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 .
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.
Claims 7-8 are 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation, “a threshold voltage of the transistor has a value that is greater than zero” and claim 8 recites the limitation, “the value of the threshold voltage increases” which is consider functional language. While functional language is permissible in claim limitations, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). In the present case, the language used in Claim 7 and 8, does not provide any specific structure for performing the function – it appears a transistor with the semiconductor layer comprises a second material doped to a first material can perform the function. Therefore, it appears Applicant has used conveniently functional language at the point of novelty which is considered a specific vice of functional claiming that renders the boundaries of the claim scope unclear (see MPEP §2173.05(g)). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the language to require a transistor with the semiconductor layer comprises a second material doped to a first material to be present in the device and will perform the function.
Further, claim 8 recites, “the value of the threshold voltage increases as a content of the second material increase” however this limitation requires a change in the structure which speaks about the method of making the device thus making it unclear what exactly is the device structure in this device claim. In the effort of compact prosecution the Examiner will interpret the “doped semiconductor layer” as required by claim 1 to provide the positive threshold voltage.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. [US 2021/0074543 A1], “Kim.”
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a transistor (Fig. 11C) comprising:
a semiconductor layer (Fig. 11C, 510) on a substrate (500);
a gate electrode (540) overlapping (as shown) the semiconductor layer (510); and
a source electrode (520a) and a drain electrode (520b) electrically connected (as shown) to the semiconductor layer (510a) , wherein the semiconductor layer comprises a second material (doping element A may be Nb, P, Zr, N, V, Ta, As, or Sb) doped to a first material (The transition metal element may be selected from Ti, Zr, Hf, V, Nb, Ta, Mo, W, Tc, Re, Co, Rh, Ir, Ni, Pd, Pt, Zn, and Sn, and the chalcogen element may be selected from S, Se, and Te) also see (¶[0079]- ¶[0081] teaches A-doped MX2) ,
wherein the first material comprises a compound expressed as XYa of a Chemical Formula, wherein X is one of molybdenum (Mo), tungsten (W), zirconium (Zr), or rhenium (Re) (The transition metal element may be selected from Zr, Mo, W, Re), Y is one of sulfur (S), selenium (Se), or tellurium (Te) (the chalcogen element may be selected from S, Se, and Te), and a is a natural number that is equal to or greater than 1 (¶[0079]- ¶[0081] teaches A-doped MX2),
wherein the second material comprises at least one of tungsten (W), hafnium (Hf), tantalum (Ta), titanium (Ti), platinum (Pt), nickel (Ni), gallium (Ga), or zirconium (Zr) (¶[0081] teaches the doping element A may be Ta, Zr), and wherein the second material comprises an element that is different from the first material (Kim teaches using MoS2, MoSe2, MoTe2 doped with Ta – see ¶[0079]- ¶[0081]).
Kim does not explicitly disclose 5.0 wt% to 7.5 wt% of the second material is included with respect to the entire content of the semiconductor material.
However, Kim does disclose the overlapping range of the second material is included with respect to an entire content of the semiconductor material may be about 5 wt % or less (¶[0081]). Kim teaches the experimental results (Fig. 8) of the formation of an undoped transition metal dichalcogenide thin film and a doped transition metal dichalcogenide thin film. A first thin film was formed using a first precursor including Mo and S, and a second thin film was formed using a second precursor including Nb, Mo, and S. The content rate of Nb included in the second precursor was about 5%. It may be found that the binding energy of the second thin film is shifted relative to the binding energy of the first thin film.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimization the dopant concentration of the second material through routine experiment and optimization as taught in Kim such that 5.0 wt% to 7.5 wt% of the second material is included with respect to the entire content of the semiconductor material because optimizing the doping concentration of the second material will create a transition metal dichalcogenide thin film with improved electrical properties (¶[0004]). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e. unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, see In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses claim 1, Kim discloses the semiconductor layer comprises a semiconductor material with a layered structure ([¶0083] teaches the semiconductor can be made with a plurality of layers (1-15)).
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses claim 1, Kim does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the semiconductor layer is equal to or less than 1.5 nm.
However, Kim discloses the thickness of the layer can be controlled. The transition metal dichalcogenide thin film may be a two-dimensional material. The two-dimensional material is a single-layered or half-layered solid in which atoms form a desired (and/or alternatively predetermined) crystal structure (¶[0082]). the thickness of the transition metal dichalcogenide thin film may be easily adjusted by a sputtering process, and the thickness of the transition metal dichalcogenide thin film may be made uniform by heat treatment. The transition metal dichalcogenide thin film may be formed by performing a sputtering process once and a heat treatment process once, and may also be formed by repeatedly performing a sputtering process several times and a heat treatment process several times. The transition metal dichalcogenide thin film formed by the method according to an embodiment may have a structure of one layer to fifteen layers, but is not limited thereto (¶[0083]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adjust the thickness of the semiconductor layer through routine experimentation as taught in Kim such that the semiconductor layer is equal to or less than 1.5 nm because optimize the thickness will result in a transition metal dichalcogenide thin film having uniformity and high quality (¶[0083] of Kim). Further, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses claim 2, Kim further discloses explicitly disclose equal to or less than 7.5 wt% of the second material is included with respect to an entire content of the semiconductor material.
However, Kim does disclose the overlapping range of the second material is included with respect to an entire content of the semiconductor material may be about 5 wt % or less (¶[0081]). Kim teaches the experimental results (Fig. 8) of the formation of an undoped transition metal dichalcogenide thin film and a doped transition metal dichalcogenide thin film. A first thin film was formed using a first precursor including Mo and S, and a second thin film was formed using a second precursor including Nb, Mo, and S. The content rate of Nb included in the second precursor was about 5%. It may be found that the binding energy of the second thin film is shifted relative to the binding energy of the first thin film.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimization the dopant concentration of the second material through routine experiment and optimization as taught in Kim such that equal to or less than 7.5 wt% of the second material is included with respect to an entire content of the semiconductor material because optimizing the doping concentration of the second material will create a transition metal dichalcogenide thin film with improved electrical properties (¶[0004]). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e. unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, see In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses claim 4, Kim further discloses 3.0 wt% to 7.5 wt% of the second material is included with respect to the entire content of the semiconductor material.
However, Kim does disclose the overlapping range of the second material is included with respect to an entire content of the semiconductor material may be about 5 wt % or less (¶[0081]). Kim teaches the experimental results (Fig. 8) of the formation of an undoped transition metal dichalcogenide thin film and a doped transition metal dichalcogenide thin film. A first thin film was formed using a first precursor including Mo and S, and a second thin film was formed using a second precursor including Nb, Mo, and S. The content rate of Nb included in the second precursor was about 5%. It may be found that the binding energy of the second thin film is shifted relative to the binding energy of the first thin film.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimization the dopant concentration of the second material through routine experiment and optimization as taught in Kim such that 3.0 wt% to 7.5 wt% of the second material is included with respect to the entire content of the semiconductor material because optimizing the doping concentration of the second material will create a transition metal dichalcogenide thin film with improved electrical properties (¶[0004]). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e. unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, see In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses claim 1, the language “a threshold voltage of the transistor has a value that is greater than zero”, is functional language; however it is unclear what specific structure accomplishes the stated function. The Examiner notes a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942). In the present case, any specific structure required to make either a transistor device outside of that already claimed is not specifically identified by the Applicant, therefore the use of functional language in the claims fails "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and is thus indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP §2173.05(g). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the language as being met if all previously established structural features are present in the prior art.
Regarding claim 8, the language, “the value of the threshold voltage increases as a content of the second material increase” This is a device claim with a singular amount second material content, as such, in a device claim, the content of the second material cannot increase. Further, the language “the value of the threshold voltage increases” as a content of the second material increase, is functional language; however it is unclear what specific structure accomplishes the stated function. The Examiner notes a vice of functional claiming occurs "when the inventor is painstaking when he recites what has already been seen, and then uses conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty") (quoting General Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364, 371 (1938)); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942). In the present case, any specific structure required to make either a transistor device outside of that already claimed is not specifically identified by the Applicant, therefore the use of functional language in the claims fails "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and is thus indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP §2173.05(g). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the language as being met if all previously established structural features are present in the prior art.
It can be noted that Kim does discloses the second material is included with respect to an entire content of the semiconductor material may be about 5 wt % or less (¶[0081]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has argued that the amendment, “ 5.0 wt% to 7.5 wt% of the second material is included with respect to the entire content of the semiconductor material” has not been taught, see remarks on pages 6-10.
However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s Argument that Kim does not teach the range 5.0 wt% to 7.5 wt% of the second material is included with respect to the entire content of the semiconductor material, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case Kim teaches the content rate of Nb included in the second precursor was about 5% which is an overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection (MPEP 2144.05) . As such, the rejection under USC § 103 is maintained.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dorow et al. [US 2022/0199838 A1] discloses TMD materials that exhibit P-type includes, for example, WSe2 or WSe2 doped with Ta.
Lim et al. [US 2021/0343817 A1] discloses The active layer may include a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMDC) and graphene. The active layer may include a molybdenum compound.
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 PRIYA M RAMPERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)272-3464. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 9am-6pm.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571)270-7996. 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.
PRIYA M. RAMPERSAUD
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/P.M.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2897
/MARK W TORNOW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891