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
Claims 17-21 withdrawn
Claims 1-16 pending
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (PG Pub 2020/0039827 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Jung teaches the process of forming a carbon film (graphene, 40) on top of a pattern (abstract, figure 1), where the process of forming the carbon film (graphene film) is formed using plasma CVD [0038], using a gas mixture consisting of carbon source (of acetylene gas), inert gas such as Argon gas, and hydrogen gas [0047], and where the gas mixture of C2H2, H2, Ar form the graphene layer using plasma (figure 2B).
Consider Claim 2, Jung teaches the carbon source is acetylene gas [0047].
Consider Claims 3-4, Jung teaches the processing temperature is 700℃ or less [0005], or more preferably 300-700℃ [0049].
Consider Claim 5, Jung teaches the use of gas mixture comprising 5 sccm of the acetylene gas, 95 sccm of the argon gas, and 5 sccm of the hydrogen gas [0054], leading to 4.7%.
Consider Claim 6, Jung teaches the pattern is a trench (figure 1).
Claim(s) 1-8 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (PG Pub 2013/0059091 A1).
Consider Claim 1, Matsumoto teaches the process of forming carbon film (CNT) (abstract), teaches the CNT film (213) is formed using gas mixture consisting of acetylene (C2H2), hydrogen gas and Argon, under the plasma process [0100], forming a CNT (213) on top of a metal catalyst layer (211) as a pattern (figure 5).
Consider Claim 2, Matsumoto teaches the use of acetylene [0100].
Consider Claims 3-4, Matsumoto teaches the growth temperature is 350-550℃ [0103].
Consider Claim 5, Matsumoto teaches the hydrogen is supplied between 100-2000 ml/min [0106], with acetylene supplied between 5-200 mL/min [0105], with Ar supplied between 0-1000ml/min [0107]. Leading to (for example) H2, C2H2, Ar with amount of 3, 96, 1 ml/min with have hydrogen gas with 3% or more.
Consider Claims 6-8, Matsumoto teaches the aspect ratio of from 1-10 [0072].
Consider Claim 13, Matsumoto teaches the pattern is metal protrusion (211) from an interlayer insulating film (203) (figure 4, [0068]) where the carbon layer (CNT) 213 is formed on top of the metal layer (211) (figure 5).
Consider Claims 14-15, Matsumoto teaches the process of etching to form the opening 205 using photolithography/hard mask ([0068]-[0069] figure 4), where the carbon layer/CNT is grown within the recess after etching step (figure 5).
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) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (PG Pub 2020/0039827 A1).
Consider Claims 3-4, Jung teaches the processing temperature is 700℃ or less [0005], or more preferably 300-700℃ [0049]. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 5, Jung teaches the use of gas mixture comprising 5 sccm of the acetylene gas, 95 sccm of the argon gas, and 5 sccm of the hydrogen gas [0054], leading to 4.7%. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05)
Claim(s) 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (PG Pub 2013/0059091 A1).
Consider Claims 3-4, Matsumoto teaches the growth temperature is 350-550℃ [0103]. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claim 5, Matsumoto teaches the hydrogen is supplied between 100-2000 ml/min [0106], with acetylene supplied between 5-200 mL/min [0105], with Ar supplied between 0-1000ml/min [0107]. Leading to (for example) H2, C2H2, Ar with amount of 3, 96, 1 ml/min with have hydrogen gas with 3% or more. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Consider Claims 6-8, Matsumoto teaches the aspect ratio of from 1-10 [0072]. 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, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (PG Pub 2013/0059091 A1), and in view of Matsudo (WO 2022/050136 A1, equivalent to PG Pub 2023/0307215 A1 used in here for paragraph referencing).
Consider Claim 9-12, Matsumoto teaches the process of forming carbon film (CNT) (abstract), using system shown in figure 1, having electrode 87, and using plasma for deposition process [0100].
Matsumoto does not teach the claimed in claims 9-12.
However, Matsudo is in the process of forming film (claim 8), using plasma processing system (abstract), teaches the film forming process is under depressurized chamber (such as 0.2 Torr) [0009], a plasma with eV of 200 or less (with high impedance) (figure 6); and with 40.68 MHz [0068]; and an electrode (35) facing the stage (14), and the electrode (34) is between the stage (14) and the electrode (35) facing the stage (figure 1); and an impedance of the impedance circuit is set such that an impedance of an electrical path from the lower electrode through the impedance circuit to the ground is higher than an impedance of an electrical path from a wall of the chamber to the ground (abstract).
A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention would combine Matsumoto with Matsudo to provides a technique for generating a high-density plasma in a high-pressure chamber and reducing energy applied to a substrate [0008].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued against the prior arts of Jung. On the following grounds;
Jung discloses a method in which a protective layer 30 is formed on a substrate 20, a plasma of a reaction gas of a mixed gas of a carbon source gas, an inert gas, and a hydrogen gas is generated, and a nanocrystalline graphene 40 is directly grown on a surface of the protective layer 30 at a temperature of 700° C or lower.
Referring to FIG.4 of Jung, the graphene 40, which allegedly corresponds to the carbon- based film, is selectively formed where the protective layer 30 is present, whereas the graphene 40 is not formed where the protective layer 30 is absent, as shown on the left-hand side of FIG. 4 (see paragraphs [0064]-[0065] of Jung). That is, the selective formation of the graphene 40 in Jung is made depending on the presence or absence of the protective layer 30 on the substrate in Jung.
However, Jung is totally silent on whether the graphene is only formed on the top of the pattern as a result of the selective formation. Indeed, Jung does not describe the graphene formation position in association with the position in the pattern. It merely describes the graphene formation position in association with the presence or absence of the protective layer.
However, the claimed limitation of “substrate having a pattern” reads on various descriptions, such as: substrate itself having a groves, trenches and wavey surface; or the substrate surface include two or more materials, such as dielectric and metal surfaces.
Moreover, Jung disclose the substrate having wavey structure, with repeated tops and groves, as seen in figure 1. Additionally, Jung also disclose the substrate surface having two materials, the SiO2 (20) and the protective layer (30) (figure 4). Where in both cases, the formed carbon/graphene layer is on top of a patterned substrate, having a wavey structure and patterned with varies surface materials.
The applicant argued against the prior arts of Matsumoto. On the following grounds;
Matsumoto discloses a method in which a wafer having a catalyst metal layer 211 formed at the bottom of an opening 205 is sequentially subjected to an oxygen plasma treatment and a hydrogen plasma treatment, and thereafter a carbon nanotube 213 is grown on the catalyst metal layer 211 by plasma CVD.
However, Matsumoto is also silent on whether the graphene is only formed on the top of the pattern as a result of the selective formation. Matsumoto merely describes the carbon nanotube 213 is grown from the catalyst metal layer 211 disposed at the bottom of the opening, rather than being selectively formed only on a top of a pattern.
Accordingly, Matsumoto also fails to disclose or suggest the above feature of the forming the carbon-based film and thus fails to cure the deficiencies of Jung.
However, Matsumoto disclose the substrate (201) having first surface patterned with a metal catalyst (211), where the other side of the substrate surface have the insulating layer (203). As the carbon layer (213) is formed on the patterned portion of the substrate (figure 5).
All other applicant arguments not specifically addressed above are deemed unpersuasive as either not commensurate in scope with the broadly drafted claims or are unsupported by factual evidence and are deemed mere attorney speculation.
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 Mohammad Mayy whose telephone number is (571)272-9983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00AM-7:00PM 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.
/Mohammad Mayy/
Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
