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 .
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
Claims 2,5,6, 13-17 and 20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 8/4/2025. It is noted the only embodiment with a substrate is the transistor the photodetector does not have a substrate thus claim 2 is withdrawn as well
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A and Species a in the reply filed on 8/4/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that The examiner would need to search all the elements due Claim 1. This is not found persuasive because MPEP Section 803.02 give guidance of how to treat Markush claims in a restriction requirement.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 18 and 19 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. Applicant only shows epitaxially integrated specific materials specifically Zn3As2 CdTe Cd3As2. Applicant has not shown epitaxially integrating with all semiconductors and all dielectric e.g. Silicon oxide silicon nitride.
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. “Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement.”Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
See MPEP § 2163, subsection I.A and MPEP § 2163, subsection II.A.3(a) for further discussion of rebutting the presumption of adequate written description for originally presented claims.
In this instance applicant only discloses one specific embodiment but the claim scope covers huge numbers of variations including all metals all dielectrics all semimetals and all semiconductors. Simply present one specific example does not set forth written description support for all other combinations.
Likewise, for claim 9-12 and 19, while the transistor uses a dielectric the only disclosed “dielectric” for the photodetector is a semiconductor CdTe. Thus, applicant is claims a large Markush group when only one specific embodiment for a photodetector is disclosed.
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, 7-12, 18 and 19 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.
Claims 1 and 19 appear to try to set forth the elements of a Dirac, Weyl or nodal line topological semimetal layer in the alternative based on claims 4-6 however applicant does not properly set forth the elements are in the alternative MPEP 2173.05h give language that set forth how to set forth a group of elements in the alternative. As set forth in the claim currently all of a Dirac, Weyl or nodal line topological semimetal layer are required but claims 4-6 contradict this.
Likewise claim 1 recitation a metal layer or semiconductor layer appears to be in the alternative based on claims 9 13.
Applicant should recite the alternative in the proper manner either using Markush language or the proper alternative language.
As to claim 9 it is unclear if the semiconductor is the same or different than the one already recited in claim 1. It appears applicant means to state wherein the metal or semiconductor is a semiconductor.
As to claim 12 it is unclear the location of the contacts with respect to the other elements.
As to claim 18, it is unclear if the elements are to be in the alternative applicant seems to use or demarcate alternative language.
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 , 7, 8, 10 -12, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen CN 111585040 in view of Wang (ultrafast broadband Photodetectors based on Three dimensional Dirac Semimetals Cd3As2 cited on ids and Chen CN111262043.
As to claims 1 and 4, Chen teaches A device comprising: a Dirac semimetal layer (layer 4); a dielectric layer proximate to the semimetal layer (layer 2 Silicon oxide); a metal layer or semiconductor layer proximate to the dielectric layer (layer 3 is a silicon layer). The phrase proximate is being treated as near or close, thus all the elements are considered proximate to one another.
Chen teaches the device should be able to absorb in the terahertz wavelength abstract:
The invention claims a full-medium wave absorber based on graphene and Dirac semi-metal. wherein: It is composed of a graphene layer (1), a medium layer (2) (3) and a Dirac semi-metal (4); the graphene layer (1) is a single-layer graphene. The invention has two absorption peaks in the terahertz wave band; the Fermi level of the graphene layer (1) and the Dirac semi-metal (4) can be respectively changed by external excitation so as to realize the adjustment of the two absorption frequencies; and the electromagnetic wave between the 3.96THz-9.75THz be efficiently absorbed by the electromagnetic wave. The invention has the advantages of high absorbing efficiency, wide adjustable range and non-sensitive polarization.
Chen does not teach Cd3As2.
Wang teaches a structure comprising a Dirac semimetal Cd3As2 (figure 1) a dielectric (silicon oxide) and a semiconductor (silicon substrate) Wang therefore shows Cd3As2 was known to be integrated with Silicon oxide/silicon layers structures. Wang also teaches that Cd3As2 absorbs Terahertz wavelengths (abstract).
Chen ‘043 teaches (Background):
In recent years, with thickness of the atom-level two-dimensional material, such as graphene, because its gate voltage dependency and is widely applied to the tunable super-surface device. in the article " Mid Infrared-refutes Dual Frequency CrossPolarization Converter Using - Graphene-Based L-Shaped Nanoslot Array " in research based on surface structure of L-shaped graphene and realizes frequency adjustable cross polarization, shows that increase of the Fermi level. resonance frequency shift occurs. Although graphene has the optical characteristics of control, it can realize dynamic light operation, but is not enough to be used directly in practice coupled with the incident EM wave. Nearly two years, Dirac semi-metal, also referred to as " three-dimensional graphene 3 D Dirac semi-metal, such as Cd3As2, ZrTe5 and AlCuFe, because of its ultra-high electron mobility up to caused great concern of people. Dirac half-metal has similar to graphene of energy band structure, energy and momentum satisfies the linear dispersion relation in the 3 D space. 2016, O.V. Kotov et al., " Dielectric Response and novel electromagnetic modes III Dirac three-dimensional Dirac semimetal semi-metal films " in the article calculating inference of dynamic electrical conductivity and dielectric constant for the subsequent Dirac-the application of metal mould to the foundation. 2017 years, "induced transparency Realization oftunable SPR-studies the Dirac-metal super-material in the terahertz frequency tunable plasmon induced transparency effect realized in Diracsemimetals" by brig-brig mode coupling. similar to graphene, dielectric constant function of Dirac-metal can be changed by changing the Fermi level to dynamically control. However, the Dirac compared semi-metal graphene is more capable of resisting environment defect or overcome the excessive conductive volume and so on, has the advantage in the actual engineering is better realized. Up to the present, Dirac semi-metal in the absorbing device of application has not been developed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have form the Dirac Semimetal of Chen as Cd3As2 to integrate existing Dirac semimetals into known systems at the time for the desired absorption spectrum
The recitation of the device is a photodetector does not breath any life into the claim and merely states an intended use of the structure . Since the structure is otherwise the identical to the claim the claim is read on.
As to claim 7, Chen teaches an oxide for the dielectric.
As to claim 10, Chen teaches silicon which is a type IV semiconductor
As to claim 12, Chen teaches graphene which could be use as electrical contacts.
As to claim 18, the phrase epitaxially integrated appears to a product by process stating how it was formed. The silicon oxide could have been formed by oxidizing the silicon. Thus at least the semiconductor and dielectric can be considered epitaxially integrated. Based on the other recitations of “or” this appears to be intended to be written in the alternative. Thus, Chen teaches claim 18 in so far as definite.
f. As to claims 8, 11, and 19 Chen in view of Wang teaches A device comprising: a Dirac semimetal layer (layer 4); a dielectric layer proximate to the semimetal layer (layer 2 Silicon oxide); a metal layer or semiconductor layer proximate to the dielectric layer (layer 3 is a silicon layer). The phrase proximate is being treated as near or close, thus all the elements are considered proximate to one another. And the Dirac semimetal is Cd3As2.
Chen does not teach the semiconductor is doped or the SiO2 is undoped.
Ultra Lightly doped silicon was known as a dielectric specifically de minimis doping due to fabrication autodoping. Thus, since there is no value of the doping claimed it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use these ultra lightly doped silicon wafer since it would act as a dielectric and would provide a wider range of materials to allowed to be used providing a wider range for integration.
As to the Silicon oxide. Silicon Oxide was known to be formed undoped.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have form the silicon oxide of Chen as an undoped silicon oxide to prevent dopant interference with the graphene layer.
Wang teaches a structure comprising a Dirac semimetal Cd3As2 (figure 1) a dielectric (silicon oxide) and a semiconductor (silicon substrate) Wang therefore shows Cd3As2 was known to be integrated with Silicon oxide/silicon layers structures.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have form the Dirac Semimetal of Chen as Cd3As2 to integrate existing Dirac semimetals into known systems at the time for the desired result of photo detection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the specific semimetals are novel. This is not found persuasive. Chen teaches the device should be able to absorb in the terahertz wavelength abstract:
The invention claims a full-medium wave absorber based on graphene and Dirac semi-metal. wherein: It is composed of a graphene layer (1), a medium layer (2) (3) and a Dirac semi-metal (4); the graphene layer (1) is a single-layer graphene. The invention has two absorption peaks in the terahertz wave band; the Fermi level of the graphene layer (1) and the Dirac semi-metal (4) can be respectively changed by external excitation so as to realize the adjustment of the two absorption frequencies; and the electromagnetic wave between the 3.96THz-9.75THz be efficiently absorbed by the electromagnetic wave. The invention has the advantages of high absorbing efficiency, wide adjustable range and non-sensitive polarization.
Chen is otherwise silent in regards to what the material is. Thus, Chen teaches the material must be a Dirac Semimetal and must absorb in the terahertz spectrum.
Wang teaches that Cd3As2 absorbs in the terahertz spectrum Wang teaches that Cd3As2 does absorb in the spectrum.
Thus, Cd3As2 is obvious material to choose since it meets the requirements of Chen.
With respect to the limitation claim requires a photodetector and Chen teaches radar absorbing device. The Office defines claim structure by it structure not by how it is intended to function. Since the structure is the same except for the intended usage the claim is read on. Specifically, because the specification does not set forth any additional structure that is need to define the structure as a photodetector. Thus, the argument is not found persuasive.
With respect to Chen reciting that Silicon is a dielectric. This is no different than applicant own claim 7 which narrows the dielectric to semiconductors. One reading Chen would understand that Silicon on its face is a semiconductor. Thus, the argument is not found persuasive.
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