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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/23/2026 has been entered.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 11-14, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng et al. (CN-109103264, please note that the citations made herein are made to the attached machine translation) in view of Harutyunyan et al. (US 2017/0276641).
With regard to claim 1, Geng teaches, in Fig 1, a quantum device, comprising: a gate electrode (2); a substrate (1) disposed over at least a portion of the gate electrode; a bilayer structure (4) comprising: a bottom layer comprising a first 2D material, the bottom layer disposed over at least a portion of the substrate, the bottom layer having a width of 20nm or less (see page 2, Contents of the Invention, paragraph 4); a top layer comprising a second 2D material, the top layer disposed over at least a portion of the bottom layer, the first 2D material and the second 2D material being the same or different, the top layer having a width of 20 nm or less (see page 2, Contents of the Invention, paragraph 4); and a source electrode (5) and a drain electrode (6) disposed over at least a portion of the top layer of the bilayer structure.
Geng discloses the claimed invention except for the use of BN instead of MoS2. However, Geng does teach at page 2, Background, paragraph 1, and Harutyunyan further evidences at [0017] and [0026], that MoS2 and BN are equivalent materials known in the art. Therefore, because these active layered 2D materials with high electron mobility and having a band gap were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute MoS2 for BN since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007).
With regard to claim 4, Geng teaches, in Fig 1, that the bottom layer is in the form of a single nanoribbon; the top layer is in the form of a single nanoribbon; or a combination thereof (see page 2, Contents of the Invention, paragraph 4).
With regard to claim 5, Geng teaches, in Fig 1, that when the bottom layer is in the form of a single nanoribbon, at least a portion of the single nanoribbon of the bottom layer has a substantially uniform edge configuration; when the top layer is in the form of a single nanoribbon, at least a portion of the single nanoribbon of the top layer has a substantially uniform edge configuration; or a combination thereof (see page 2, Contents of the Invention, paragraph 3).
In reference to the claim language referring to "as determined by HAADF-STEM," intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. &Inter. 1987). In the instant case, as explained above Geng shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim and it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Geng’s device.
With regard to claim 11, Geng teaches, in Fig 1, that the first metal dichalcogenide and the second metal dichalcogenide are the same (page 2, Background, paragraph 1, MoS2).
With regard to claim 12, Geng teaches, in Fig 1, that the first metal dichalcogenide comprises MoS.sub.2, MoSe.sub.2, MoTe.sub.2, WS.sub.2, WSe.sub.2, WTe.sub.2, or combinations thereof; the second metal dichalcogenide comprises MoS.sub.2, MoSe.sub.2, MoTe.sub.2, WS.sub.2, WSe.sub.2, WTe.sub.2, or combinations thereof; or combinations thereof (page 2, Background, paragraph 1, MoS2).
With regard to claim 13, Geng/Harutyunyan teaches, that the first metal dichalcogenide, the second metal dichalcogenide, or both, comprises MoS2, MoSe2, MoTe2, or combinations thereof (Geng, page 2, Background, paragraph 1, MoS2; Harutyunyan [0017] and [0026]).
With regard to claim 14, Geng teaches, in Fig 1, that the first metal dichalcogenide, the second metal dichalcogenide, or both, comprise MoS.sub.2 (page 2, Background, paragraph 1, MoS2).
With regard to claim 21, Geng teaches, in Fig 1, a quantum device, comprising: a gate electrode (2); a substrate (1) disposed over at least a portion of the gate electrode; a bilayer structure (4) comprising: a bottom layer comprising a first 2D material, the bottom layer disposed over at least a portion of the substrate, the bottom layer having a width of 20nm or less (see page 2, Contents of the Invention, paragraph 4); a top layer comprising a second 2D material, the top layer disposed over at least a portion of the bottom layer, the first 2D material and the second 2D material being the same or different, the top layer having a width of 20 nm or less (see page 2, Contents of the Invention, paragraph 4); and a source electrode (5) and a drain electrode (6) disposed over at least a portion of the top layer of the bilayer structure.
Geng discloses the claimed invention except for the use of BN instead of MoS2. However, Geng does teach at page 2, Background, paragraph 1, and Harutyunyan further evidences at [0017] and [0026], that MoS2 and BN are equivalent materials known in the art. Therefore, because these active layered 2D materials with high electron mobility and having a band gap were art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention was made and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute MoS2 for BN since the substitution would yield predictable results. See Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. _, 82 YSPQ2d 1385 (2007).
However, Geng/Harutyunyan does not explicitly teach that at least one of the top layer or bottom layer has a length to width ratio from 5000 to 10000. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the length to width ratio would impact the source/drain distance, transistor density, leakage current, and short channel effects.
The specific claimed length to width ratio, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” length to width ratio disclosed by Geng/Harutyunyan that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired source/drain distance, transistor density, leakage current, and short channel effects, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the at least one of the top layer or bottom layer has a length to width ratio from 5000 to 10000 is used, as already suggested by Geng/Harutyunyan.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the length to width ratio stated and since these length to width ratios are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Geng/Harutyunyan.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed length to width ratio or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 23, in reference to the claim language referring to "wherein the quantum device exhibits Coulomb blockade at about 4 K to about 80 K," intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. &Inter. 1987). In the instant case, as explained above Geng shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim and it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Geng’s device.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng et al. (CN-109103264, please note that the citations made herein are made to the attached machine translation) in view of Harutyunyan et al. (US 2017/0276641) and Wu et al. (US 2018/0114839).
With regard to claim 6, Geng/Harutyunyan teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 5.
Geng/Harutyunyan does not explicitly teach that the substantially uniform edge configuration includes a zigzag edge, an armchair edge, or a combination thereof.
Wu teaches, in Figs 1A-2B, that the substantially uniform edge configuration includes a zigzag edge, an armchair edge, or a combination thereof to provide the desired band structure (see [0022]-[0025], Figures 2A and 2B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Geng/Harutyunyan with the edge configuration of Wu to achieve the desired band structure.
In reference to the claim language referring to "as determined by HAADF-STEM," intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. &Inter. 1987). In the instant case, as explained above Geng/Harutyunyan shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim and it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Geng/Harutyunyan’s device.
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng et al. (CN-109103264, please note that the citations made herein are made to the attached machine translation) in view of Harutyunyan et al. (US 2017/0276641) and Duan et al. (US 2021/0020744).
With regard to claim 7, Geng/Harutyunyan teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Geng/Harutyunyan does not explicitly teach that a stacking configuration of the bottom layer and the top layer is an AA′ (2H) stacking configuration, an AB (3R) stacking configuration, or a twisted stacking configuration, or combinations thereof.
Duan teaches that a stacking configuration of the bottom layer and the top layer is an AA′ (2H) stacking configuration, an AB (3R) stacking configuration, or a twisted stacking configuration, or combinations thereof ([0170]) in order to, “provide another degree of freedom to tailor their electronic properties for exotic physics,” ([0170]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the device of Geng/Harutyunyan with the stacking configuration of Duan to provide another degree of freedom to tailor their electronic properties for exotic physics.
With regard to claim 8, Duan teaches that the stacking configuration includes a twisted stacking configuration ([0170]).
Geng/Harutyunyan/Duan do not explicitly teach an interlayer twist angle between the bottom layer and the top layer is from about 1° to about 20°. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that twist angle would impact correlated insulator behavior and superconductivity (Duan, [0170]).
The specific claimed angle, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” angle disclosed by Geng/Harutyunyan/Duan that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired correlated insulator behavior and superconductivity, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the interlayer twist angle between the bottom layer and the top layer is from about 1° to about 20° is used, as already suggested by Geng/Harutyunyan/Duan.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the angle stated and since these angles are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Geng/Harutyunyan/Duan.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed angles or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In reference to the claim language referring to "as determined by fast Fourier transform from an HAADF-STEM image," intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In a claim drawn to a process of making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); Ex parte Masham, 2USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. &Inter. 1987). In the instant case, as explained above Geng/Harutyunyan/Duan shows all structural limitations specifically recited in the claim and it appears that the recited functional limitation does not affect the structure of Geng/Harutyunyan/Duan’s device.
With regard to claim 22, Geng/Harutyunyan teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 21.
Geng/Harutyunyan does not explicitly teach that a stacking configuration of the bottom layer and the top layer is an AA′ (2H) stacking configuration, an AB (3R) stacking configuration, or a twisted stacking configuration, or combinations thereof.
Duan teaches that a stacking configuration of the bottom layer and the top layer is an AA′ (2H) stacking configuration, an AB (3R) stacking configuration, or a twisted stacking configuration, or combinations thereof ([0170]) in order to, “provide another degree of freedom to tailor their electronic properties for exotic physics,” ([0170]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the device of Geng/Harutyunyan with the stacking configuration of Duan to provide another degree of freedom to tailor their electronic properties for exotic physics.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geng et al. (CN-109103264, please note that the citations made herein are made to the attached machine translation) in view of Harutyunyan et al. (US 2017/0276641) and Radosavljevic et al. (US 2019/0305135).
With regard to claim 9, Geng/Harutyunyan teaches most of the limitations of this claim, as set forth above with regard to claim 1.
Geng/Harutyunyan does not explicitly teach that a distance between the source electrode and the drain electrode is about from about 50 nm to about 450 nm.
Radosavljevic teaches that a distance between the source electrode and the drain electrode 5 nm or more ([0041]) so that, “transistor density can be increased,” ([0002]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to the ordinary artisan at the time of filing to combine the device of Geng/Harutyunyan with the source/drain distance of Radosavljevic to increase transistor density.
However, Geng/Harutyunyan/Radosavljevic does not explicitly teach that a distance between the source electrode and the drain electrode is about from about 50 nm to about 450 nm. Nonetheless, the skilled artisan would know too that the source/drain distance would impact the transistor density, leakage current, and short channel effects.
The specific claimed source/drain distance, absent any criticality, is only considered to be the “optimum” source/drain distance disclosed by Geng/Harutyunyan/Radosavljevic that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine using routine experimentation (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)) based, among other things, on the desired transistor density, leakage current, and short channel effects, manufacturing costs, etc. (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)), and since neither non-obvious nor unexpected results, i.e. results which are different in kind and not in degree from the results of the prior art, will be obtained as long as the a distance between the source electrode and the drain electrode of about from about 50 nm to about 450 nm is used, as already suggested by Geng/Harutyunyan/Radosavljevic.
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the source/drain distance stated and since these source/drain distances are in common use in similar devices in the art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use these values in the device of Geng/Harutyunyan/Radosavljevic.
Please note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed source/drain distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicants argue:
Further, as Geng mentioned that the background's boron nitride material does not have the band gap to be used in Geng's structures, which required the invention of the new boron-nitride-opening band gap material-passivation atom material, substituting a material in the background that is considered by the Examiner equivalent to the non- functional boron nitride, such as molybdenum disulfide, the equivalent is also non- functional.
The Applicant respectfully submit that substituting the MoS2, which does not have the band gap, for the material for the boron-nitride-opening band gap material-passivation atom material would destroy the invention of Geng as the structure would be non-functional.
Thus, there is no reasonable expectation of success of the substituted non- functional material as that of the functional boron-nitride-opening band gap material- passivation atom material.
The Examiner responds:
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Here there is a sufficient suggestion between the teachings of Geng and Harutyunyan that a similar material could be used in the device of Geng, meeting the claim.
Furthermore, arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP §2145. Furthermore, "Obviousness does not require absolute predictability of success." Id. at 903, 7 USPQ2d at 1681. Here, there is sufficient predictability and equivalence to support a finding that there would be a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP §2143 I B.
The Applicants argue:
Also, the two-dimensional materials in the background of Geng are never described for use in bilayer structures as recited in the claims or in the layer structures of Geng.
Thus, Geng does not teach at least a bilayer structure comprising a bottom layer comprising a first metal dichalcogenide, the bottom layer disposed over at least a portion of the substrate, the bottom layer having a width of 20 nm or less, and a top layer comprising a second metal dichalcogenide, the top layer disposed over at least a portion of the bottom layer, the first metal dichalcogenide and the second metal dichalcogenide being the same or different, the top layer having a width of 20 nm or less as recited in claims 1 and 21.
Further, Geng at least does not teach wherein the first metal dichalcogenide comprises MoS2, MoSe2, MoTe2, WS2, WSe2, WTe2, or combinations thereof; and the second metal dichalcogenide comprises MoS2, MoSe2, MoTe2, WS2, WSe2, WTe2, or combinations thereof, as recited in claims 1 and 21.
The Examiner responds:
It is agreed that Geng does not explicitly teach these features. No such assertion has been made in this Office Action. However, Geng does render them obvious (particularly in view of Harutyunyan), as set forth in the rejections above.
The Applicants argue:
Harutyunyan has only provided an example list of nanomaterials including graphene 130, 2-dimensional (2D) metal chalcogenides 132, such as sulfide materials (e.g., molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) or similar materials), carbon nanotubes (CNT), black phosphorus, nitrides (e.g., hexagonal boron nitride), oxides (e.g., vanadium pentoxide), substantially any metal, etc. as described in the description of Harutyunyan.
Similar to the background material of Geng, Harutyunyan is silent as to the nanomaterials being equivalent to Geng's boron-nitride-opening band gap material- passivation atom material.
Thus, the opening band gap boron nitride material with the passivation atoms is the core of the invention of Geng and is not equivalent to the boron nitride and other materials described in the background of Geng and listed in Harutyunyan.
The Examiner responds:
An express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP §2144.06. Here, the teachings of Geng, taken as a whole and in view of Harutyunyan, do render obvious substituting MoS2 for BN. There is abundant predictability and equivalence to support a finding that there would be a reasonable expectation of success.
The Applicants argue:
Additionally, the references do not teach or suggest at least one of the top layer or bottom layer has a length to width ratio from 5,000 to 10,000, as recited in claim 21.
Further, the references do not teach or suggest the quantum device exhibits Coulomb blockade at about 4 K to about 80 K, as recited in new claim 23.
The Examiner responds:
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
All other arguments have been fully addressed in prior Office Actions or in the rejections set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJ R GUPTA whose telephone number is (571)270-5707. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30AM-4PM, 8PM-10PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on 5712721236. 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.
/RAJ R GUPTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2829
Prosecution Insights