DETAILED ACTION
An amendment, amending claims 1, 8 and 18, was entered on 7/24/26.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant correctly points out that the citation in Rietzler (US 2011/0117702) does not exist. This is persuasive. The correct reference is Bourke (US 2011/0117202). A new rejection is presented below to rectify this error and this action is made non-final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5-9 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ifuku et al. (US 2021/0164103) in light of Bourke et al. (US 2011/0117202).
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).
Ifuku fails to teach generating a second plasma while maintaining the first pressure. Bourke 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 3: Ifuku teaches maintaining the second pressure (¶ 0081).
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 8: Bourke 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 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.
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).
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.
Claim 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ifuku and Bourke 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.
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