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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant appears to traverse the rejection with the amendment to claim 1, 3, 5, and 10. The applicant argues the present claims have been amended to recite only "single layer" two-dimensional materials. The applicant acknowledges that Robinson teaches single layer materials, but further argues that the processing happened under different conditions (Remarks of 05/26/2026 at pages 6-7). However, Robinson teaches two-dimensional materials having less than 20 layers. Even the teachings in Robinson directed to the formation of several layers meet the claim limitation because the claim uses “comprising” and thus does not exclude the formation of additional layers after the first is formed (Robinson ‘309, abstract).
The argument regarding the process difference is unpersuasive because the argument is only drawn to the Robinson reference, when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In response to applicant's arguments against the references 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).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 14, 18-20, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (“Catalytic growth of CdTe nanowires by closed space sublimation method,” 2013).
Claim 1 requires “a method for making a nanomaterial,” Yang teaches a method of producing CdTe nanostructures.
Claim 1 further requires “the method comprising the steps of:(a) providing a bulk source material, a substrate, an inert gas, an oven, and optionally a sealable container;” Yang teaches powdered CdTe as the bulk material source, Sapphire as the substrate, and a CSS chamber (Yang 375, 2. Experimental details)
Claim 1 further requires “(b) placing the bulk source material and the substrate into the oven or the sealable container, wherein a growth surface of the substrate is disposed adjacent to the bulk source material; ” Yang teaches placing substrate adjacent to the CdTe source in container (Yang 376, Fig 1).
Claim 1 further requires “(c) 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,” Yang teaches high purity N2 gas (99.999% purity) was introduced into the chamber (Yang 376, high purity N2).
Claim 1 further requires “(d) heating the bulk source material and the substrate in the inert atmosphere in the oven or in the sealable container placed in the oven, wherein the inert gas is sealed within the oven or container, without flow through the oven or container, whereby a portion of the bulk source material forms a vapor and is deposited as the nanomaterial on the growth surface of the substrate; wherein the nanomaterial is a single layer two-dimensional nanomaterial.” Yang teaches high purity N2 gas (99.999% purity) was introduced into the chamber after placing substrate adjacent to the Cdte source. Yang further teaches substrate being heated to temperatures of 520 °C and 30 min to obtain a thin single layer film (Yang 376, 3. Results and discussion).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang teaches the growth surface does not contacting the bulk source material (Yang 376, Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Yang teaches a gap between the growth surface and the bulk source material of about 3 mm (Yang 376, Fig 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Yang teaches growth surface contacts the bulk source material at one or more contact sites (Yang 376, Fig 1). Yang further teaches a single layer film (Yang 376, 3. Results and discussion). Yang further teaches a single layer two-dimensional nanomaterial with a wrinkled pattern on the growth surface (Yang 377, Fig A/B).
Regarding Claim 14, Yang teaches various growth temperatures and growth time during the process (Yang 376, growth temperatures).
Regarding Claims 18 and 19, Yang teaches the chamber was cooled naturally after the process
was completed (Yang 376, chamber).
Regarding Claim 20, Yang teaches Close-space sublimation (CSS) (Yang, abstract). Close-space sublimation (CSS) 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, Yang teaches a temperature gradient between the
substrate and CdTe source (Yang 376, temperature gradient).
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 and 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 nanomaterial (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 single layer two-dimensional nanomaterial.” Robinson ‘309 teaches two-dimensional materials having less than 20 layers. Additionally, the teachings in Robinson directed to the formation of several layers meet the claim limitation because the claim uses “comprising” and thus does not exclude the formation of additional layers after the first is formed (Robinson ‘309, 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 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 claim 1 above, further in view of Liu (CN 107526124 B) (see translated document attached).
Regarding claim 25, the method of claim 1 has been discussed above. Yang 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, 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 claim 1 above, further in view of Grobert (WO 2013144640 A1).
Regarding claim 26, the method of claim 1 has been discuss above.
Claim 26 further requires “comprising including a dopant material with the bulk source material or in the inert atmosphere.” Yang does not explicitly 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, the method of claim 26 has been discuss above.
Claim 28 further requires “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.” Yang does not explicitly teach, 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 claim 6 above, further in view of Zhamu (200902695511 A1).
Regarding claim 27, the method of claim 1 has been discussed above.
Claim 27 further requires “doping the deposited nanomaterial by dry bulk contact or gas diffusion using a dopant material.” Yang does not explicitly teach doping the deposited nanomaterial by dry bulk contact or gas diffusion using a dopant material. However, Zhamu teaches introduction of dopant gases in a 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
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
/ANTHONY J ZIMMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1736
Prosecution Insights