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.
Claim 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.
a. As to claims 1 and 8, Recitation of wherein a conduction band offset or a valence band offset between the 3D material layer and the 2D material layer has a magnitude that restricts movement of carriers is not clear where the carriers are restricted or to how much restriction is required.
b. As to claim 6 claim 6 is unclear as what structure is required or how much of a certain reverse bias is sufficient to cause the 2D material layer to be fully depleted is applied. A certain reverse bias is unbounded and unclear when the outcome occurs.
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.
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) 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 a conduction band offset or a valence band offset between the 3D material layer and the 2D material layer has a magnitude that restricts movement of carriers is taught in figure 2
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.
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 11/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Miao figure 2 teach an offset between the bands to confine or restrict the carriers to the 2D region. Thus, Maio still teaches claim 1 and 8.
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 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