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
At this time Examiner is not requiring a restriction as the devices read on the method and vice-versa.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of February 2, 2026 no information disclosure statement has been made of record.
Drawing Objections
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The claimed subject matter of claim 12 is not shown. Applicant does not have a drawing showing any system, nor is any system shown which is capable of performing the claimed steps. No new matter should be entered.
Drawings dated May 13, 2026
Applicant has filed a replacement figure 4 on may 13, 2026. Applicant also amended claim 12. Replacement figure 4 does not contain all the method steps contained in amended claim 12. Therefore, replacement figure 4 will not be entered as it does not show the claimed subject matter. The limitations of claim 12 must be shown or the features canceled from the claim.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The claimed subject matter of claim 18 is not shown. Applicant does not have a drawing showing any processing circuitry coupled to storage, nor does Applicant show how this processing circuitry is configured to process any of the instructions claimed. No new matter should be entered
Drawings dated May 13, 2026
After reviewing Applicant support on page 9 in the remarks filed May 13, 2026, it is Examiner’s position that figure 5 constitutes new matter. The originally filed specification does not support figure 5. Figure 5 can only be supported with the amendment to the specification, new ¶ 0041. This is because the originally filed specification does not create the bridge necessary to go from element 504 to element 508 on its own.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The amendment filed May 13, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Specification amendment dated May 13, 2026.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Examiner withdraws the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection based upon Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
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) 1-5, 8-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being (anticipated) by Defect Control and n-Doping of Encapsulated Graphene by Helium-Ion-Beam Irradiation, Gaurav Nanda, Srijit Goswami, Kenji Watanabe, Takashi Taniguchi, and Paul F. A. Alkemade, Nano Letters 2015 15 (6), 4006-4012 (“Nanda”), with Nanda et al., "Supporting Information", https://pubs.acs.org/doi/suppl/10.1021/acs.nanolett.5b00939/suppl_file/nl5b00939_si_001.pdf (see pg. 4007, col. 1 at lines 6-7 of Nanda) (“Support”).
Examiner note: Supporting Information is a fully incorporated by reference document describing the experiments performed in Nanda along with other information. It was published alongside Nanda and is considered integral to the Nanda reference.
Regarding claim 1, Nanda teaches:
overlaying a wafer assembly of one or more layers with a top layer comprised of a material having 2D material characteristics (figure 6a where the top layer is h-BN);
placing a patterning mask on top of the top layer (Support at pg. 3 at lines 4-6);
applying an ion beam targeted to at least one of one or more regions of the top layer (figure 6a where He+ is applied),
a metal layer placed on top of the top layer, or one or more ion stoppers placed on top of the top layer (figure 6a shows Cr/au on top of h-bn),
wherein the ion beam is tuned using a predetermined energy range or a dosing level of ions to site-selectivity modify the material characteristics of the 2D material by creating vacancies at the one or more regions of the top layer not covered by the patterning mask (figure 6 where the He+ ion beam is used where there is no mask and one uses a predetermined energy range and dosing level to create vacancies; pg. 4007 at col. 1; pg. 4008 at col. 2); and
facilitating the formation of a bond between a metal layer and the one or more regions of the top layer to form an ohmic contact where the material characteristics of the 2D material have been modified by the vacancies created due to the impinging ion beam (pg 4011, where He+ ions are beamed into the h-bn encapsulated graphene causing the h-bn encapsulated graphene to become n-type. The 2D and metal layers are bonded together as they are stacked on top of each other; Additionally, or alternatively, because the prior art teaches the same claimed process it must also facilitate the formation of the claimed bonds).
Regarding claims 2, Nanda teaches:
further comprising generate tuned regions of the top layer based on the modified characteristics of the one or more regions (the area exposed to the He+ is so tuned; see Applicant’s ¶ 0024, where exposure to ion beam is the tuning).
Regarding claims 3, Support teaches:
Wherein the patterning mask prevents ion permeability (Support at pg. 3 at lines 4-6).
Regarding claims 4, Support teaches:
wherein applying the patterning mask on top of the top layer prevents the ion beam from hitting the top layer based on a predetermined pattern (the patterning mask as described in Support is a predetermined pattern).
Regarding claim 5, Nanda teaches:
wherein exposed regions of the top layer are hit by the ion beam to generate the tuned regions (figure 6a shows the exposed regions are hit by He+).
Regarding claim 8, Nanda teaches:
wherein the one or more layers of the wafer assembly comprise an oxide layer, a metal layer, or a silicon layer (figure 6a).
Regarding claims 9, Support teaches:
wherein the patterning mask is an oxide or a nitrite hard mask (pg. 3 where HSQ is used. HSQ or Hydrogen silsesquioxane has the empirical formula of [HSiO3/2]n. Therefore, it is considered an oxide.
Regarding claim 10, Nanda teaches:
wherein the ion beam comprises ion beams of helium, neon, nitrogen, oxygen, argon, or xenon (figure 6a).
Regarding claim 11, Nanda teaches:
wherein the 2D material comprises at least one of transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD), Graphene, hBn, BCN, Fluorographene, Graphene Oxide, MoS2, WS2, MoSe2, WSe2, Semiconducting dichalcogenides, Metalic Dichalcogenides, Layered semiconductors, , Micas BSCCO, MoO3, WO3, Layered Cu oxides, TiO2, MnO2, V2O5, TaO3, RuO2, Perovskite-type, or Hydroxides (figure 6a).
Regarding claim 12,
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 12 is different than claim 1 in that it requires…
the system comprising computer-executable instructions.
This is inherent in the process. This is because in order to for one to perform either the claimed process and/or the prior art process they are going to have to use a computer controlled machine.
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16,
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 17,
Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 18,
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim 18 is different than claim 1 in that it requires…“the device comprising processing circuitry coupled to storage, the processing circuitry configured to…” This is inherent in the process. This is because in order to for one to perform the process it will have to done in a semiconductor tool. Said semiconductor tool will likely be from one of Applicant’s, Intel’s, machine supplies such as Applied Materials, etc.
Regarding claim 19,
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 20,
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 above.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 is rejected under double patenting and objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and the double patenting rejection is overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6,
The prior art does not teach the ion beam passes through the metal layer.
Regarding claim 7,
The prior art does not teach the ion beam passes through the metal layer. In regards to the limitation of causing a bond between the metal layer top layer. This is a result of the ion beam. Applicant’s paragraph 0029. That is to say if one has the ion beam pass through the top metal layer it will create a tuned region and create the bond. There is no separate bonding action happening based upon Applicant’s specification. These claimed effects are generated by the same cause at the same time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 13, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments do not take into account the supporting information provided by Nanda. Further, Nanda expressly teaches that He+ ions create vacancies and these vacancies are created where there is no mask. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not 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 VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights