DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is a first Office Action on the merits of the application. Claims 1 - 20 are presented for examination. Claims 1 - 5 - 7, and 9 - 20 are rejected.
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.
Claims 9 and 10 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.
Claim 9 lacks antecedent basis for “wherein the peaks” (line 1).
Dependent claim 10 is rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 9.
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “wherein peaks”.
Claim 9 lacks antecedent basis for “with the valleys” (line 1).
Dependent claim 10 is rejected due to inherited claim deficiencies of claim 9.
Suggested language: Amend the phrase to recite “with valleys”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 7, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantooth et al. (“Fabrication, Assembly, and Characterization of Molecular Electronic Components”), hereinafter “Mantooth”, in view of Blinov et al (RU 2646796 C2), hereinafter “Blinov”, and further in view of Hsieh et al (U.S. PG Pub 2017/0313574 A1), hereinafter “Hsieh”.
As per claim 1, Mantooth discloses:
a computational method for predicting one or more adhesion characteristics of a candidate molecular coating comprising linking molecules of the candidate molecular coating to first anchor sites of a first substrate layer to obtain a first monolayer (Mantooth, page 1787, left col, ln 26 – 41 discloses a molecular linking grouped to bond molecules to metals, known as molecular alligator clips to form self-assembled monolayers (SAMs).)
arranging the first anchor sites in a two-dimensional (2D) lattice to obtain a close- packed first monolayer (Mantooth, page 1787, left col, ln 56 through rt col, ln 1 – 8 discloses forming a SAM, shown in FIG. 2, which includes chains closely packed due to interactions to form a well-ordered overlayer structure.)
Mantooth does not expressly disclose:
patially inverting the close-packed first monolayer to obtain a second monolayer associated with a second substrate layer; and
predicting one or more adhesion characteristics of the candidate molecular coating for use in resisting stiction between the first and second substrate layers.
Blinov however discloses:
spatially inverting the close-packed first monolayer to obtain a second monolayer associated with a second substrate layer (Blinov, page 3, lines 12 - 17 discloses molecules arranged in a friction layer and lubricating layer, and placing two friction layers in parallel, with the lubricating layer sandwiched between.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth with the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov. The motivation to do so would have been because Blinov discloses the benefit of determining difference in energies before interactions of the layers to maintain parallelism in the molecular layers after a shift of the surfaces occurs (Blinov, page 3, lines 18 - 21).
The combination of Mantooth and Blinov does not expressly disclose:
predicting one or more adhesion characteristics of the candidate molecular coating for use in resisting stiction between the first and second substrate layers.
Hsieh however discloses:
predicting one or more adhesion characteristics of the candidate molecular coating for use in resisting stiction between the first and second substrate layers (Hsieh, par [0034] - [0035] discloses SAM (self-adhesive monolayer) coating used and includes anti-stiction material, to cover pad, with only a first pad covered with an anti-stiction layer surfaces with removal of anti-stiction layer on the second pad to prevent bonding performance, and par [0048] discloses a second substrate bonded with a first substrate, with the interconnect free of anti-stiction and pads containing the anti-stiction material.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth and the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov with the anti-stiction material removed to prevent hinderance of bonding using the SAM coating teaching of Hsieh. The motivation to do so would have been because Hsieh discloses the benefit of bonds of between the substrates along the anti-stiction layer on pads, without anti-stiction material on the interconnects, helps provide reliable MEMS products with a wafer level package process (Hsieh, par [0048]).
For claim 19, Mantooth discloses:
a computational method for predicting one or more adhesion characteristics of candidate molecular coatings, the comprising for each of the candidate molecular coatings, performing the following steps (Mantooth, page 1797, left col, ln 26 - 31 discloses a coated tip regarding a SAM contact area.)
linking first molecules of the candidate molecular coating to first anchor sites of a first substrate layer to obtain a first monolayer (Mantooth, page 1787, left col, ln 26 – 41 discloses a molecular linking grouped to bond molecules to metals, known as molecular alligator clips to form self-assembled monolayers (SAMs).)
arranging the first anchor sites in a two-dimensional (2D) lattice to obtain a close-packed first monolayer (Mantooth, page 1787, left col, ln 56 through rt col, ln 1 – 8 discloses forming a SAM, shown in FIG. 2, which includes chains closely packed due to interactions to form a well-ordered overlayer structure.)
Mantooth does not expressly disclose:
spatially inverting the close-packed first monolayer to obtain a second monolayer associated with a second substrate layer; and
predicting one or more adhesion characteristics of the candidate molecular coating; and
identifying one of the candidate molecular coatings for use in restricting stiction based on relative values of the one or more adhesion characteristics of the candidate molecular coatings.
Blinov however discloses:
spatially inverting the close-packed first monolayer to obtain a second monolayer associated with a second substrate layer (Blinov, page 3, lines 12 - 17 discloses molecules arranged in a friction layer and lubricating layer, and placing two friction layers in parallel, with the lubricating layer sandwiched between.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth with the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov. The motivation to do so would have been because Blinov discloses the benefit of determining difference in energies before interactions of the layers to maintain parallelism in the molecular layers after a shift of the surfaces occurs (Blinov, page 3, lines 18 - 21).
The combination of Mantooth and Blinov does not expressly disclose:
predicting one or more adhesion characteristics of the candidate molecular coating; and
identifying one of the candidate molecular coatings for use in restricting stiction based on relative values of the one or more adhesion characteristics of the candidate molecular coatings.
Hsieh however discloses:
predicting one or more adhesion characteristics of the candidate molecular coating (Hsieh, par [0034] - [0035] discloses SAM (self-adhesive monolayer) coating used and includes anti-stiction material, to cover a pad, with only a first pad covered with an anti-stiction layer surfaces with removal of anti-stiction layer on the second pad to prevent bonding performance, and par [0048] discloses a second substrate bonded with a first substrate, with the interconnect free of anti-stiction and pads containing the anti-stiction material.)
identifying one of the candidate molecular coatings for use in restricting stiction based on relative values of the one or more adhesion characteristics of the candidate molecular coatings (Hsieh, par [0046] discloses anti-stiction material deposited over the surface and side area, which includes the use of molecular vapor deposition and conformal diamond coating processes, with a ratio of thickness for an anti-stiction layer and par [0033] adds a hydrophobic surface in the anti-stiction layer to counter stiction strength, based on a water contact angle metric measured as being above a specified degree angle or within a specified degree angle range.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth and the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov with the anti-stiction material removed to prevent hinderance of bonding using the SAM coating teaching of Hsieh.
The motivation to do so would have been because Hsieh discloses the benefit of bonds of between the substrates along the anti-stiction layer on pads, without anti-stiction material on the interconnects, helps provide reliable MEMS products with a wafer level package process (Hsieh, par [0048]).
As per claim 20, Mantooth discloses:
a computational method using parameter-free quantum mechanics to predict one or more adhesion characteristics of a candidate molecular coating, comprising linking molecules of the candidate molecular coating to first anchor sites of a first substrate layer to obtain a first monolayer (Mantooth, page 1787, left col, ln 26 – 41 discloses a molecular linking grouped to bond molecules to metals, known as molecular alligator clips to form self-assembled monolayers (SAMs).)
arranging the first anchor sites in a two-dimensional (2D) lattice to obtain a close- packed first monolayer (Mantooth, page 1787, left col, ln 56 through rt col, ln 1 – 8 discloses forming a SAM, shown in FIG. 2, which includes chains closely packed due to interactions to form a well-ordered overlayer structure.)
Mantooth does not expressly disclose:
spatially inverting the close-packed first monolayer to obtain a second monolayer associated with a second substrate layer; and
predicting one or more adhesion characteristics of the candidate molecular coating for use in resisting stiction between the first and second substrate layers.
Blinov however discloses:
spatially inverting the close-packed first monolayer to obtain a second monolayer associated with a second substrate layer (Blinov, page 3, lines 12 - 17 discloses molecules arranged in a friction layer and lubricating layer, and placing two friction layers in parallel, with the lubricating layer sandwiched between.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth with the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov. The motivation to do so would have been because Blinov discloses the benefit of determining difference in energies before interactions of the layers to maintain parallelism in the molecular layers after a shift of the surfaces occurs (Blinov, page 3, lines 18 - 21).
The combination of Mantooth and Blinov does not expressly disclose:
predicting one or more adhesion characteristics of the candidate molecular coating for use in resisting stiction between the first and second substrate layers.
Hsieh however discloses:
predicting one or more adhesion characteristics of the candidate molecular coating for use in resisting stiction between the first and second substrate layers (Hsieh, par [0034] - [0035] discloses SAM (self-adhesive monolayer) coating used and includes anti-stiction material, to cover pad, with only a first pad covered with an anti-stiction layer surfaces with removal of anti-stiction layer on the second pad to prevent bonding performance, and par [0048] discloses a second substrate bonded with a first substrate, with the interconnect free of anti-stiction and pads containing the anti-stiction material.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth and the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov with the anti-stiction material removed to prevent hinderance of bonding using the SAM coating teaching of Hsieh.
The motivation to do so would have been because Hsieh discloses the benefit of bonds of between the substrates along the anti-stiction layer on pads, without anti-stiction material on the interconnects, helps provide reliable MEMS products with a wafer level package process (Hsieh, par [0048]).
For claim 6: The combination of Mantooth, Blinov, and Hsieh discloses claim 6: The computational method of claim 1, wherein
the spatially inverting step includes placing the molecules of the first monolayer and the second monolayer parallel to each other (Blinov, page 3, lines 12 - 17 discloses molecules arranged in a friction layer and lubricating layer, and placing two friction layers in parallel, with the lubricating layer sandwiched between.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth and the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov with the anti-stiction material removed to prevent hinderance of bonding using the SAM coating teaching of Hsieh, and the additional teaching of the friction layers with an arrangement of molecules in parallel, also found in Blinov. The motivation to do so would have been because Blinov discloses the benefit of determining difference in energies before interactions of the layers to maintain parallelism in the molecular layers after a shift of the surfaces occurs (Blinov, page 3, lines 18 - 21).
For claim 7: The combination of Mantooth, Blinov, and Hsieh discloses claim 7: The computational method of claim 1, wherein
the spatially inverting step includes laterally shifting the first monolayer and the second monolayer with respect to each other (Blinov, page 3, lines 12 - 23 discloses a shift of one friction surface relative to another friction surface, with the friction surfaces represented by a molecular model.)
For claim 14: The combination of Mantooth, Blinov, and Hsieh discloses claim 14: The computational method of claim 1, wherein
the candidate molecular coating is a self-assembled molecular coating (Mantooth, page 1787, left col, ln 32 - 41 discloses the forming of a self-assembled monolayer (SAM), and page 1788, left col, ln 10 - 16 adds molecules in monolayers and surface coverage.)
For claim 17: The combination of Mantooth, Blinov, and Hsieh discloses claim 17: The computational method of claim 1, wherein
the linking, arranging, spatially inverting, and predicting steps are performed while relaxing or neglecting an impact from molecular disorder of the molecules (Mantooth, page 1788, left col, ln 21 - 32 discloses a disorder in overall SAM with molecules found to not be well packed, a, along with a non-ordered monolayer that mixes with ordered monolayers, resulting in a disruption of the quality and order of the film due to the lack of control of molecule placement.)
Claims 5, 12, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantooth et al. (“Fabrication, Assembly, and Characterization of Molecular Electronic Components”), in view of Blinov et al (RU 2646796 C2), in view of Hsieh et al (U.S. PG Pub 2017/0313574 A1), and further in view of Vericat et al. (“Self-Assembled Monolayers of Thiols and Dithiols on Gold: New Challenges for a Well-Known System”), hereinafter “Vericat”.
As per claim 5, the combination of Mantooth, Blinov, and Hsieh discloses claim 1.
The combination of Mantooth, Blinov, and Hsieh does not expressly disclose:
wherein the one or more adhesion characteristics includes maximum surface free energy (SFE) or adhesion pressure (MAP).
Vericat however discloses:
wherein the one or more adhesion characteristics includes maximum surface free energy (SFE) or adhesion pressure (MAP) (Vericat, page 1816, left col, ln 25 - 28 discloses lattice on metal surface stability predicted using a surface free energy (SFE) evaluation.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth, the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov, and the anti-stiction material removed to prevent hinderance of bonding using the SAM coating teaching of Hsieh with surface free energy used for surface stability between a lattice and metal teaching of Vericat. The motivation to do so would have been because Vericat discloses the benefit of a surface free energy defined that provides a more physically grounded ability to predict relative stability of lattices on metal surface than absorption energy (Vericat, page 1816, left col, ln 25 - 28).
For claim 12, the combination of Mantooth, Blinov, Hsieh, and Vericat discloses claim 12: The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more adhesion characteristics are surface free energy (SFE) and maximum adhesion pressure (MAP) (Vericat, page 1816, left col, ln 25 - 28 discloses lattice on metal surface stability predicted using a surface free energy (SFE) evaluation.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth, the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov, and the anti-stiction material removed to prevent hinderance of bonding using the SAM coating teaching of Hsieh with surface free energy used for surface stability between a lattice and metal teaching of Vericat. The motivation to do so would have been because Vericat discloses the benefit of a surface free energy defined that provides a more physically grounded ability to predict relative stability of lattices on metal surface than absorption energy (Vericat, page 1816, left col, ln 25 - 28).
For claim 13: The combination of Mantooth, Blinov, Hsieh, and Vericat discloses claim 13: The computational method of claim 12, wherein
the one or more adhesion characteristics includes SFE, and further comprising bounding an upper value of the SFE (Vericat, page 1816, left col, ln 25 - 28 discloses lattice on metal surface stability predicted using a surface free energy (SFE) evaluation.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth, the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov, and the anti-stiction material removed to prevent hinderance of bonding using the SAM coating teaching of Hsieh with surface free energy used for surface stability between a lattice and metal teaching of Vericat. The motivation to do so would have been because Vericat discloses the benefit of a surface free energy defined that provides a more physically grounded ability to predict relative stability of lattices on metal surface than absorption energy (Vericat, page 1816, left col, ln 25 - 28).
For claim 15: The combination of Mantooth, Blinov, Hsieh, and Vericat discloses claim 15: The computational method of claim 1, wherein
the linking, arranging, spatially inverting, and predicting steps are performed using density functional theory (DFT) calculations (Vericat, page 1808, left col, ln 3 - 8 and 21 - 25 discloses using DFT calculations for performing electronic structure and total energy calculations for different surfaces and materials, and verifying behavior of SAMS, including SAM structures.)
It is interpreted that the ability to use DFT for SAM structures and their behaviors, combined with the prior art of Mantooth, Blinov, and Hsieh, provides the combination of the steps performed in the independent claims with the use of DFT.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth, the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov, and the anti-stiction material removed to prevent hinderance of bonding using the SAM coating teaching of Hsieh with surface free energy used for surface stability between a lattice and metal teaching of Vericat, and the additional teaching of DFT and SAM, also found in Vericat. The motivation to do so would have been because Vericat discloses the benefit of a surface free energy defined that provides a more physically grounded ability to predict relative stability of lattices on metal surface than absorption energy (Vericat, page 1816, left col, ln 25 - 28).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantooth et al. (“Fabrication, Assembly, and Characterization of Molecular Electronic Components”), in view of Blinov et al (RU 2646796 C2), in view of Hsieh et al (U.S. PG Pub 2017/0313574 A1), and further in view of Hurst et al (“Self-Assembled Monolayer-Immobilized Gold Nanoparticles as Durable, Anti-Stiction Coatings for MEMS”), hereinafter “Hurst”.
As per claim 11, the combination of Mantooth, Blinov, and Hsieh discloses claim 1.
The combination of Mantooth, Blinov, and Hsieh does not expressly disclose:
wherein the one or more adhesion characteristics includes net energy and/or net force as a function of a distance between the first monolayer and the second monolayer.
Hurst however discloses:
wherein the one or more adhesion characteristics includes net energy and/or net force as a function of a distance between the first monolayer and the second monolayer (Hurst, page 426, right col, ln 37 42 discloses characteristic lengths considered crack length, depending on two contact surface properties and the adhesive forces between the surfaces, and page 430, right col, ln 26 - 30 adds a force as a load over a distance.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth, the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov, and the anti-stiction material removed to prevent hinderance of bonding using the SAM coating teaching of Hsieh with the force between surfaces including characteristic lengths teaching of Hurst. The motivation to do so would have been because Hurst discloses the benefit of a deposition process of nanoparticles onto SAM coated substrates for MEMS to provide an effective deposit process of coating while drying coated microstructures to avoid detrimental effects caused by a liquid-vapor interface (Hurst, page 425, left column, lines 29 - 36).
For claim 18: The combination of Mantooth, Blinov, Hsieh, and Hurst discloses claim 18: The method of claim 1,
wherein the candidate molecular coating includes organosilane molecules (Hurst, page 424, rt col, ln 42 - 45, through page 425, left col, ln 1 - 3 discloses SAMs (self-adhesive monolayer), which includes organosilane SAMs.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth, the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov, and the anti-stiction material removed to prevent hinderance of bonding using the SAM coating teaching of Hsieh with the organosilane SAMs teaching of Hurst. The motivation to do so would have been because Hurst discloses the benefit of a deposition process of nanoparticles onto SAM coated substrates for MEMS to provide an effective deposit process of coating while drying coated microstructures to avoid detrimental effects caused by a liquid-vapor interface (Hurst, page 425, left column, lines 29 - 36).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mantooth et al. (“Fabrication, Assembly, and Characterization of Molecular Electronic Components”), in view of Blinov et al (RU 2646796 C2), in view of Hsieh et al (U.S. PG Pub 2017/0313574 A1), and further in view of Tsukruk (“Molecular Lubricants and Glues for Micro- and Nanodevices”), hereinafter “Tsukruk”.
As per claim 16, the combination of Mantooth, Blinov, and Hsieh discloses claim 1.
The combination of Mantooth, Blinov, and Hsieh does not expressly disclose:
wherein the linking, arranging, spatially inverting, and predicting steps are performed on a system size of 100 atoms or less per simulation box.
Tsukruk however discloses:
wherein the linking, arranging, spatially inverting, and predicting steps are performed on a system size of 100 atoms or less per simulation box (Tsukruk, page 99, left col, ln 34 - 37 discloses SAMs, friction forces with molecular length observed for variation with the number of atoms ranging from 2 to 18, and page 100, left col, ln 2 - 4 adds a simulation using a nanotube in FIG. 5, which discloses modeling of the nanotube with a monolayer with 13 carbon atoms.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the self-assembled monolayer teaching of Mantooth, the parallel stacking of molecular layers teaching of Blinov, and the anti-stiction material removed to prevent hinderance of bonding using the SAM coating teaching of Hsieh with a simulation regarding a monolayer with a small number of atoms teaching of Tsukruk. The motivation to do so would have been because Tsukruk discloses the benefit of a type of monolayer that, when chemically tethered, is capable of significant elastic deformation, and can be restored to their shape after very intrusive micromechanical contact (Tsukruk, page 99, right col, ln 8 - 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 - 4, and 8 - 10 are dependent upon a rejected base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of Mantooth et al. (“Fabrication, Assembly, and Characterization of Molecular Electronic Components”) discloses a self-assembled monolayer, Blinov et al (RU 2646796 C2), discloses parallel stacking of molecular layers, Hsieh et al (U.S. PG Pub 2017/0313574 A1) discloses anti-stiction material removed to prevent hinderance of bonding using the SAM coating, Vericat et al. (“Self-Assembled Monolayers of Thiols and Dithiols on Gold: New Challenges for a Well-Known System”) discloses surface free energy used for surface stability between a lattice, metal, and DFT, Hurst et al (“Self-Assembled Monolayer-Immobilized Gold Nanoparticles as Durable, Anti-Stiction Coatings for MEMS”) discloses organosilane SAMs, and Tsukruk (“Molecular Lubricants and Glues for Micro- and Nanodevices”) discloses a simulation regarding a monolayer with a specified number of atoms.
However, none of the references cited, including the prior art of Mantooth, Blinov, Hsieh, Vericat, Hurst, and Tsukruk, taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record discloses:
Claim 2, wherein the arranging step includes constructing a minimal enclosing parallelogram (MEP) of atomic positions of the molecules of the candidate molecular coating projected onto a 2D plane to obtain lattice vectors of the 2D lattice.
Dependent claims 3 and 4 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claim 2, an allowable base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim 8, wherein the laterally shifting step includes maximizing a shortest interatomic distance from an atom in the first monolayer to an atom in the second monolayer.
Dependent claims 9 and 10 are allowable under 35 U.S.C. 103 for depending from claim 8, an allowable base claim under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRIC D JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7089. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 4:30am - 2:00pm, F 4:30am - 11:30am.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached at 571-270-1104. 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.
/Cedric Johnson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
August 22, 2026
Prosecution Insights