DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 22-23 and 26-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 6/30/2025.
Itis noted that claims 23 and 24 require “the positive and negative electrodes are respectively deposited on edges of the top monolayer and the bottom monolayer such that only edge atoms of the top and bottom monolayers make physical, Ohmic-conducting, contact with the positive and negative electrodes respectively,” which is a feature of Species D and claims 26 and 27 require “a dielectric encapsulation layer disposed on top of the top monolayer; a top gate electrode disposed on top of the dielectric encapsulation layer, wherein the top gate electrode is configured to be electrically biased to generate a vertical electric field across the dielectric encapsulation layer in conjunction with one of the top or bottom electrodes thereby enabling in-situ bandgap modulation via the Stark Effect,” which is a feature of Species G-J.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 21, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “the two or more monolayers are…twisted with respect to one another to create an active Moire periodic potential region” and “the one or more positive electrodes and the one or more negative electrodes…configured to tune a twist angle of a given stack of two monolayers in-situ in response to a current from the voltage source thereby tuning the active Moire periodic potential region within the given stack of two monolayers,” has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Specifically, the specification does not describe if the twist and tuning is a method step, if the twist and tuning is a function of the structure claimed which inherently occurs during operation of the claimed device, or if it is a method of using the device. Further, the claimed invention requires the essential or critical feature of the tuning of the twist angle in situ, which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art. Lastly, if tuning is a function of the invention, the function lacks written descriptive because there is no described correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “the two or more monolayers are…twisted with respect to one another to create an active Moire periodic potential region” and “the one or more positive electrodes and the one or more negative electrodes…configured to tune a twist angle of a given stack of two monolayers in-situ in response to a current from the voltage source,” does not appear to have adequate support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, the claim appears to require the layers to be deposited with a twist angle, and then have the twist angle further tuned in response to an applied voltage. The only twist angle disclosed is the one which is described as being tuned in-situ.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “each stack of two monolayers is disposed between a positive electrode and a negative electrode” does not appear to have adequate support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, there appears to only be a disclosure of a single stack between a single positive electrode and a single negative electrode, whereas the claim appears to include plural stacks of positive electrode/stack of two monolayers/negative electrode.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “wherein the one or more positive electrodes and the one or more negative electrodes are piezoelectric electrodes configured to tune a twist angle of a given stack of two monolayers in-situ in response to a current from the voltage source thereby tuning the active Moire periodic potential region within the given stack of two monolayers” does not appear to have adequate support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, there does not appear to be any disclosure of tuning the Moire potential.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “further comprising more than two monolayers stacked on top of one another and twisted with respect to one another to create multiple active Moire periodic potential regions, one at each interface between each set of two monolayers,” does not appear to have adequate support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, there does not appear to be a disclosure of a device with multiple active Moire periodic potential regions.
Regarding claim 21, the limitations “the top monolayer is twisted about a vertical axis with respect to the bottom monolayer to create an active Moire periodic potential region” and “the positive and negative electrodes are configured to provide an electrical current to the active Moire periodic potential region resulting in emission of single photons out of the top monolayer with a blue-green bandgap,” has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Specifically, the specification does not describe if the twist is a method step, if the twist is a function of the structure claimed which inherently occurs during operation of the claimed device, or if it is a method of using the device. Further, the claimed invention requires the essential or critical feature of the tuning of the twist angle in situ, which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art. Lastly, if tuning is a function of the invention, the function lacks written descriptive because there is no described correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “the top monolayer is twisted about a vertical axis with respect to the bottom monolayer to create an active Moire periodic potential region at an interface between the top and bottom monolayers” and “the positive and negative electrodes are configured to provide an electrical current to the active Moire periodic potential region” does not appear to have adequate support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, the claim appears to require the layers to be deposited with a twist angle, and then have the electric current applied, however the Moire potential is understood as being a result of the twist which is described as being “in-situ.”
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “resulting in emission of single photons out of the top monolayer within a blue-green bandgap” does not appear to have adequate support in the originally filed disclosure. Specifically, there does not appear to be any disclosure of a “blue-green” emission.
Note the dependent claims do not cure the deficiencies of the claims on which they depend.
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, 3-4, 21, and 24-25 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a substrate, wherein the substrate grows two or more monolayers on a surface of the substrate,” is unclear as to if the limitation is intending to recite a method step, if the claim includes grammatical errors. It is further unclear how a substrate can “grow” layers.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “two or more monolayers,” recited in line 4, is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “two or more monolayers.”
Regarding claim 1 the limitations “the two or more monolayers are…twisted with respect to one another to create an active Moire periodic potential region” and “the one or more positive electrodes and the one or more negative electrodes…configured to tune a twist angle of a given stack of two monolayers in-situ in response to a current from the voltage source,” are unclear as to if the limitation intends the tuning as a method step, if the twist and tuning is a function of the structure claimed which inherently occurs during operation of the claimed device, or if it is a method of using the device. Further, it is unclear, if the twist being tuned results in a change in the bandgap, it is unclear as to how the range of bandgaps recited in the claim are related to an original twist angle and a twist angle resulting from the tuning.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “to tune a twist angle of a given stack of two monolayers in-situ” is unclear as to how it is related to “the two or more monolayers are…twisted with respect to one another.” Specifically, it is unclear if the claim require the layers to be deposited with a twist angle, and then have the twist angle further tuned in response to an applied voltage.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “an interface between each of the two or more monolayers” is unclear as to what elements form the interface(s).
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a given stack of two monolayers” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “two or more monolayers…stacked on top of one another.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “each stack of two monolayers” is unclear as to how it is related to the previously recited “two or more monolayers…stacked on top of one another.”
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “a positive electrode” and “a negative electrode” are unclear as to how they are related to the previously recited “one or more positive electrodes” and “one or more negative electrodes,” respectively.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “further comprising more than two monolayers stacked on top of one another and twisted with respect to one another to create multiple active Moire periodic potential regions, one at each interface between each set of two monolayers,” is unclear as to how the “more than two monolayers stacked on top of one another and twisted with respect to one another” is related to the previously recited “two or more monolayers…stacked on top of one another and twisted with respect to one another.” It is further unclear as to “one” of what element. It is further unclear as to how “each set of two monolayers” is related to the previously recited “two or more monolayers…stacked on top of one another,” “more than two monolayers stacked on top of one another,” “a given stack of two monolayers,” and “each stack of two monolayers.”
Regarding claim 21, the limitations “the top monolayer is twisted about a vertical axis with respect to the bottom monolayer to create an active Moire periodic potential region” and “the positive and negative electrodes are configured to provide an electrical current to the active Moire periodic potential region resulting in emission of single photons out of the top monolayer with a blue-green bandgap,” are unclear as to if the limitation intends the twisting as occurring as a method step, if the twisting is a function of the structure claimed which inherently occurs during operation of the claimed device, or if it is a method of using the device. Further, it is unclear, if the twisting results in a change in the bandgap, it is unclear as to how the range of bandgaps recited in the claim are related to an original twist angle and a twist angle resulting from the tuning.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “the top monolayer is twisted about a vertical axis with respect to the bottom monolayer to create an active Moire periodic potential region at an interface between the top and bottom monolayers” and “the positive and negative electrodes are configured to provide an electrical current to the active Moire periodic potential region” is unclear as to if the claim require the layers to be deposited with a twist angle, and then have the twist angle further tuned in response to an applied voltage.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “the positive and negative electrodes are configured to provide an electrical current to the active Moire periodic potential region” is unclear because claim appears to require the layers to be deposited with a twist angle, and then have the electric current applied, however the Moire potential is understood as being a result of the twist which is described as being “in-situ.” Therefore it is unclear as to how the current is applied to the Moire periodic region if the current is responsible for the Moire periodic region.
Regarding claim 21, the limitation “resulting in emission of single photons out of the top monolayer within a blue-green bandgap” is unclear as to what is required by the “emission of single photons,” is unclear because “single” appears to require one, however “photons” appears to require plural. Further, it is unclear as to how only a single photon could be emitted.
Note the dependent claims necessarily inherit the indefiniteness of the claims on which they depend.
Note that the claims have not been rejected over the prior art because, in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections supra, there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of the claims; hence, it would not be proper to reject the claims on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/29/2025 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above.
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 Lauren R Bell whose telephone number is (571)272-7199. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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 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.
/LAUREN R BELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896 9/30/2025
Prosecution Insights