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 .
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 11-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ifuku et al. (US 2021/0164103).
Claims 1, 6, 11, 12 and 18: Ifuku teaches a method of and apparatus for forming a graphene layer on a substrate (Abst.; ¶ 0072) comprising the steps of: using a controller to place a substrate on a stage in a process container (¶ 0062); supplying Ar gas into the process container at a first pressure to generate a plasma at a first power (¶¶ 0067, 0071); controlling the inside of the process chamber to a second pressure lower than the first (e.g., 50 mTorr) (¶ 0071); and supplying C2H2 into the process chamber to form a graphene film on the substrate (¶ 0072).
Claim 3: Ifuku teaches maintaining the second pressure (¶ 0081).
Claim 13: Ifuku teaches pretreating the substrate with an Ar plasma at a third pressure and power (¶ 0063).
Claim 14: Ifuku teaches pretreating the substrate in Ar by annealing without generating a plasma (¶ 0063).
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.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ifuku in light of Rietzler et al. (US 2011/0117702).
Claim 2: Ifuku fails to teach generating a second plasma while maintaining the first pressure. Rietlzer teaches a process of processing a substrate in a plasma (Abst.) and explain that after the plasma has been ignited, the power can be reduced to maintain the plasma (¶ 0445). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have reducing the power input used to maintain the first plasma in order to have reduced the cost of maintaining the plasma once it had been ignited in Ifuku with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 8: Rietlzer is silent regarding the power. However, Ifuku teaches a power for igniting the first plasma of 1,000-3,500W (¶ 0075). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a power of 100-1,000W as the maintenance power in the combined method of Ifuku and Rietlzer with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ifuku in light of Todd et al. (US 2004/0213907).
Claim 4: Ifuku is silent regarding the flow rate of the carbon precursor. Todd teaches a process of forming a film (Abst.) and explains that the flow rate of the precursor gas introduced into the chamber should be introduced in a stepwise manner in order to achieve a desired thickness or deposition rate (¶ 0043, claim 22). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have fed the carbon-containing gas of Ifuku in a stepwise manner in order to have controlled the thickness or deposition rate with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 10: Ifuku is silent regarding the duration of supplying the carbon-containing gas. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood that the duration of supplying the precursor is directly tied to the amount of material deposited. Where 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. MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a second time of 5-20 second depending on the desired thickness of the film.
Claims 5, 7, 9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ifuku.
Claim 5: Ifuku teaches that the first pressure is 0.01-10 torr (¶ 0067). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a first pressure of 50-200 mTorr with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 7: Ifuku teaches a first power of 1,000-3,500W (¶ 0075). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a first power of 1,900-3,100W.
Claim 9: Ifuku teaches a first period of time which is 5 seconds to 60 minutes (¶ 0081). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a time of 5-20 seconds.
Claims 15 and 17: Ifuku teaches a third pressure or fourth pressure of 0.01-10 torr (¶ 0067). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a pressure of 50 mTorr to 1 torr with the predictable expectation of success.
Claim 16: Ifuku does not expressly teach a power for creating the plasma pretreatment (¶ 0063). However, Ifuku teaches that 100-3850 W is a suitable range for creating an Ar plasma using the processing equipment (¶ 0075). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(I). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing to have selected a pressure of 100-1,500W for creating the plasma with the predictable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert A Vetere whose telephone number is (571)270-1864. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 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, Michael Cleveland can be reached at (571) 270-1034. 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.
/ROBERT A VETERE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights