim 2: Dalir further teaches where the second metal oxide layer is formed by atomic layer deposition (ALD) (see, for example, [0031]).
Claim 4: refer to the rejection of claim 1, wherein the first graphene layer structure is formed by CVD (either by A) Dalir’s teaching of CVD deposition on a temporary support and transferred thereafter (see, for example, 0027]) , or alternatively via with combination of Tang, replacement of transferal method via direct CVD (see rejection of claim 1 above, and for example, [0025], [0038], [0041] of Tang).
Claim 5: Dalir in view of Liu an Tang teach the method of claim 1 above, wherein Dalir has taught similarly applying electrically insulating material over the second graphene layer as it was applied over the first graphene layer (see, for example, [0036-0037], repetition of application of first and second per mode expressed in rejection of claim 1).
Claim 6: Dalir further teaches wherein the first and / or second metal oxide layer comprises aluminum oxide (See, for example, [0031])
Claim 7: Liu further teaches wherein the step of oxidising the layer of deposited metal comprises heating the layer of metal (deposited via thermal evaporation and immediately oxidized, therefore at least residual heat from deposition contributing as well as ambient heater) under an oxygen-containing environment (such as air) (See, for example, [0063-0065]).
Claim 9: Liu further teaches wherein the metal is aluminum (See, for example, [0063-0065]).
Claim 10: Liu further teaches wherein the layer of metal has a thickness of less than 10 nm (such as 1 nm) (See, for example, [0063]).
Claim 11: Dalir further teaches wherein the second metal oxide layer has a thickness of ~8-19 nm (calculated from disclosure of first thickness as (~1-2 nm) and total of both being ~10-20 nm) (See, for example, [0031] and [0042].
Claim 12: refer to the rejection of claim 11 above wherein the ratio of thickness first oxide (1-2 nm) to the second (~8-19 nm) would equate to a ratio of ~1:4 to 1:19 (See, for example, [0031] and [0042]). Although such a range is not explicitly 1:1 to 1:10 as claimed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a thickness within the claimed range since in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claim 15: Dalir in view of Liu and Tang teach the method of claim 1 above. Dalir has further taught wherein patterning techniques including masking may be used to define the shapes of different components during fabrication (See, for example, [0024]). Dalir further teaches embodiments wherein the first metal oxide layer resides at selective areas (such as areas not on 220) (See, for example, Fig 2C). Based on the explicit teaching toward using masks to achieve patterned application, and the desire for patterned application, if not already anticipated by the teaching of Dalir, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated masking portions of the laminate wherein the first metal oxide layer is not desired and then forming the first oxide layer through said mask since such masking would predictably achieve the desired result of selective application of a patterned first oxide layer.
Claim(s) 8 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Tang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rutherglen (US 9,379,327; hereafter Rutherglen).
Claim 8: Liu in view of Tang teach the method of claim 1 (above), wherein Liu has taught oxidizing the layer of aluminum (See, for example, [0063-65]), but is silent as to the thermal conditions of oxidation, so it does not explicitly teach such oxidation via heating the aluminum over a hot plate. Rutherglen teaches a method of forming a graphene-containing laminate (See, for example, abstract, Figures, col 13 lines 45-65). Rutherglen further teaches wherein the method of forming its laminate comprises deposition of aluminum and its subsequent oxidation (See, for example, col 11 line 50-col 12 line 11). Rutherglen further teaches wherein oxidation of an aluminum layer can predictably be performed via a hot plate at elevated temperature, further 150oC to yield about 2-3 nm of oxide (See, for example, col 11 line 50-col 12 line 11). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated oxidation of the aluminum via heating over a hot plate since such a procedure would predictably achieve the desired oxidation of aluminum, since heat is a commonly known and understood catalyst for metal oxidation reactions, and / or since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim 12: Refer to the rejection of claim 8 above. Liu in view of Tang further teach the method of claim 1 (above), wherein Liu has taught oxidizing a layer of aluminum and subsequently depositing a 12 nm layer of ALD Al2O3 (See, for example, [0063-65]), but is silent as to initial aluminum-oxide thickness. Rutherglen has taught the oxidizing aluminum via the incorporated hot plate method achieves oxide layers of 2-3 nm (See, for example, col 12 lines 1-5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary an oxidized aluminum thickness of 2-3 nm as such a thickness can be predictably achieved by oxidation of aluminum, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference. a ratio of 2-3 nm of first metal oxide to 12 nm for second oxide layer results in a ratio of 1:4 to 1:6.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalir in view of Liu in and Tang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rutherglen.
Claim 8: Dalir in view of Liu and Tang teach the method of claim 1 (above), wherein Liu has taught oxidizing the layer of aluminum (See, for example, [0063-65]), but is silent as to the thermal conditions of oxidation, so it does not explicitly teach such oxidation via heating the aluminum over a hot plate. Rutherglen teaches a method of forming a graphene-containing laminate (See, for example, abstract, Figures, col 13 lines 45-65). Rutherglen further teaches wherein the method of forming its laminate comprises deposition of aluminum and its subsequent oxidation (See, for example, col 11 line 50-col 12 line 11). Rutherglen further teaches wherein oxidation of an aluminum layer can predictably be performed via a hot plate at elevated temperature, further 150oC to yield about 2-3 nm of oxide (See, for example, col 11 line 50-col 12 line 11). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated oxidation of the aluminum via heating over a hot plate since such a procedure would predictably achieve the desired oxidation of aluminum, since heat is a commonly known and understood catalyst for metal oxidation reactions, and / or since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Tang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al (“Realization of a High Mobility Dual-gated Graphene Field Effect Transistor with Al2O3 Dielectric” Appl. Phy. Lett. 94:6/62107 3 pgs; as provided in 11/26/25 IDS; hereafter Kim).
Claims 13-14: Liu in view of Tang teach the method of claim 1 (above), wherein Liu has taught ALD of an Al2O3 coating onto an oxidized Al layer on graphene, but it is silent as to appropriate ALD precursors, so it does not explicitly teach wherein the second metal oxide layer is formed by ALD using water as an oxygen precursor, and / or using a metal alkyl, metal alkoxide or metal halide as a metal precursor. Kim teaches a method of forming a graphene-containing laminate (See, for example, abstract, Fig 1). Kim further teaches wherein the laminate is formed via ALD of an Al2O3 coating onto an oxidized Al layer on graphene (See, for example, pg 1-2). Kim teaches wherein trimethyl aluminum performs predictably as the Al source for ALD and water as the oxidizer for ALD (See, for example, pg 1-2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated using water as an oxygen precursor, and / or using a metal alkyl (trimethyl aluminum) as the metal precursor since such precursors as known in the art to react predictably via ALD to form an Al2O3 coating onto an oxidized Al layer on graphene, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Claim(s) 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalir in view of Liu and Tang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim.
Claims 13-14: Dalir in view of Liu and Tang teach the method of claim 1 (above), wherein they have taught ALD of an Al2O3 coating onto an oxidized Al layer on graphene, but are silent as to appropriate ALD precursors, so they do not explicitly teach wherein the second metal oxide layer is formed by ALD using water as an oxygen precursor, and / or using a metal alkyl, metal alkoxide or metal halide as a metal precursor. Kim teaches a method of forming a graphene-containing laminate (See, for example, abstract, Fig 1). Kim further teaches wherein the laminate is formed via ALD of an Al2O3 coating onto an oxidized Al layer on graphene (See, for example, pg 1-2). Kim teaches wherein trimethyl aluminum performs predictably as the Al source for ALD and water as the oxidizer for ALD (See, for example, pg 1-2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated using water as an oxygen precursor, and / or using a metal alkyl (trimethyl aluminum) as the metal precursor since such precursors as known in the art to react predictably via ALD to form an Al2O3 coating onto an oxidized Al layer on graphene, and since when a primary reference is silent as to a certain detail, one of ordinary skill would be motivated to consult a secondary reference which satisfies the deficiencies of the primary reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN H EMPIE whose telephone number is (571)270-1886. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 5:30AM - 4 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/NATHAN H EMPIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights