DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species IV in the reply filed on 01/28/2026 is acknowledged. Because the claims were amended to avoid non-elected species, all claims will be examined and no claims are currently subject to withdrawal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 9, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The claims are drawn to various apparatus including a “modified tool” – but it is not particularly clear what the metes and bounds on such an apparatus are. If a tool is “modified” there are no discernible metes and bounds because one would not be aware of what the original tool is or may have been or what modification may entail.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over unpatentable over Banerjee (2023/0008834).
Banerjee teaches a diffusion couple synthesis method comprising:
- providing a semiconductor device substrate – see particularly background regarding forming the graphene layer on a device [0003-05, 51] (i.e. prepared substrate),
- wherein said substrate comprises a first carbon source that is formed on a BEOL substrate [0005], a first sacrificial diffusion layer (see metallic film, Ni) and a first device level – see reference to transistors [0004] on the substrate, wherein
- the first dielectric (interlayer) is atop first device level, which comprises transistors [0020] and
- wherein the sacrificial layer is directly atop first dielectric layer – see [0037] wherein it is clarified that the metal (nickel) film is directly on the dielectric,
- wherein the first carbon source is directly atop the first sacrificial diffusion layer, see citation to [0005] and also example [0041].
The example does not described the complete details of the substrate, but through the background and other noted teachings the full scope of the substrate is described including the transistors, dielectric, metal diffusion layer and carbon source; the Office initially considers that the prepared substrate is directly taught (therefore anticipated) by Banerjee, wherein the elements are understood to exist in the substrate and are merely (further) defined, but, if it were determined that the various elements of the substrate are pieced together, the Office alternatively makes an obvious argument. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the clamed substrate including the carbon source on a metal diffusion layer which is directly on a dielectric layer formed on (CMOS) transistors as Banerjee teaches that such a substrate with the various elements is useful for the process of forming the graphene layer.
Further, wherein the graphene synthesis tool is provided (Fig. 2);
- the tool is capable of applying pressure simultaneously to substrates in the process chamber, see [0041] wherein a pressure and temperature are applied, and
- placing the substrate load in the chamber [0041],
- applying the pressure, described as 65-85 psi, within the claimed range, and
- applying temperature of 300- 450 C, again within the claimed range,
the ranges are well within the claimed ranges and therefore sufficiently anticipate the claimed ranges, see MPEP 2131.03, and
- forming graphene at a first interface between the first dielectric layer and the first sacrificial diffusion layer, see wherein the carbon atoms recombine on the other side of the Ni – i.e. facing the SiO2 (ILD) [0041].
Regarding claim 2, as above the diffusion layer is Ni.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, as above, Ni is taught; further the carbon source is graphitic powder [0037] or alternatively include amorphous carbon [0043].
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the system and method is capable of handling substrates of the claimed 150, 200 or 300 mm diameter at lease (claim 5).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, the teachings include silicon dioxide [0028,41].
Regarding claims 6, 15 and 18, the teachings include that the formed graphene is high quality [0005] and atomically thin (claim 10). While silent on the specific Raman peak ratio, since the prior art and instant application teach the same process of forming a high-quality graphene film, one would expect the same results of producing a film with such Raman peak ratio. More specifically, wherein the prior art and instant teachings both include forming a high quality, atomically thin graphene layer from a carbon source disposed on a metal (nickel) diffusion layer that has been deposited on a dielectric layer, the results of the prior art providing a layer that has a Raman peak ratio greater than 1.0 are necessarily the same.
Regarding claims 7 and 12, the teachings include multiple substrates [0046].
Regarding claims 8 and 11, the teachings include a CMOS device [0038-40].
Regarding claims 9, 16 and 20, the system of Banerjee meets at least the broad requirements of a hot pressure vessel as it is able to heat and produce pressure.
Regarding claim 10, all elements of the claim are met as laid out in claim 1 above, the claim further defines the metal of the diffusion layer and the carbon source, but Ni is taught in the primary rejection and graphitic powder [0037] and amorphous carbon [0043] are also taught, thereby meeting all claim requirements.
Regarding claim 17, all elements of the claim are met as laid out in claim 1 above, the claim further defines forming a CMOS device, which is taught [0038-40].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland, can be reached on 571-272-1418. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712