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 .
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 to 3, 5, 7 to 9, 11 to 17. 19, 20 to 24, and 26 to 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al (2017/0175258) in view of Tsakalakos et al (2004/0077156)
The Robinson et al reference teaches [in paragraphs [0024], [0042] and [0046] to [0096], claim 6, and Figure 9 a method of confined growth of a 2D material on a substrate. The process comprising the steps of providing a substrate of a first material and then depositing a mask material on the substrate. The mask is patterned and then depositing an adatom of a second material on the exposed portion of the substrate. A first binding energy between the first material and the second material is greater than a second binding energy between the mask material and the second material. Then allowing the adatom to selectively nucleate into a nucleus within each trench in the trench array; and growing the nucleus within each trench in the trench array. The lateral dimensions associated with the trench geometry limit growth of the nucleus to a single- domain monolayer of the second material. The sole difference between the instant claim and the prior art is the trench dimensions. However, the Tsakalakos et al reference teaches paragraphs [0035] to [0045] and Figure 5 (c) forming a trench array on the mask material, the trench array comprising a plurality of trenches, each trench having a trench geometry having lateral dimensions of 1, x, w, where each of / and W is picked to have a dimension of 1 to 100 nm and each trench having an exposed portion of the substrate surrounded by sidewalls formed of the mask material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Robinson et al reference by the teachings of the Tsakalakos et al to have a set trench dimension in order to insure proper nucleation only from the adatom.
Regarding Claims 2 and 21, Robinson et al teaches para0046 that the first material comprises one of hafnium oxide (HfO₂) or zinc oxide (ZnO); and, Tsakalakos et al teaches paragraphs [0035] to [0045] that the first material can be aluminum oxide (Al₂O₃).
Regarding claim 3 and 22, Robinson et al teaches para 0065 that the second material comprises one of graphene or semiconducting transition-metal dichalcogenide.
Regarding Claim 5, 23 and 24, Robinson et al teaches para 0056 that the semiconducting transition-metal dichalcogenide is one of molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), molybdenum diselenide (MoSe₂), tungsten disulfide (WS2), or tungsten diselenide (WSe₂)
Regarding Claim 7 and 26, Robinson et al teaches para 0066 that the mask material comprises amorphous carbon.
Regarding Claim 8 and 27, Robinson et al teaches para [0046] to [0096] that the nucleus is a first nucleus and the single-domain monolayer is a first single-domain monolayer, the method further comprising the steps of waiting for an incubation period and depositing another adatom of a third material on top of the first single-domain monolayer of at least one trench in the trench array. The third binding energy between the second material and the third material is greater than the second binding energy between the mask material and the third material. Then allowing the another adatom of the third material to selectively nucleate into a second nucleus on top of the first single-domain monolayer within the at least one trench in the trench array. Further, growing the nucleus within the at least one trench in the trench array; and wherein the lateral dimensions associated with the trench geometry limit growth of the second nucleus to a second single-domain monolayer of the third material, and the first single-domain monolayer and the second single-domain monolayer form a bilayer.
Regarding Claim 9 and 28, Robinson et al teaches para 0070 a third material comprises one of graphene or semiconducting transition-metal dichalcogenide.
Regarding Claim 11, Robinson et al teaches in paragraphs 0050 that the semiconducting transition-metal dichalcogenide is one of molybdenum disulfide (MoS₂), molybdenum diselenide (MoSe₂), tungsten disulfide (WS₂), or tungsten diselenide (WSe₂).
Regarding Claim 12, Robinson et al teaches that the bilayer is a heterojunction bilayer where the second material and third material are different from each other para 0067.
Regarding Claim 13, Robinson et al teaches that the bilayer is a homojunction bilayer where the second material and third material are similar to each other para 0087.
Regarding Claim 14, Tsakalakos et al teaches that forming the trench comprises etching through the mask material and partway into the substrate, para 0045
Regarding Claim 15, Tsakalakos et al teaches that the L and W are picked to have a value equal to a product of an incubation time of another nucleus of the second material on the single-domain monolayer and a growth rate of the second material, para 0044
Regarding Claim 16, Tsakalakos et al teaches that each of l and W are picked to be 1 to 100 nm para 0051.
Regarding Claim 17, Robinson et al teaches forming a semiconductor device comprising the single-domain monolayer, para 0024.
Regarding Claim 19, Tsakalakos et al teaches the method further comprises, before depositing the mask material on the substrate: depositing zinc oxide (ZnO) on silicon to form the substrate, para 0047.
Claim(s) 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al (2017/0175258) in view of Tsakalakos et al (2004/0077156) and Engle et al (11094839)
The Robinson et al and Tsakalakos et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the specific dichalcogenide. However, the Engel et al reference teaches lines 15 to 30 of column 5 that the metallic transition-metal dichalcogenide is titanium diselenide (TiSe₂). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Robinson et al reference by the teachings of the Engel et al to use a specific dichalcogenide in order to grow the desired device.
Regarding Claim 10, Engel et al teaches that the metallic transition-metal dichalcogenide is titanium diselenide (TiSe₂).
Claim(s) 6 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al (2017/0175258) in view of Tsakalakos et al (2004/0077156) Hong et al (2012/0407909) and Engel et al (11094839)
The Robinson et al, Engel et al and Tsakalakos et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the high k material. However, Hong et al teaches paragraph [0073]the high-k material is Sb₂O₃. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the Robinson et al reference by the teachings of the Hong et al reference to use a specific high k material in order to have the needed properties in the product.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Robinson et al (2017/0175258) in view of Tsakalakos et al (2004/0077156) Hong et al (2012/0407909) and Engel et al (11094839)
The Robinson et al, Engel et al, Hong et al and Tsakalakos et al references are relied on for the same reasons as stated, supra, and differ from the instant claim in the device made. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the combined references to make a specific device, FET in order to increase the use of the grown materials.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument concerning the type of deposition in the Robinson reference is noted. However, the reference is not limited in scope to one type of deposition. The reference does teach atomic layer deposition para 0085. This then does read on the monolayer definition set forth in the arguments.
Applicants’ argument concerning the further deposition materials in the Robinson reference has been considered and not deemed persuasive. The Robinson reference does teach depositing the same materials as is set forth in the instant specification. Along with the masking materials that create a trench.
Applicants’ argument concerning the Tsakalakos reference is noted. The reference is merely relied on to show that trench sizes as claimed are well within the skill of the art. The reference is not relied on to teach the process of depositing the material as claimed.
Applicants’ argument concerning the combination of reference has been considered and not deemed persuasive. The combination of references does teach the entirely claimed invention. The Robinson reference is clearly open to different trenches, type sizes ands shapes. The Tsakalakos reference teaches the stripped trench within the dimensions set forth is known in the art and reasoning for such a combination. The Robinson reference does teach nucleation from inside the trench and with the same materials, compounds as is set forth by applicants. Thus, the limitations on growth type structure and free binding energy are clearly meet by the combination of references. Further, there is no showing that there would be a difference even when depositing the same compounds.
Applicants’ argument concerning reasonable success is noted. The Robinson reference is not limited in scope to any trench size. There is no teaching in the art that states one needs a trench size outside that which is claimed. The examiner has offered in the rejection another reference which does show the claimed trench size is operable and within the skill of the art.
Applicants’ argument concerning claim 20 is noted. As shown in the rejections the examiner has point out where in the Robinso reference the additional depositing and waiting periods can be found. The reference is depositing the same materials as is set froth by applicants and thus meet the Gibbs free energy limitations.
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 ROBERT M KUNEMUND whose telephone number is (571)272-1464. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am to 4:30 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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
RMK
/ROBERT M KUNEMUND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights