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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 12-20, in the reply filed on 12 June 2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 June 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The recitation of “metal nanoparticles comprising metallic N” is disclosed as metals for the nanoparticles (Specification Paragraphs 23-26) and is not considered to recite the element nitrogen.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zeng et al. (CN 109273543 – machine translation).
Considering claim 1, Zeng teaches optoelectronic devices comprising nanoparticles coated on a chalcogenide film (abstract). An example is taught of a silicon substrate (i.e. a base material) coated with a layer of 2H-WS2 (a thin film transition metal dichalcogenide) (Paragraphs 62-63) and then a layer of Au nanoparticles (Paragraph 70). While not expressly taught as “A semiconductor material” this is considered to be met by Zeng as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claim 2, Zeng teaches where the diameter of the nanoparticles is 10-20 nm (Paragraph 18). See MPEP 2131.03.
Considering claim 3, Zeng does not expressly teach the claimed work function being larger than the band gap transition. However, Zeng teaches a substantially identical material as that which is claimed and disclosed and is therefore considered to meet the instant limitation as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.0.1.
Considering claims 5 and 14-15, Zeng teaches where the chalcogen element is sulfur (Paragraphs 24 and 63).
Considering claims 6, 17-18, and 20, Zeng teaches where the metal of the nanoparticles is gold (Paragraph 70) (i.e. a precious metal).
Considering claim 8, Zeng teaches where the substrate is silicon (Paragraph 262).
Considering claim 9, Zeng teaches where the device is a photodetector (Paragraph 25).
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 1-8 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleming et al. (US 2015/0321147).
Considering claim 1, Fleming teaches structures combining a sheet of perforated two-dimensional material and a plurality of spacer elements (abstract). The structure may include a substrate of ceramic, etc. (i.e. a base material) (Paragraph 18) with the two-dimensional sheet thereon and a further layer of spacer elements (Paragraph 68; Fig.2E). The two-dimensional sheet may be a transition metal dichalcogenide of chalcogens of S, Se, Te, or O (Paragraph 10) (e.g. MX2). The spacer elements may be metal nanoparticles of Au, Pt, etc. (Paragraph 15).
While not expressly teaching a singular example of the claimed semiconductor material this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date in view of the teachings of Fleming as this is considered a combination of conventionally known two-dimensional materials and spacer elements and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success. While not expressly taught as “A semiconductor material” this is considered to be met by Fleming as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.01.
Considering claim 2, Fleming teaches where the diameter of the spacer elements is 0.5-200 nm (Paragraph 12) overlapping that which is claimed and the courts have held that where claimed ranges overlap or lie inside of those disclosed in the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 3, Fleming does not expressly teach the claimed work function being larger than the band gap transition. However, Fleming teaches a substantially identical material as that which is claimed and disclosed and is therefore considered to meet the instant limitation as a material and its properties are inseparable, absent an objective showing. See MPEP 2112.0.1.
Considering claims 4 and 12-13, Fleming teaches where the dichalcogenide may be a transition metal (Paragraph 10) encompassing the claimed Pt and Pd materials.
Considering claims 5 and 14-16, Fleming teaches where the chalcogen element may be S, Se, or Te (Paragraph 10).
Considering claims 6 and 17-20, Fleming teaches where the spacer elements may be metal nanoparticles of Au, Pt, etc. (Paragraph 15).
Considering claim 7, Fleming teaches where the spacer elements cover approximately 1-30% of the adjacent surface (Paragraph 13). See MPEP 2144.05.
Considering claim 8, Fleming teaches where the substrate may be ceramic, etc. (Paragraph 18).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ahn et al. (WO 2013-141651) teaches a chalcogenide layer and a nanoparticle texture layer. Cho et al. (US 2015/0243402) teaches a nanoparticle multilayer film comprising metal-chalcogenide compounds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SETH DUMBRIS whose telephone number is (571)272-5105. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 AM - 3:30 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at 571-272-0604. 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.
SETH DUMBRIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1784
/SETH DUMBRIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights