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/Restrictions
Newly amended claims 7-8 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Original claims 1-10, drawn to a device and method of forming.
II. Amended claims 7-8, drawn to a method of operation.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as product and process of use. The inventions can be shown to be distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) the process for using the product as claimed can be practiced with another materially different product or (2) the product as claimed can be used in a materially different process of using that product. See MPEP § 806.05(h). In the instant case the device can be operated in hysteresis as opposed to modulated to cause negative or positive photo response.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
They require at least different keyword searches.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 7-8 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, and 6-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun cited in the 102 rejections.
As to claim 1-3 , 6 Sun teaches A ferroelectric field modulated positive and negative photo-response detector, characterized in comprising a substrate (figure 2 item 1), a gate electrode (item 2 and 3), a ferroelectric layer (item 4), a low-dimensional semiconductor (item 6) and a source-drain electrode (item 5); wherein the gate electrode is a pair of gate electrodes (items 2 and 3 ) are provided and fixedly arranged on the substrate ( see items 2 and 3 on item 1) at intervals; the ferroelectric layer (see item 4) is fixedly arranged on the substrate (on item 1) and completely covers the gate electrode (item 4 covers both items 2 and); the low-dimensional semiconductor (item 6) is fixedly arranged on the ferroelectric layer (4); and the source-drain electrode (5) comprises a source electrode (5 right) and a drain electrode (5 left) separately arranged on two sides of the low-dimensional semiconductor (4) and fixedly arranged on the ferroelectric layer (item 4). Sun teaches the layer a capable of being pulsed thus meeting the claim limitation. Sun teaches WSe2 (see claim 1).
As to the recitation of wherein of the ferroelectric field modulated positive and negative photo-response detector is configured to cause a photocurrent, when illuminated, [[is]] linearly set by correlated to a number of a plurality of pulse signals applied to the gate electrode is intended use and since Sun pulses figure 4c to 4d the device is capable of being pulse thus it can perform action recited. Applicant does not give a structure beyond what is claimed that defines “configured to” and Applicant is reminded MPEP 2173.05 g and recitation of function language.
Sun teaches characterized in that the substrate (item 1) is an insulating substrate (contents of the invention states the substrate is silicon material with silicon oxide).
Sun teaches for the drain a Cr/Au and 5/50 (contents of the invention): the pattern of the source/drain electrode is obtained by standard photoetching technology, using electron beam evaporation deposition Cr/Au, thickness, 5nm/50nm with the stripping process.
Sun does not teach the gate formed from a layer of Cr at 10 nm and a layer of Au at 10 nm and the pair are spaced 1 micron apart.
Sun does not teach the source drain formed from a layer of Cr at15 nm and a layer of Au at 45 nm and space 10 microns apart.
Applicant shows no unexpected results for the thickness and materials or spacings.
Thus absent some unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the gate formed from a layer of Cr at 10 nm and a layer of Au at 10 nm and the pair are spaced 1 micron apart and teach the source drain formed from a layer of Cr at15 nm and a layer of Au at 45 nm and space 10 microns apart.
One would have been so motivated to optimize the gate electrode size and conductive properties as well as the adhesive properties of the electrodes as well as the overall size of the device.
As to claim 4, while Sun teaches inorganic Sun acknowledges that P (VDF-TrFE) was used (Technical Field) though described as not as good this does not teach away since it was known in the past.
Thus absent some unexpected showing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time to use P (VDF-TrFE) instead of the inorganic ferroelectric material.
One would have been so motivated since even though it was somewhat inferior in specific areas it was still known and used as a functional alternative at the time of filing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW L REAMES whose telephone number is (571)272-2408. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 6:00 am-4:00 pm EST.
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, William F. Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
/MATTHEW L. REAMES/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/MATTHEW L REAMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896