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 .
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of Claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 14, 17-20, and 23 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0090309 to Robinson in view of Enam, et al., the traversal relies on the amendment narrowing Claim 1 to producing the previously unclaimed two-dimensional nanomaterials. (Remarks of 11/12/2025 at 6). The Remarks go on to argue “Enam does not consider the synthesis of 2D nanomaterials, and therefore is not relevant to the present claims. Enam is specifically directed to the synthesis of CdTe thin films, and no other materials” Id. This has been considered, but is not persuasive.
In response, note that any distinction between “two-dimensional” and “thin films” is not especially relevant given that Applicants claim “one or more layers of a two-dimensional nanomaterial” in dependent Claim 3. “One more layers” is a thin film. Claim 1 is not limited to producing a single two-dimensional nanomaterial. The doctrine of claim differentiation mandates a broader construction for Claim 1. Claim 1 reads on films, piles, mountains of 2D nanostructures, etc.
Second, note that the rejection is based on the combination of references and not either reference individually. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As noted in the rejection, Robinson teaches the claimed nanostructures. They are 2D nanostructures. (Robinson 1: [0005]). While Robinson does not use so many words, these nanostructures are understood as being formed by close space sublimation, a common technique in the art. See (Robinson 4: [0056] et seq.; Fig. 3) (describing sublimation equipment). Robinson merely lacked details regarding the static atmosphere. Enam however studied static/dynamic atmospheres in close space sublimation. (Enam at 127 – “During dynamic condition growth…. In static condition…”). As understood, close space sublimation is the same technique employed by Robinson, and the same disclosed in the Specification. Compare (S. Fig. 1A) with (Robinson Fig. 3, accompanying text) and (Enam Fig. 1).
Enam teaches a benefit, which was articulated in the rejection – specifically, producing higher quality thin films. (Enam at 130 – Conclusions). The Remarks characterize this as an “alleged[]” teaching. (Remarks of 11/12/2025 at 6). In response, Enam explicitly states: “Therefore, it can be concluded that in order to get higher quality thin film as absorber layer for CdTe solar cells, the deposited thin films by close-spaced sublimation (CSS) process in static condition are preferable than in dynamic condition. [sic]” (Enam at 130 – 4. Conclusions). This is a finding of fact. It is not an allegation. This finding of fact or motivation was not specifically traversed, and is presumed correct.
The Remarks submit “evidence,” which is merely a Wikipedia entry. For what it is worth, the Wikipedia exhibit has been considered. As discussed above, Claim 1 reads on a “3D” material or film. Claim 1 also reads on CdTe, i.e. the “bulk material” and “nanomaterial” in Claim 1 are generic. Claim 1 is a broad claim. Nevertheless, to rebut any allegation that CdTe cannot exist as a 2D material, Yang is provided. Yang teaches a “two-dimensional CdTe film layer.” (Yang “Abstract,” passim). Note that – like Robinson, Enam, and the Applicants - the 2D CdTe is made by closed space sublimation. (Yang at 375, col. 2).
The focus is on Robison, as teaches many of the chalcogenides claimed in dependent claims. It teaches the newly claimed 2D nanomaterials, and it teaches closed space sublimation – a common technique. Enam provides motivations to employ a static atmosphere in closed space sublimation that have gone untraversed. Only a reasonable expectation of success is required. MPEP 2143.02. This is amply demonstrated by Robinson and Enam. Yang is offered to rebut the argument that Applicants appear to be making, namely that closed space sublimation cannot make 2d nanostructures or 2D CdTe. As discussed above, this is false. Close spaced sublimation makes 2D nanostructures, as demonstrated by Robinson and Yang.
The rejection is MAINTAINED.
.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 9-10, 14, 17-20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US 20180090309 A1), further in view of Enam (“AN INVESTIGATION ON STRUCTURAL AND ELECTRICAL PROPERTIES OF CLOSE-SPACED SUBLIMATION GROWN CdTe THIN FILMS IN DIFFERENT GROWTH CONDITIONS,” 2017).
With respect to claim 1, Robinson ‘309 teaches a method for making a vertical two dimensional nanomaterial (Robinson, abstract) (Robinson 10, [Claim 1]) ; the method comprising the steps of: providing a bulk source material, a substrate, an inert gas, an oven, and optionally a sealable container (Robinson 10, [Claim]); placing the bulk source material and the substrate into the oven or the sealable container (Robinson 10, [claim 1]) ; wherein a growth surface of the substrate is disposed adjacent to the bulk source material (Robinson 10, [claim 1]); filling the oven or the sealable container with the inert gas and sealing the oven or sealable container to provide an inert atmosphere inside the oven or sealable container (Robinson 10, [claims 1, 9]); and heating the bulk source material and the substrate in the inert atmosphere in the oven or in the sealable container placed in the oven (Robinson 10, [claim 1]), whereby a portion of the bulk source material forms a vapor and is deposited as the nanomaterial on the growth surface of the substrate (Robinson 10, claim 1]).
Robinson ‘309 does not explicitly teach that the inert gas is sealed within the oven or container, without flow through the oven or container. However, Enam teaches a similar process for close substrate sublimation of chalcogenides under static and dynamic modes. (Elam at 125 et seq. – Introduction). Elam concludes that dynamic modes result in “more pinholes and less grain size than the static mode.” (Elam at 130 – Conclusion). heating during what is called “static condition.” (Enam at 127, first paragraph). In static condition, “Ar gas remained constant at certain pressure in a closed chamber without any flow.” (Enam at 127, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the process of Robinson ‘309, close substrate sublimation of chalcogenides under static conditions as Enam teaches “static condition[s] are preferable [to] dynamic condition[s]” for producing “higher quality thin film[s].” (Enam at 130 – Conclusion).
Claim 1 further requires “Wherein the nanomaterial is a two-dimensional nanomaterial.” Robinson ‘309 teaches a vertical two dimensional nanomaterial (Robinson, abstract).
Regarding Claim 3, modified Robinson ‘309 teaches wherein the growth surface does not contact the bulk source material during step (d) (Robinson 7, [0078]), and wherein the structure has less than 20 layers with each layer having a thickness of about 0.6 nm (Robinson 3, [0044]).
Regarding Claim 4, modified Robinson ‘309 teaches wherein the growth surface is separated from the bulk source material by a gap of about 8.5 mm (Robinson 6-7, [0078]). Regarding claim 5, modified Robinson ‘309 teaches wherein the growth surface contacts the bulk source material at one or more contact sites during step (d), and wherein at least a portion of the nanomaterial deposited on the growth surface consists of a two-dimensional nanomaterial at least partially surrounding the contact site and disposed in a moire pattern on the growth surface (Robinson, [0089]). This moire pattern inherently constitutes a ‘wrinkled pattern’ as claimed, as moire patterns in 2D materials are characterized as structural distortions in the atomic lattice. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that such structural distortions in a moire pattern are the same as a ‘wrinkled pattern on the growth surface’.
Regarding Claim 6, modified Robinson ‘309 teaches wherein the bulk source material comprises any transition metal oxide, including but not limited to molybdenum trioxide, molybdenum dioxide, tungsten trioxide, chromium trioxide, and the like. These compounds consist of transition metal cations and two or three chalcogen atoms (Robinson, [0058]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Robinson ‘309 teaches synthesis of source material MoS-2. Mo is a part of the claimed group consisting of Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Mo, W, Tc, Re, Co, Ni, Rh, Ir, Rd, and Pt; and S2 is a part of the claimed group consisting of S, Se, and Te; wherein Mo has one atom and S has two atoms (Robinson 4, [0030]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Robinson ‘309 teaches wherein the bulk source material comprises two or more different bulk source materials having different chemical compositions, and wherein the deposited nanomaterial is an alloy of the two or more different bulk source materials (Robinson 10, [claims 18-20]). Regarding claim 10, modified Robinson ‘309 teaches wherein the deposited nanomaterial is a two- dimensional nanomaterial comprising a material selected from the group consisting of MoS--2 (Robinson 2, [0030]). Regarding claim 14, modified Robinson ‘309 teaches wherein step (d) comprises raising the temperature in the oven to a first temperature followed by raising the temperature in the oven to a second temperature, higher than the first temperature, and then holding the oven temperature at the second temperature for a period of time sufficient to deposit the nanomaterial on the growth surface (Robinson 2, [0078]).
Regarding Claim 17, modified Robinson ‘309 teaches heating to 750°C and holding (Robinson 7, [0078]). During the heating process, the temperature would first be heated to a temperature of 500-650°C, then to 750-900°C. Therefore, Robinson ‘309 anticipates the claimed method steps.
Regarding claim 18, modified Robinson ‘309 teaches cooling the substrate and the nanomaterial to ambient temperature (Robinson, FIG 2).
Regarding claim 19, modified Robinson ‘309 teaches wherein the substrate and the nanomaterial are kept in the inert atmosphere until cooled to the ambient temperature (Robinson 11, [0054], FIG 4).
Regarding claim 20, modified Robinson ‘309 teaches e-beam evaporation can be used for coating of the nanomaterial (Robinson [0063]). The E-beam vapor Deposition technique is a physical vapor deposition technique that does not require the chemical reaction of the bulk source material with another substance or the inert atmosphere.
Regarding claim 23, modified Robinson ‘309 teaches wherein the substrate is heated in secondary hot zone to 250°C and the bulk source material was heated in the primary hot zone to 750°C (Robinson 7, [0078]).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US 20180090309 A1) and Enam (“AN INVESTIGATION ON STRUCTURAL AND ELECTRICAL PROPERTIES OF CLOSE-SPACED SUBLIMATION GROWN CdTe THIN FILMS IN DIFFERENT GROWTH CONDITIONS,” 2017) as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 14, 17-20, and 23 above, further in view of Liu (CN 107526124 B) (see translated document attached).
Regarding claim 25, modified Robinson ‘309 renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the growth surface has a surface roughness less than about 1 nm. However, Liu teaches a substrate surface RMS with a surface roughness of 1 nm or less (Liu 2, [0012]-[0014]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to , by the method of Robinson ‘309, to have had a growth surface with a surface roughness of less than about 1 nm, as Liu teaches reduced wastage and greater efficiency than conventional methods. (Liu 2, [0012]-[0014]).
Claim(s) 26 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US 20180090309 A1) and Enam (“AN INVESTIGATION ON STRUCTURAL AND ELECTRICAL PROPERTIES OF CLOSE-SPACED SUBLIMATION GROWN CdTe THIN FILMS IN DIFFERENT GROWTH CONDITIONS,” 2017) as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 14, 17-20, 23, and 25 above , further in view of Grobert (WO 2013144640 A1).
Regarding claim 26, modified Robinson ‘309 rendered claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, but does not teach including a dopant material with the bulk source material or in the inert atmosphere. However, Grobert teaches two-dimensional nanomaterials comprising dopants (Grobert 11, line 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have included, by the method of Robinson ‘309, a dopant with the bulk source material or inert atmosphere, as Grobert teaches the two-dimensional nanomaterial comprising the dopants may be used to manufacture devices and other products (Grobert 11, line 1).
Regarding claim 28, modified Robinson ‘309 rendered claim 26 obvious, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the dopant material comprises Nb, Re, Fe, Re, V, N, Cs, Pb, I, Cl, Au, NH3, CH3, benzyl viologen, oleylamine, triphenylphospine, polyethylenimine, pristine diketopyrrolopyrrole based polymer (PDPP3T), 02, N2, a rare earth element, a transition metal, a chalcogen, a semiconductor material, a magnetic material, or a combination thereof. However, Grobert teaches suitable dopants including nitrogen (Grobert 11, line 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have, by the method of Robinson ‘309, a dopant material comprising Nb, Re, Fe, Re, V, N, Cs, Pb, I, Cl, Au, NH3, CH3, benzyl viologen, oleylamine, triphenylphospine, polyethylenimine, pristine diketopyrrolopyrrole based polymer (PDPP3T), 02, N2, a rare earth element, a transition metal, a chalcogen, a semiconductor material, a magnetic material, or a combination thereof, as Grobert teaches these dopants are used to create a desirable and valuable graphene and other two-dimensional nanomaterials (Grobert 11, line 1).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson (US 20180090309 A1) and Enam (“AN INVESTIGATION ON STRUCTURAL AND ELECTRICAL PROPERTIES OF CLOSE-SPACED SUBLIMATION GROWN CdTe THIN FILMS IN DIFFERENT GROWTH CONDITIONS,” 2017) as applied to claims 1, 3-7, 9-10, 14, 17-20, 23, and 25 above, further in view of Zhamu (200902695511 A1).
Regarding claim 27, modified Robinson ‘309 renders the method of claim 1 obvious, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach doping the deposited nanomaterial by dry bulk contact or gas diffusion using a dopant material. However, Zhamu teaches introducing of dopant gases in reaction chamber during reaction (Zhamu 11 [0145]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have used, by the method of Robinson ‘309, gas diffusion or dry bulk contact for doping deposited nanomaterial as Zhamu teaches that dopant may be added as needed to achieve a valuable amorphous or nanocrystalline coating (Zhamu 11, [0145]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM- 5 PM.
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, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at (571) 270-3591. 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.
/STARFARI TESHAWN MCCLAIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1736
/DANIEL C. MCCRACKEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736