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 16-23, and 35-38 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.
The term “a thin layer” in claims 16 and 35 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “a thin layer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 17-23, 37, and 38 are indefinite due to their dependance on indefinite claim 16.
Claim 36 recites the limitation “a low-pressure chemical vapor deposition process with contact growth.” This limitation renders the claim indefinite because it unclear what the method steps are implied by the term “contact growth.”
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 8 -14, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li “Enhanced Valley Zeeman Splitting in Fe-Doped Monolayer MoS2, “ ACS Nano 2020, 14, 4636-4645, cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Li discloses a method for making a semiconductor material, comprising the steps of: growing a two-dimensional transition metal dichalcogenide monolayer on a substrate (page 4637, column 1paragraph 3) using a low pressure chemical vapor deposition (page 4642, column 2, paragraph 1; note: 20mTorr); and simultaneously adding a dopant to said monolayer while said monolayer is being grown on said substrate (page 4642, column 2, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 9, Li discloses wherein said dopant is iron (Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Li discloses wherein said transition metal dichalcogenide monolayer comprises molybdenum disulfide (Abstract).
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses wherein said substrate comprises silicon (page 4642, column 2, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 12, Li discloses the step of heating said substrate (page 4642, column 2, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 13, Li discloses wherein sulfur gas is applied to said substrate during said heating step substrate (page 4642, column 2, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses wherein said transition metal dichalcogenide monolayer is atomically thin (Abstract; note: monolayer).
Regarding claim 34, Li discloses wherein said adding step includes substitutional doping (page 4637, column 2, paragraph 2).
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) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Liu (Liu et al, “CVD Growth of MoS2-based Two-dimensional Materials“, Chem. Vap. Deposition 2015, 21, 241–259)
Regarding claim 15, Li does not disclose wherein said substrate comprises sapphire.
Liu however discloses substrate comprising sapphire (page 244, column 1, paragraph 3 ).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Li with Liu to have substrate comprising sapphire because it is typical substate for growing dichalcogenide monolayers (page 244, column 1, paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yang (Yang et.al, “Controlled growth of 2D heterostructures and prevention of TMD oxidation,” Proceedings Volume 10639, Micro- and Nanotechnology Sensors, Systems, and Applications X; 106390T (2018) .
Regarding claim 36, Li discloses does not disclose that growing step includes a low-pressure chemical vapor deposition process with contact growth.
Yang however discloses that that growing step includes a low-pressure chemical vapor deposition process with contact growth (Section 2, paragraph 1).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Li with Yang to perform that growing step includes a low-pressure chemical vapor deposition process with contact growth for the purpose of improving control during deposition (Yang, Section 2, paragraph 1)..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32 and 33 are 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.
Claims 16-23, 37, and 38 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 35 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest “depositing a thin layer of molybdenum trioxide onto a substrate using physical vapor deposition,” as required by amended independent claim 16 and claim 35.
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest “said dopant is initially provided in the form of particles consisting of triiron tetroxide, “as required by claim 32.
The search of the prior art does not disclose or reasonably suggest “aid dopant is initially provided in the form of particles consisting of iron trichloride,” as required by claim 33.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments that Li does not disclose” low pressure chemical vapor deposition process” are not persuasive because of the following reasons. First, Applicant’s Specification does not define what pressure corresponds to the “low pressure” in the “chemical vapor deposition process.” And commonly in the art the pressure lower than atmospheric pressure correspond to a low-pressure CVD. Thus, because Li discloses pressure of 20 mTorr, CVD process of Li is considered to be low-pressure chemical vapor deposition process.
The Declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a) filed 09/22/2025 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 16-23 based upon Fu et al., “Enabling room temperature ferromagnetism in monolayer MoS2 via in situ iron-doping, “ NATURE COMMUNICATIONS , (2020) 11:2034).
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claims 16 -23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous prior art rejections of claims 16-23 have been withdrawn.
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 JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9 am-6 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights