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. Election Acknowledged Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 5-10, in the reply filed on 09/16/2025 is acknowledged. Status of Claims Claims 1-10 are pending. Of the pending claims, claims 5-10 are presented for examination on the merits, and c laim s 1-4 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement One (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 01/13/2022 . The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 8, there is insufficient basis for the limitation referencing the bismuth (Bi) in the Raman peak U. Parent claim 5 does not require or affirmatively state the presence or addition of Bi in the DSM semimetal or the WSM semimetal. For the purpose of examination, claim 8 will be interpreted as requiring Bi in at least one form of the semimetal. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by A. Rancati , "Impurity-induced topological phase transitions in Cd 3 As 2 and Na 3 Bi Dirac semimetals," Physical Review B , 102, 195110, 09 November 2020 (“ Rancati ”) . Regarding claim 5, Rancati discloses doping a Dirac topological semimetal (DSM) with nonmagnetic impurities. Abstract. In an embodiment, a Cd 3 As 2 Dirac semimetal (DSM) is doped with nonmagnetic impurity (forming DSM and implanting non-magnetic material ions into the formed DSM). Page 195110-4 (Section A) . This causes a topological phase transition to a Weyl phase ( method of permanently phase-transiting a DSM by induc ing a permanent phase transition into Weyl semimetal,). Page 195110-2; page 195110-3; page 195110-4; page 195110-5 (right column, second full paragraph); page 195110-6 (right column) ; page 195110-9 (right column) . Regarding claim 6, the nonmagnetic impurity is Zn (zinc) . Page 195110-2 (left column). 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. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rancati . Regarding claim 7, Rancati discloses doping Zn, but does not disclose a specific amount in terms of implantation fluence. However, it is well held that discovering an optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05(II). In the present instance, impurity concentration is a result-effective variable because it would directly affect the phase formed, as disclosed by Rancati , which shows the effect of impurity concentration on topological phase formed. Page 195110-11 (Table III). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected the nonmagnetic impurity concentration for the purpose of attaining a desired topological phase. Claim s 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rancati , as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Shin et al. , "Violation of Ohm's law in a Weyl metal," Nature Materials , Vol. 16, Nov. 2017, pp. 1096-1100 (“ Shin ”) . Regarding claim s 8 and 9 , Rancati teaches that bismuth and antimony semimetals can be topologically classified the same way as the Cd 3 As 2 Dirac semimetal (page 195110-4 (right column, second paragraph)), but does not disclose the formula of the bismuth and antimony. Shin discloses that Bi 0.96 Sb 0.04 (x=0.04, which falls within the claimed range) Dirac semimetals turn into Weyl semimetals by breaking time-reversal symmetry, similar to Cd 3 As 2 Dirac semimetal . Last page (1099) under Methods – Sample information. I t would have been obvious to have chosen a Bi 1-x Sb x Dirac semimetal, such as the one taught by Shin, as a semimetal for doping with nonmagnetic impurity, as taught by Rancati’s method, because Bi-Sb semimetal is recognized by Rancati and Shin as a semimetal that would behave similarly to Cd-As semimetal. Further regarding claim 8, Rancati and Shin are silent regarding Raman peaks of the phase-transitioned semimetal. However, it is well established that when a material is produced by a process that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims and/or possesses a structure or composition that is identical or substantially identical to that of the claims, any claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. Such a finding establishes a prima facie case of anticipation or obviousness. See MPEP § 2112.01. In the present instance, Rancati discloses a method of embedding nonmagnetic impurity into a Dirac semimetal that is identical to the claimed method, and the combination of Rancati and Shin suggests applying Rancati’s method to Bi 1-x Sb x Dirac semimetal . Therefore, the new Raman peak U (Bi) in the Raman shift range claimed would be expected to exist in the Bi-Sb semimetal produced by the method of Rancati , as modified by Shin, because the same claimed method is being applied to the same claimed starting material. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rancati in view of Shin , as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of V.K. Maurya et al., " Magnetotransport and Berry phase in magnetically doped Bi 0.97-x Sb 0.03 single crystals," Physical Review B , 102, 144412, 09 October 2020 (“ Maurya ”) . Regarding claim 10, Shin discloses making the Bi 0.96 Sb 0.04 semimetal by a modified Bridgman method where a stoichiometric mixture of Bi and Sb pieces is melted and crystallized by slow cooling in an evacuated quartz ampule inside a tube furnace. Last page (1099) under Methods – Sample growth. Shin is silent as to the annealing temperature. Maurya is drawn to magnetically doped Bi-Sb topological insulators. Abstract. The Bi 0.97 Sb 0.03 single crystals are grown by a modified Bridgman furnace, where the sample is heated up to 650 o C for five days, cooled to 350 o C, sintered at 350 o C for four days, and quenched in cold water. Page 144412-2 (Section II-Experimental Details). These temperatures fall within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have looked to Maurya for how to manufacture Bi-Sb semimetals because Maurya provides more detailed instructions on heating temperatures on a modified Bridgman method, which is consistent with Shin’s teaching of a modified Bridgman method, and meets Shin’s objective of producing a binary Bi-Sb semimetal. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VANESSA T. LUK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3587 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9:30 AM - 4:30 PM ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Keith D. Hendricks , can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1401 . 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. /VANESSA T. LUK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733 December 14, 2025