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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 03/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons:
Applicant arguments: Applicants respectfully submit that Mao fails to teach a single nanotube containing both boron and nitrogen atoms integrated into the lattice (a BCN-S WNT) and wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises carbon, boron and nitrogen atoms in sp2 hybridization”. The Examiner disagrees.
In response: Mao discloses “Carbon nanotubes can be classified into metallic and semiconducting types based on different electronic properties. As used herein, the term “carbon nanotubes” in the context of the present disclosure refers to semiconducting carbon nanotubes. Optionally, the carbon nanotubes may be any of a number of cylindrically-shaped allotropes of carbon of the fullerene family including single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs), double-walled carbon nanotubes (DWNTs), multi-walled carbon nanotubes (MWNTs)”, Para [ 0030]. In addition, Para [ 0035] discloses “carbon nanotubes material is a single-walled carbon nanotubes material. Optionally, the carbon nanotubes material is a double-walled carbon nanotubes material. Optionally, the carbon nanotubes material is a multi-walled carbon nanotubes material. Optionally, the carbon nanotubes material is a heteroatom-doped carbon nanotubes material. Examples of heteroatom-doped carbon nanotubes materials include, but are not limited to, a boron-doped carbon nanotubes material, a nitrogen-doped carbon nanotubes material, an oxygen-doped carbon nanotubes material, a hydrogen-doped carbon nanotubes material, and any combination thereof”. Based on the combination, single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) can have carbon, boron and nitrogen atoms in sp2 hybridization.
Applicant arguments: Applicants respectfully submit that Mao fails to teach sp2 Hybridization of a Ternary System.
In response: sp2 Hybridization of a Ternary System does not recites in the rejected claims.
Thus, the well-made rejection included in the 01/28/2026 Non-Final Office Action is proper and hereby made FINAL.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mao et al (US 2018/0309074 A1; hereafter Mao).
PNG
media_image1.png
411
749
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding 8. Mao discloses a semiconductor device (Fig 1) manufacturing method comprising:
forming a gate electrode (Fig 1, gate electrode G, Para [ 0045]) in a substrate (base substrate BS, Para [ 0031]);
forming a gate dielectric layer (Fig 1, gate insulating layer GI, Para [ 0045]) over the gate electrode (gate electrode G, Para [ 0045]);
forming at least one boron-carbon-nitrogen single-walled nanotube (BCN-SWNT) (Fig 1, polymer carbon nanotubes, active layer AL, Para [ 0030-0032, 0035]) on the gate dielectric layer (Fig 1, gate insulating layer GI, Para [ 0045]), wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises carbon, boron and nitrogen atoms in sp2 hybridization (Para [ 0030-0032, 0035]); and
forming at least two source/drain regions (Fig 1, SCR/DCR region, Para [ 0031]) in contact with the BCN-SWNT (Fig 1, polymer carbon nanotubes, active layer AL, Para [ 0030-0032, 0035]).
Claim Rejection- 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.
Claims 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al (US 2018/0309074 A1; hereafter Mao) in view of Bowland et al (US 2019/0256672 A1; hereafter Bowland).
Regarding 9. Mao discloses the method of claim 8, But, Mao does not disclose explicitly wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises less than 10 wt% boron and nitrogen atoms.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bowland discloses wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises less than 10 wt% boron and nitrogen atoms ( Para [0014] discloses “carbon fiber is made predominantly (e.g., at least 90, 95, 98, 99 or 100%/o) of elemental carbon, but minor amounts of some non-carbon species (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, boron, or silicon) may be present, generally in amounts up to or less than 10, 5, 2, or 1 wt %.Thus, canbon nanotube can have less 10 wt% boron and nitrogen atoms).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Mao in light of Bowland teaching “wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises less than 10 wt% boron and nitrogen atoms ( Para [0014] discloses “carbon fiber is made predominantly (e.g., at least 90, 95, 98, 99 or 100%/o) of elemental carbon, but minor amounts of some non-carbon species (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, boron, or silicon) may be present, generally in amounts up to or less than 10, 5, 2, or 1 wt %.Thus, canbon nanotube can have less 10 wt% boron and nitrogen atoms)” for further advantage such as to control the stability of nanotubes and improve device performance. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding 12. Mao discloses the method of claim 8, But, Mao does not disclose explicitly wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises 3 wt% to 5 wt% boron atoms and 3 wt% to 5 wt% nitrogen atoms.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bowland discloses wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises 3 wt% to 5 wt% boron atoms and 3 wt% to 5 wt% nitrogen atoms ( Para [0014] discloses “carbon fiber is made predominantly (e.g., at least 90, 95, 98, 99 or 100%/o) of elemental carbon, but minor amounts of some non-carbon species (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, boron, or silicon) may be present, generally in amounts up to or less than 10, 5, 2, or 1 wt %.Thus, canbon nanotube can have 3 wt% to 5 wt% boron atoms and 3 wt% to 5 wt% nitrogen atoms). Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Mao in light of Bowland teaching “wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises 3 wt% to 5 wt% boron atoms and 3 wt% to 5 wt% nitrogen atoms ( Para [0014] discloses “carbon fiber is made predominantly (e.g., at least 90, 95, 98, 99 or 100%/o) of elemental carbon, but minor amounts of some non-carbon species (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, boron, or silicon) may be present, generally in amounts up to or less than 10, 5, 2, or 1 wt %.Thus, canbon nanotube can have 3 wt% to 5 wt% boron atoms and 3 wt% to 5 wt% nitrogen atoms)” for further advantage such as to control the stability of nanotubes and improve device performance.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al (US 2018/0309074 A1; hereafter Mao) in view of Hayashibara et al (US 2010/0258724 A1; hereafter Hayashibara).
Regarding 10. Mao discloses the method of claim 8, But, Mao does not disclose explicitly wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises 3 wt% to 5 wt% boron atoms.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hayashibara discloses wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises 3 wt% to 5 wt% boron atoms (claim 4). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). >See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Mao in light of Hayashibara teaching “wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises 3 wt% to 5 wt% boron atoms (claim 4)” for further advantage such as to control the stability of nanotubes and improve device performance.
Regarding 11. Mao discloses the method of claim 8, But, Mao does not disclose explicitly wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises 3 wt% to 5 wt% nitrogen atoms.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hayashibara discloses wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises 3 wt% to 5 wt% nitrogen atoms (claim 4). 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). >See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Mao in light of Hayashibara teaching “Wherein the BCN-SWNT comprises 3 wt% to 5 wt% nitrogen atoms (claim 4)” for further advantage such as to control the stability of nanotubes and improve device performance.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al (US 2018/0309074 A1; hereafter Mao) in view of Copel et al (US 2018/0198071 A1; hereafter Copel).
Regarding 14. Mao discloses the method of claim 8, But, Mao does not disclose explicitly wherein the gate dielectric layer comprises hafnium dioxide.
In a similar field of endeavor, Copel discloses wherein the gate dielectric layer comprises hafnium dioxide (Para [ 0031, 0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Mao in light of Copel teaching “wherein the gate dielectric layer comprises hafnium dioxide (Para [ 0031, 0035])” for further advantage such as reliable formation of carbon nanotubes semiconductor device.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al (US 2018/0309074 A1; hereafter Mao) in view of Hashim et al (US 2012/0238021 A1; hereafter Hashim).
Regarding 15. Mao discloses the method of claim 8, But, Mao does not disclose explicitly wherein the BCN-SWNT is synthesized by chemical vapor deposition or laser ablation.
In a similar field of endeavor, Hashim discloses wherein the BCN-SWNT is synthesized by chemical vapor deposition or laser ablation (Para [ 0014, 0123]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Mao in light of Hashim teaching “wherein the BCN-SWNT is synthesized by chemical vapor deposition or laser ablation (Para [ 0014, 0123])” for further advantage such as reliable synthesizing carbon nanotube materials.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MOIN M RAHMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5002. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00pm.
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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at 571-272-1864. 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.
/MOIN M RAHMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898