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 1-15 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.
As to claims 1 and 8 applicant is reciting functional limitations an asserting that Miao does not explicitly teach the outcomes. It is noted that this is confusing since the materials of Maio Si a type IV semiconductor and GaN a III-V semiconductor in conjunction with MoS2 a metal diachalcogenide are commensurate with those asserted in paragraphs 12-15 of applicant own specification.
Thus, it is unclear if applicant is asserting that the structure cannot perform the actions even though applicant’s original disclosure appears to assert, they are capable of performing the actions thus:
As to claim 1 Recitation :
of one conductivity type generated by light in the 2D material layer from the 2D material layer to the 3D material layer, wherein, when a zero bias is applied to the optical sensor, a current by light absorbed in the 3D material layer is generated and a current by light absorbed in the 2D material layer is not generated due to the barrier, and wherein, when a reverse bias sufficient to cause the 2D material layer to be fully depleted is applied to the optical sensor, the current by the light absorbed in the 2D material layer is generated
are functional and as set forth by MPEP 2173.05 (g) it is unclear what additional constraints are put upon the structure the specification while it provides some specific examples it can be Germanium and MoS2 applicant does not limit the structure or set forth when these outcomes occur. Specifically, any type IV or III-V semiconductor is indicated as applicable for the 3d material as well as any metal chalcogenide, carbon contain material or oxide semiconductor for the 2d material. Thus, it is unclear which selection from the group can perform the cited outcomes and which cannot Thus, the scope is not clear when one meets the claim. Since the specification set forth broad an of the materials forming a type II transition would meet be capable of performing the outcome.
It should be noted applicant does not limit the scope of the 3D and the 2D and it appears any grouping would always form a type II transition.
Likewise as to claim 8 it is unclear what structure meet the functional wherein, due to formation of the type II band alignment, a conduction band offset or a valence band offset between the 3D material layer and the 2D material layer forms a barrier that restricts movement of carriers of one conductivity type generated by light in the 2D material layer from the 2D material layer to the 3D material layer. Applicant is setting forth an outcome and it is unclear what additional structure meets the claim limitation MPEP 2173.05g
Beyond the intended usage the claims 1-7 are unclear:
As to claim 1, recitation of wherein, when a zero bias is applied to the optical sensor, a current by light absorbed in the 3D material layer is generated and a current by light absorbed in the 2D material layer is not generated due to the barrier, and wherein, when a reverse bias sufficient to cause the 2D material layer to be fully depleted is applied to the optical sensor, the current by the light absorbed in the 2D material layer is generated. Is unclear since V=0 is a relative term there is no absolute zero V it is an arbitrary value. Further what frequency of light and how much is applicant asserting single photon sensitivity this could result in a 112 written description rejection.
Further applicant has not established how it is to be bias there are no electrodes claimed it is unclear what is biased.
As to claim 7, applicant does not link the bias to the contacts claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-8,11-12, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Miao et al cited by applicant provided in here is the supporting information cited inn Mia which describes fabrication.
As to claims 1 -2, 7-8, 11, and 15 Miao teaches a device comprising: a three-dimensional (3D) material layer doped with first conductivity type impurities at a first doping concentration (P++ silicon); and a two-dimensional (2D) material layer doped with second conductivity type impurities at a second doping (results and discussions We begin by fabricating devices on highly doped wafers of silicon or gallium nitride. Figure1a shows the schematic of a p–n heterojunction consisting of a 2D/3D vdW heterostructure between a few-layer MoS2 (n-type) and degenerately p-doped Si covered with an alumina gate dielectric and metal electrodes. Details of the microfabrication processes are provided in the Supporting Information (SI) (Materials and Methods and Figures S1 and S2). A finite-element simulation of this heterojunction system shows that the band diagram of the p++Si-MoS2 (p++Si resistivity ≤0.005 ohm·cm this is commensurate with material of paragraph 12-15 of applicant’ disclosure) heterojunction p–n diode (Figure1b) is a type-II junction under equilibrium. Based on known work functions and electron affinities, (36−39) the p++Si conduction band lies above the MoS2 conduction band.) concentration and arranged in contact with the 3D material layer to form a type II band alignment with the 3D material layer (results and discussion figure 1b as well). Recitation optical sensor is intended use the device has the same structure and thus meet the claim limitation. Miao teaches further comprising: an insulating layer disposed on the 3D material layer and partially exposing an upper surface of the 3D material layer to define an area where a portion of the upper surface of the 3D material layer and the 2D material layer come into contact with each other (oxide layer figure 1a); a first contact configured to cover a portion of an upper surface of the insulating layer and a portion of an upper surface of the 2D material layer drain); and a second contact configured to cover at least a portion of a lower surface of the 3D material layer (source). As to the recitation of wherein, due to formation of the type II band alignment, a conduction band offset or a valence band offset between the 3D material layer and the 2D material layer has a magnitude forms a barrier that restricts movement of carriers is taught in figure 2 and figure 1b
PNG
media_image1.png
296
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
405
756
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This is the same as the band offsets of figure 2-4 of applicant’s disclosure. Thus, Miao inherently teaches the outcome. Miao teaches a type II band alignment in figure 1. Recitation of forms a barrier that restricts movement of carriers of one conductivity type generated by light in the 2D material layer from the 2D material layer to the 3D material layer, wherein, when a zero bias is applied to the optical sensor, a current by light absorbed in the 3D material layer is generated and a current by light absorbed in the 2D material layer is not generated due to the barrier, and wherein, when a reverse bias sufficient to cause the 2D material layer to be fully depleted is applied to the optical sensor, the current by the light absorbed in the 2D material layer is generated. Applicant asserts Miao does not show these outcomes. However, these outcomes are intended usage of claim Maio teaches materials commensurate with the what is disclosed as capable of performing the actions cited thus it must be capable of performing the actions (paragraphs 12-15 of applicant own disclosure). Thus, it must be capable of the outcomes provide otherwise, applicant does not have sufficient written description for the entire range of materials . It also noted that light can be introduced from the bottom and moreover before the gate is deposited the device can operate from the frontside. The device is not limited to a final device an intermediate product of Miao would reasonably function in the manner applicant wants the device to operate. However, these are merely intended usages and applicant set forth no explanation as to how this use necessitates a difference in structure either in the final product or intermediate product before the gate is formed figure S1 IV ,of the supporting document, is the same structure as applicant discloses and even under a super narrow interpretation that the device must preclude a gate S1 IV does not have a gate and would read on the claim.
However, even with the gate light can be received via the back surface. Thus, the device could function to receive light whether disclosed actually receiving light is beyond the scope of the device.
Assuming arguendo that the recitation somehow precludes a gate Miao in the fabrication steps has a structure that exists without a gate. Figure S1iv
PNG
media_image3.png
564
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
b. As to claim 4 and 13, Miao teaches wherein a band gap of the 3D material layer is less than a band gap of the 2D material layer (figure 1b where MoS2 is over 1 and P++ Silicon) further Silicon is known to have a value of 1.12 and MoS2 has a value of 1.2.
c. As to claim 5 and 14, Miao teach Silicon type IV and MoS2 which is a metal chalcogenide.
d. As to claim 6, Miao teach the structure of claims 1-2, 4-5 silicon is already sensitive up to 1100 nm this includes IR and absorbs visible already thus it meets the limitation of wherein, due to the formation of the type II band alignment, the 2D material layer and the 3D material layer respond to light in an infrared region when a zero bias is applied and respond to at least one of light in the infrared region and light in a visible light region when a certain reverse bias is applied.
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) 3 8-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miao.
As to claims 3 and 13, Miao does not explicitly state wherein the first doping concentration is greater than the second doping concentration. Miao does states: In most 2D/2D or 2D/3D cases, the doping levels in both semiconductors are simultaneously moving due to the semitransparency of the 2D layer to electric fields (results and discussion) and the silicon is degenerately doped which is ultra-high (results and discussions). Further Miao indicates doping 2D material is difficult (introduction).
Thus absent some unexpected result it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to dope the MoS2 to be less than the Silicon to optimize the on off and to use conventional doping technique to obtain conventional values for the MoS2.
As to claims 9 and 10 Miao does not explicitly state how the n-type MoS2 becomes n-type.
However, both:
forming of the 2D material layer comprises: forming a preliminary 2D material layer on a portion of the exposed upper surface of the 3D material layer; and doping the preliminary 2D material layer with the second conductivity type impurities to have the second doping concentration to form the 2D material layer
and
forming of the 2D material layer comprises: forming the 2D material layer doped with the second conductivity type impurities at the second doping concentration on a carrier substrate; and transferring the 2D material layer from the growth substrate to the insulating layer to cover a portion of the exposed upper surface of the 3D material layer
were known method of doping a 2D material.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used either method of:
forming of the 2D material layer comprises: forming a preliminary 2D material layer on a portion of the exposed upper surface of the 3D material layer; and doping the preliminary 2D material layer with the second conductivity type impurities to have the second doping concentration to form the 2D material layer
or
forming of the 2D material layer comprises: forming the 2D material layer doped with the second conductivity type impurities at the second doping concentration on a carrier substrate; and transferring the 2D material layer from the growth substrate to the insulating layer to cover a portion of the exposed upper surface of the 3D material layer
to dope the MoS2.
In order to obtain the expected results of n-type MoS2 using know techniques.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues how Maio is intended to be used however the claims are drawn to a device not a method of use of the device. Since the structure otherwise meets the limitations, it would be capable of performing actions. Simply because Miao teaches a different use for the structure does not invalidate the anticipation of the structure. A device structure is defined by its structure not how it intended to be used. While a structure can have implied feature by it intended usage.
Thus, to applicant first point applicant point v =0 is arbitrary value there is no absolute zero voltage. The zero for voltage can be set anywhere since the importance in voltages is difference in voltage. Further figure 1b is done at VG and VDS=0. Further the argument of no bias requires no gate voltage is not commensurate to applicants’ disclosure. Applicant does not have a gate as pointed out the zero bias cannot refer to a gate so there is no way for the gate bias to be zero. Further simply because Miao does not show the outcomes does not mean it does not occur. Since the structure is the same as claimed it must result in the outcomes recited otherwise applicant has not provided critical information.
Further with respect to Miao's device is fundamentally a "three-terminal, gate-tunable diode (triode)," and Miao's abstract confirms that the barrier is actively induced and modulated by the gate-"By tuning the Fermi levels in MoS2, we demonstrate devices that concurrently exhibit over seven orders of magnitude modulation in rectification ratios and conductance." Miao does not teach a two- terminal structure having only a first contact and a second contact and no gate electrode. Miao's gated band structure is therefore structurally and operationally different from the zero-bias barrier recited in claim 1. The materials are same as disclosed by applicant thus Miao outcome must be the same or otherwise applicant may invoke a 112 a written description and scope of enablement.
Applicant is reminded a structure is define by it structure not how it is intended to be used. Since the structure is otherwise the same it must be capable or applicant has not provided critical information.
This is not limited by the claim the claim makes no distinction and does not preclude a gate further claim 1 does not even require contacts. It is noted though at the step before Miao deposits the gate figure s1 iv the device consisted of two electrodes and it existed free of a gate at that point in fabrication.
PNG
media_image3.png
564
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to :
Second, Miao's Figure lb is a band diagram simulated at equilibrium (VGS = 0 V, VDS = 0 V), presented to characterize the band alignment and depletion width of the heterojunction from known work functions and electron affinities. Miao neither measures nor discloses whether, at equilibrium, current is generated from light absorbed in the 3D layer versus the 2D layer. Miao does not disclose that at zero bias only the current from light absorbed in the 3D layer is generated, while the 2D-layer photocurrent is suppressed by the barrier and appears only upon reverse-bias full depletion.
This is merely an intended usage of the device the materials are the same as disclosed paragraphs 12-14 and otherwise the same thus it must be capable of performing the action or applicant has enablement and written description issues.
With respect to the recitation of third point, the Examiner's inherency position is unsupported. Inherency requires that the
missing limitation be necessarily present. Miao's zero-bias 633 nm photocurrent mapping (Figure 3g) is performed to map the spatial electrically active region of the junction to confirm that "the carrier separation/collection and hence injection in a 2D/3D junction primarily occurs at a 1D interface"-and is expressly attributed to a diffusion-current mechanism ("By reciprocity, the same regions would participate in diffusive current transport under forward and reverse bias conditions in the absence of illumination"). It does not compare 2D- versus 3D-layer photocurrent, and does not disclose selective suppression of the 2D-layer photocurrent at zero bias. This diffusion-based mapping is a different mechanism from the claimed trap-assisted tunneling that generates the 2D-layer photocurrent only upon full depletion. Miao's disclosure thus does not establish that the claimed bias-dependent, layer-selective current generation is necessarily present, and in fact points away from it.
These are not structural these are intended usage thus they do not affect the structure. Since the structure is otherwise the same and it is commensurate with the materials disclose (paragraphs 12-15 )I t must meet the limitation. Applicant is cautioned to adding active steps to the claims MPEP 213.05p II:
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to "[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data" was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited "an input means" and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear "whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means."); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).
With respect to Fourth, Miao refers to the MoS2 being "fully depleted at VGS < 0 V and VDS > 0 V," but describes this as a gate-induced condition for maximizing the rectification ratio-an electrical figure of merit. Miao does not link full depletion to the activation of a photocurrent from light absorbed in the 2D material layer.
This again is merely setting forth how it is to be used and does not structurally limit the device.
It is noted applicant does not argue that Miao is incapable of performing the recited action merely the office does not show the actions actively being performed. MPEP 2111.04 :
I. “ADAPTED TO,” “ADAPTED FOR,” “WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY”
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses;
(B) “wherein” clauses; and
(C) “whereby” clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court found that an "adapted to" clause limited a machine claim where "the written description makes clear that 'adapted to,' as used in the [patent] application, has a narrower meaning, viz., that the claimed machine is designed or constructed to be used as a rowing machine whereby a pulling force is exerted on the handles." In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted that a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
As well as MPEP 2173.05g
Since there is no corresponding structure that is set forth define the outcomes recited in the claims the office must interpret them as non-limiting and do not further affect the structure. Further applicant gives no reason as to why the materials of Miao which are the same as those in the specification would not result in the outcomes claimed. Applicant’s claims are ultimately to a device structure. Prima facie showing by the examiner has been provided give two 3D material silicon a type VI semiconductor (paragraphs 12-15 of applicant disclosure) or GaN a III-V semiconductor (paragraphs 12-15 again) and MoS2 (paragraph 12-15 and paragraphs 72-73). Applicant must show Miao is incapable of performing the actions or amending the claims to overcome Miao.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jariwala et al “Mixed-dimensional vander Waals heterostructures” provides a review of mixed heterostructure in particular figure 8 shows a similar structure with a p-type silicon and n-type MoS2 emitting light of that of Miao. Converting an emitter it a detector is well known in the art but this is more drawn to a usage of the device which beyond the scope of the present application. See Lopez-Sanchez et al which suggest using the device as a solar cell. Further Fang et al indicate MOS2 is sensitive infrared and light can be used to gate a MoS2 transistor.
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
Prosecution Insights