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 Amendment
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on January 20, 2026. Claim 1 has been amended. No new claims have been added. Claims 2 and 8-10 have been canceled. Currently, claims 1 and 3-7 are pending.
Cancellation of claim 8 renders moot the drawing objection set forth in the previous Office Action.
Cancellation of claims 8-10 renders moot the 112(a) rejection of claims 8-10 set forth in the previous Office Action.
Cancellation of claims 8-10 renders moot the 112(b) rejection of claims 8-10 set forth in the previous Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to claim 1, “consisting of a semimetal antimony and an alloy containing an antimony are deposited over a two-dimensional semiconductor” lack sufficient support in the disclosure. The specification specifically recites in paragraph 14, “In order to achieve the above-mentioned objectives, the present invention provides an ohmic-contact structure, which comprises a two-dimensional semiconductor having semimetal antimony or an alloy containing semimetal antimony deposited thereon to form an ohmic contact”. The amendment attempts to claim a combination of two distinct materials, a semimetal antimony and an alloy containing an antimony, to be deposited on the 2D semiconductor which is not disclosed in the specification. As such, the amendment introduces new matter by extending beyond the explicit ‘semimetal antimony or an alloy of antimony..” disclosed in paragraph 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites, “consisting of a semimetal antimony and an alloy containing an antimony are deposited over a two-dimensional semiconductor” lack sufficient support in the disclosure. The specification specifically recites in paragraph 14, “In order to achieve the above-mentioned objectives, the present invention provides an ohmic-contact structure, which comprises a two-dimensional semiconductor having semimetal antimony or an alloy containing semimetal antimony deposited thereon to form an ohmic contact”. The amendment attempts to claim a combination of two distinct materials, a semimetal antimony and an alloy containing an antimony, to be deposited on the 2D semiconductor which is not disclosed in the specification. As such, the amendment introduces new matter by extending beyond the explicit ‘semimetal antimony or an alloy of antimony..” disclosed in paragraph 14.
The claim improperly encompasses any 2D semiconductor however, the specification (paragraph 76) recites that the specific resistance 42 Ω.µm and transfer length 5.1nm are achieved for a specific 2D semiconductor material, MoS.sub.2, and a specific carrier concentration 3x10.sub.23.
Claims 3-7 depend upon claim 1 and do not rectify the problem therefore, they are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 1, the claim recites, “the (0112) oriented antimony is capable for making a two-dimensional semiconductor device as a contact electrode with contact resistance of 42 Ω.µm and a transfer length of 5.1 nm” is indefinite as the term “capable of making” is particularly problematic because it implies a potentiality rather than a fixed structural state. The claim begins with an ohmic contact structure consisting of antimony and alloy. It then abruptly shifts to discussing a contact electrode. It is unclear if antimony/alloy is the electrode, antimony/alloy is a coating on a different electrode or if antimony/alloy is an interfacial layer between a 2D semiconductor and a metal lead. The structural relationship between the “structure” and “electrode” is unclear.
The claim is further indefinite because the functional parameters (42 Ω.µm and 5.1nm) are not inherent properties of antimony. These values are extrinsic that is depend upon semiconductor species such as MoS.sub.2 (for example, WSe.sub.2 will have different contact resistance due to different work function), doping levels, contact geometry.
Claims 3-7 depend upon claim 1 and do not rectify the problem therefore, they are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over A. -S. Chou et al., "Antimony Semimetal Contact with Enhanced Thermal Stability for High Performance 2D Electronics," 2021 IEEE International Electron Devices Meeting (IEDM), San Francisco, CA, USA, 2021, pp. 7.2.1-7.2.4, doi: 10.1109/IEDM19574.2021.9720608 (hereafter Chou, Date of conference December 2021) in view of Mineral Data Publishing, “Antimony”, 2001-2005, [retrieved on January 21, 2025]. Retrieved from the Internet:< URL: https://www.handbookofmineralogy.org/pdfs/antimony.pdf >
Regarding claim 1, Chou teaches an ohmic-contact structure (see e.g., Figure 5),
Based on the disclosure the limitation is interpreted as either semimetal antimony or an alloy containing antimony may have a (0112) orientation.
consisting of a semimetal antimony and an alloy containing an antimony are deposited over a two-dimensional semiconductor to form an ohmic contact (see e.g., molybdenum disulfide
(
M
o
S
2
)
FETs with a CVD-1L-
M
o
S
2
transferred onto a
S
i
N
X
/
S
i
substrate. S/D contact electrodes deposited with antimony (Sb) semimetal capped by Au. More optimal balance between thermal stability and contact resistance may be achieved through an interface between alloy of Bi and Sb semimetals and 1L
M
o
S
2
, Paras [Devices Fabrication and Characterization], [Dft Simulation and Bi-Sb Alloy Contact Properties], Figure 5).
Chou does not explicitly teach
“wherein the semimetal antimony and the alloy are (0112) oriented as an (0112) oriented antimony; the (0112) oriented antimony is capable for making a two-dimensional semiconductor device as a contact electrode with contact resistance of 42 Ω. µm and a transfer length of 5.1 nm;
the two-dimensional semiconductor and the (0112) oriented antimony enable an enhanced orbital coupling hybridization”.
Chou is silent regarding the orientation of antimony or an alloy of bismuth and antimony thereby not precluding antimony to have (0112) orientation.
Antimony crystal with orientation (0112) is known in the art as taught by Mineral Data Publishing.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143 (E).
As the number of crystallographic orientations for a crystal is finite, selecting (0112) orientation to achieve superior performance (low contact resistance and enhanced hybridization) is considered a matter of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art seeking to optimize the contact resistance of Chou’s antimony-based contacts would have a reasonable expectation of success in trying various known crystallographic orientations including (0112) to improve performance. Under KSR, when a technique (selecting an orientation) is obvious to try to solve a known problem (high contact resistance) and leads to anticipated success, it is considered a matter of ordinary skill not an inventive step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to use the (0112) crystal orientation of antimony since there are finite number of orientations and it would be obvious to choose any one orientation based on performance.
Regarding claim 3, Chou, as modified by Mineral Data Publishing, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Chou further teaches wherein the two-dimensional semiconductor includes any one of molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), tungsten disulfide (WSe2), molybdenum diselenide (MoSe2), tungsten diselenide (WS2), rhenium disulfide, black phosphorus, silicene, phosphorus selenide, germanene, indium selenide and tin sulfide (see e.g.,
M
o
S
2
FETs with a CVD-1L-
M
o
S
2
transferred onto a
S
i
N
X
/
S
i
substrate, Para [Devices Fabrication and Characterization], Figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Chou, as modified by Mineral Data Publishing, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Chou does not explicitly teach
“wherein the ohmic-contact structure is prepared by the following steps:
placing a sample having the two-dimensional semiconductor in high-vacuum evaporation system; and heating the cavity to a preset temperature after vacuum pumping and performing vacuum evaporation process to finish the deposition of the semimetal antimony or the alloy containing semimetal antimony on the two-dimensional semiconductor material layer”.
Chou discloses an ohmic contact having an interface between
M
o
S
2
and semimetal antimony (Sb) or alloy of Bismuth (Bi) and Sb semimetals.
While Chou teaches forming the interface between the
M
o
S
2
and semimetal Sb in a manner different from the claim limitation “placing a sample having the two-dimensional semiconductor in high-vacuum evaporation system; and heating the cavity to a preset temperature after vacuum pumping and performing vacuum evaporation process to finish the deposition of the semimetal antimony or the alloy containing semimetal antimony on the two-dimensional semiconductor material layer”.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2113.
In the instant case, while Chou may not teach the process by which the interface between the
M
o
S
2
and semimetal Sb is formed, no patentable weight is afforded to the process to form the interface. Therefore, it is maintained that Chou recites the same product (i.e., ohmic contact having an interface between the
M
o
S
2
and semimetal Sb), regardless if achieved by a separate process.
Regarding claim 5, Chou, as modified by Mineral Data Publishing, teaches the limitations of claim 4 as mentioned above. Chou does not explicitly teach
“wherein the vacuum pumping is performed to the vacuum degree higher than 10-6 Torr with the preset temperature range of 50-600 °C, and the evaporation of metal is performed at a rate of 0.05-0.3 A/s for 1-30 nm”.
While Chou teaches forming the interface between the
M
o
S
2
and semimetal Sb in a manner different from the claim limitation, “wherein the vacuum pumping is performed to the vacuum degree higher than 10-6 Torr with the preset temperature range of 50-600 °C, and the evaporation of metal is performed at a rate of 0.05-0.3 A/s for 1-30 nm”.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2113.
In the instant case, while Chou may not teach the process by which the interface between the
M
o
S
2
and semimetal Sb is formed, no patentable weight is afforded to the process to form the interface. Therefore, it is maintained that Chou recites the same product (i.e., ohmic contact having an interface between the
M
o
S
2
and semimetal Sb), regardless if achieved by a separate process.
Regarding claim 6, Chou, as modified by Mineral Data Publishing, teaches the limitations of claim 4 as mentioned above. Chou does not explicitly teach
“wherein the high-vacuum evaporation systems include electron beam vacuum evaporation, magnetron sputtering deposition or thermal evaporation”.
While Chou teaches forming the interface between the
M
o
S
2
and semimetal Sb using e-beam evaporation that is, in a manner similar to the claim limitation “wherein the high-vacuum evaporation systems include electron beam vacuum evaporation, magnetron sputtering deposition or thermal evaporation”.
“[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See MPEP 2113.
In the instant case, no patentable weight is afforded to the process to form the interface. Therefore, it is maintained that Chou recites the same product (i.e., ohmic contact having an interface between the
M
o
S
2
and semimetal Sb), regardless if achieved by a separate process.
Regarding claim 7, Chou, as modified by Mineral Data Publishing, teaches the limitations of claim 1 as mentioned above. Chou further teaches
wherein the semiconductor device includes metal-oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs) and metal-semiconductor field effect transistor (MESFETs) (see e.g., back gate
M
o
S
2
MOSFET, Figures 1 and 5).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FAKEHA SEHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4033. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 am - 5:00 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, Yara J. Green can be reached on (571) 270-3035. 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.
/FAKEHA SEHAR/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893