DETAILED ACTION
Table of Contents
I. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 3
II. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 3
III. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 3
A. Claims 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0021676 (“Kim”). 4
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5
A. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim. 5
V. Allowable Subject Matter 6
VI. Response to Arguments 7
Conclusion 7
[The rest of this page is intentionally left blank.]
I. 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 .
II. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 08/04/2026 has been entered.
III. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
A. Claims 21, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2024/0021676 (“Kim”).
With regard to claim 21, Kim discloses, generally in Figs. 1, 4-6,
21. (currently amended) A method for manufacturing a semiconductor device, comprising:
[1a] forming a low-dimensional material (LDM) layer 120, 220 [¶¶ 67-68, 94] disposed on a semiconductor substrate 210, SU [¶¶ 91, 123] along a first direction Z [¶ 92],
[1b] wherein the LDM layer 120, 220 includes a first oxidized portion [i.e. portion of 130, 230 (¶¶ 67, 93-94) on top surface of 120, 220, respectively] and a second oxidized portion [i.e. portion of 130, 230 on either side surface of 120, 220, respectively] arranged adjacent to the first oxidized portion along a second direction X perpendicular to the first direction Z [as shown in Fig. 6]; and
[2] forming at least one electrode S, D, 280, 290 [¶¶ 66, 70, 90, 92, 94] in direct contact with the LDM layer 120, 220,
[1c] wherein the second oxidized portion [i.e. portion of 130, 230 on either side surface of 120, 220, respectively] of the LDM layer 120, 220 has a thickness along the first direction Z larger than that of the first oxidized portion of the LDM layer 120, 220 [as shown in Fig. 6]
With regard to features [1a]-[1c] of claim 21, each nanosheet channel 120 (and consequently 220 (¶ 94)) is made of a two-dimensional (2D) transition-metal dichalcogenide (TMD) that may have a thickness 120T as large as 10 nm (¶ 72; Fig. 1) after oxidation to form the oxidized portions 130, 230 of the channels 120, 220, respectively, which may correspond to a thickness of a monolayer of the 2D-TMD channel: “The thickness of the transition metal oxide layer 130 may be a thickness corresponding to a monolayer of a 2D material included in the channel 120 or in a similar range.” (¶ 77) Therefore, the thickness of the claimed “first oxidized portion”, i.e. the portion of 130, 230 on the top surface of 120, 220, respectively, has a thickness of a single monolayer of oxidized 2D-TMD while the claimed “second oxidized portion”, i.e. the portion of 130, 230 on either side surfaces of 120, 220, respectively, has a thickness of at least three monolayers of oxidized 2D-TMD, in order to have at least one monolayer of 2D-TMD remaining after oxidation for the channel 120, 220, as shown in Fig. 6. For example, nanosheet channel 420 may be a tri-layer of MoS2 (¶ 125).
This is all of the limitations of claim 21.
With regard to claims 23, 24, and 31, Kim further discloses,
23. (previously presented) The method of claim 21, wherein a low-dimensional material of the LDM layer includes WSe2, WS2, WTe2, MoSe2, or PdSe2 [¶ 67: “Thus, for example, TMD may include MoS2, MoSe2, MoTe2, WS2, WSe2, WTe2, …, and so forth”].
24. (previously presented) The method of claim 23, wherein a material of the first or the second oxidized portion includes tungsten oxide, molybdenum oxide, or palladium oxide [¶ 75; because oxidation of either of the Mo or W 2D-TMD materials in ¶ 67 will form MoOx or WOx].
IV. 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 of this title, 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.
A. Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim.
With regard to claim 31, Kim further discloses,
31. (new) The method according to claim 21, wherein the thickness of the second oxidized portion [i.e. portion of 130, 230 on either side surface of 120, 220, respectively] is in a range of about 12 angstroms to about 40 angstroms.
In this regard, the thickness of the second oxidized portion, i.e. the thickness of 230 in the Z direction in Fig. 6, is equal to two times the thickness of the first oxidized portion on the top or bottom surface of the 2D channel 220, which is 1 nm to 3 nm (i.e. 10 Å to 30 Å) (¶ 77), plus the thickness 120T in the Z direction of the 2D channel 220, i.e. “The thickness 120T of the channel 120 may be about 10 nm or less, about 5 nm or less, or about 3 nm or less and may be greater than 0 nm, about 0.01 nm or more, about 0.1 nm or more, about 0.5 nm or more, about 1 nm or more, or the like.” (¶ 72), giving the narrowest range of 1 nm to about 3 nm (i.e. 10 Å to 30 Å).
Thus a reasonable thickness of the second oxidized portion would be from about 30 Å to 90 Å, which overlaps the claimed thickness range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); MPEP 2144.05(I)). In such a situation, Applicant must show that the particular ranges are critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). (See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A); emphasis added.)
V. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 7-11, 15, 16, and 25-30 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As repeated from the Final Rejection mailed 05/06/2026 at p. 14, with regard to claim 9, Applicant incorporated the features from dependent claim 14 into claim 9, the features of claim 14 having been previously indicated to include allowable subject matter (Non-Final Rejection mailed 01/05/2026 at pp. 17-18). Claims 10, 11, 15, 16, and 27-29 are allowable at least for including the same allowable limitations by depending from claim 9 either directly or indirectly.
With regard to claim 1, Applicant incorporated the features from dependent claim 4 into claim 1, the features of claim 4 having been previously indicated to include allowable subject matter (Final Rejection mailed 05/06/2026 at p. 15). Claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 25, 26, and 30 are allowable at least for including the same allowable limitations by depending from claim 1 either directly or indirectly.
VI. Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The amendment to claim 1 obviates the rejection under 35 USC 112(a), and the amendment to claim 24 obviates the rejection under 35 USC 112(b), both of which are withdrawn.
With regard to claim 21, Applicant argues that the gate electrode 160, 260, 460 of Kim does not directly contact the 2D material of the channel 120, 220, 420, as claim 21 is currently amended to require. Examiner agrees; however, this is not dispositive given that each of the source and drain electrodes 280, 290 of Kim meet the newly claimed requirement. As such, the amendment is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 21, 23, 24, and new claim 31 over Kim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK KIELIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1693. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 10:00 AM-7:00 PM.
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, Wael Fahmy can be reached on 571-272-1705. 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.
Signed,
/ERIK KIELIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814
Prosecution Insights