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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 February 26, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The preceding 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-4 and 7-9 is withdrawn in view of applicants’ claim amendments.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites that the substrate is placed exactly on top of the precursor “with a negligible distance between the substrate and the precursor.” However, the specification as filed does not appear to teach or suggest that the distance between the substrate and precursor is a “negligible distance” as claimed. Claims 2-3, 8-9, and 19-22 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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 1-3, 8-9, and 19-22 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites that the substrate is placed exactly on top of the precursor “with a negligible distance between the substrate and the precursor.” However, the term “negligible distance” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “negligible distance” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Since neither the specification nor the claim as originally filed teach or suggest how close the substrate and precursor must be in order for there to be a “negligible distance,” its recitation in claim 1 is therefore considered to be indefinite. For examination purposes a “negligible distance” is simply considered to be a “small distance” or a “small gap.” Claims 2-3, 8-9, and 19-22 are similarly rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0324515 to Harutyunyan, et al. (hereinafter “Harutyunyan”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0256998 to Yang, et al. (“Yang”) and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0104656 to Refael Gatt (“Gatt”).
Regarding claim 1, Harutyunyan teaches a method for synthesizing a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) monolayer crystal (see the Abstract, Figs. 1-11, and entire reference which teach a method for synthesizing a transition metal dichalcogenide on a substrate (17)), comprising:
mixing a molybdenum compound powder and a powder to form a precursor (see Fig. 1A, ¶¶[0032]-[0037], and ¶¶[0046]-[0051] which teach providing a precursor powder (13) comprised of a metal oxide powder and a salt powder in a second tray (16); see specifically Example 1 in ¶¶[0079]-[0081] which teach that the metal powder may be comprised of MoO2);
placing a substrate on top of the precursor (see Fig. 1A and ¶[0050] which teach placing a substrate (17) on top of the precursor powder (13));
placing the precursor and the substrate at a center position in a chemical vapour deposition (CVD) furnace (see Fig. 1A and ¶¶[0052 which teach that the substrate (17), second tray (16), and precursor (13) are placed in a heating apparatus (14));
placing a sulfur powder in the CVD furnace (see Fig. 1A, ¶¶[0032]-[0037], and ¶¶[0046]-[0051] which teach providing a precursor powder (12) comprised of a chalcogen such as sulfur within the heating apparatus (14));
heating up the CVD furnace to a growth temperature within the heat-up time (see Fig. 1A and ¶¶[0052]-[0056] as well as Example 1 in ¶¶[0079]-[0081] which teach that the heating apparatus (14) is heated to a growth temperature via heaters (18a)-(18b) and (19a)-(19b)); and
keeping the CVD furnace at the growth temperature for a growth time under a mixed gas flow of Ar (see Fig. 1A, ¶[0038], and ¶¶[0052]-[0056] as well as Example 1 in ¶¶[0079]-[0081] which teach flowing Ar gas while maintaining the furnace at a predetermined temperature in order to grow a transition metal dichalcogenide such as MoS2); and
wherein the sulfur powder is placed at an upstream position relative to the precursor along a gas-flow direction (see Fig. 1A, ¶¶[0032]-[0037], and ¶¶[0046]-[0051] which teach that the precursor powder (12) comprised of sulfur is placed in an upstream position within the heating apparatus (14)) such that the sulfur powder is subjected to a second temperature ranging from 250 to 300 °C (see Fig. 1A and ¶[0054] which each heating the sulfur powder (12) to between 100 and 300 °C) when the precursor is subjected to a first temperature ranging from 825 to 875 °C (see Fig. 1A and ¶[0054] which each heating the transition metal powder and salt to a temperature of between 700 and 900 °C); and
the substrate is placed exactly on top of the precursor with a negligible distance between the substrate and the precursor such that the TMD monolayer crystal grown on the substrate is a molybdenum disulfide monolayer crystal (See Fig. 1A and ¶[0050] which teach that the substrate (17) is placed exactly on top of the precursor powder (13) with a negligible distance therebetween; see also ¶[0033] and Example 1 in ¶¶[0079]-[0081] which teach the use of MoO2 as the transition metal powder and S powder as the chalcogen powder in order to form a MoS2 monolayer crystal with ¶[0073] further teaching that single atomic layers of MoS2 may be grown using the disclosed method).
Harutyunyan does not explicitly teach that the mixed gas flow includes H2. However, in Fig. 2, ¶[0013], and ¶[0028] as well as claims 1 and 10 Yang teaches an analogous system and method for the production of a transition metal dichalcogenide by a chemical transport process. As shown specifically in Fig. 2 and claims 1 & 10, the chalcogenide source may be transported to a substrate located within a furnace by means of a mixed carrier gas which may be comprised of hydrogen (H2) and argon. Moreover, it is well-known in the art that hydrogen itself is a reducing gas. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Yang and would recognize that the inert gas flow utilized in the method of Harutyunyan may be comprised of a mixed gas of Ar and H2 and would be motivated to include H2 in the inert gas flow to take advantage of its reducing properties. Moreover, in this case the use of both Ar and H2 would involve nothing more than the use of known materials according to their intended use as a carrier gas which supports a prima facie determination of obviousness. Use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1947). See also MPEP 2144.07.
Harutyunyan and Yang do not teach that the salt powder is a potassium carbonate (K2CO3) powder. However, in ¶[0034] Harutyunyan teaches that the term “salt” refers to an electrically neutral ionic compound and may include potassium (K) salts such as KBr or KCl. Then in at least ¶¶[0176]-[0178] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Gatt teaches an analogous method of producing a compound which involves, inter alia, mixing a metal oxide with an alkali metal salt. In ¶[0177] Gatt specifically teaches that a suitable salt that may be used to prepare the compound includes K2CO3 which is a known potassium salt. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Gatt and would be motivated to utilize a salt such as K2CO3 as the potassium salt in the method of Harutyunyan and Yang since it would involve nothing more than the use of a known salt according to its intended use. Use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1947). See also MPEP 2144.07. Moreover, the use of K2CO3 in place of KBr or KCl is a matter of design choice and would involve nothing more than the substitution of a known element for another for the same purpose. It is prima facie obvious to combine or substitute known equivalents for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06.
Harutyunyan, Yang, and Gatt do not explicitly teach that placing the substrate exactly on top of the precursor results in the MoS2 monolayer crystal grown on the substrate having a 1T' phase. However, since the method of Harutyunyan, Yang, and Gatt performs each and every step of the claimed process it must necessarily produce the same results, namely the growth of a MoS2 monolayer crystal having a 1T’ phrase. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a TMD monolayer crystal with the 1T’ phase, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).).
Regarding claim 2, Harutyunyan teaches that
the heat-up time is less than 10 minutes (see Example 1 in ¶¶[0079]-[0081] which teaches the use of a growth time of 3 minutes and that after growth the heating belt was removed which means that the heating time is less than 10 min); and
the growth time ranges from 2 to 10 minutes (see Example 1 in ¶¶[0079]-[0081] which teaches the use of a growth time of 3 minutes);
Regarding claim 3, Harutyunyan teaches that the substrate is a fluorophlogopite mica (see ¶[0037] which teaches the use of fluorophlogopite mica as the substrate (17)).
Regarding claim 8, Harutyunyan does not explicitly teach that the molybdenum compound powder is a molybdenum trioxide powder. However, in at least Figs. 1AB-C & 2 and ¶¶[0027]-[0028] Yang teaches the use of MoO3 as the transition metal-containing precursor during the growth of a transition metal dichalcogenide such as MOS2. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Yang and would recognize that MoO3 may used in place of MoO2 as the transition metal precursor powder in the method of Harutyunyan since this would involve nothing more than the substitution of a known equivalent according to its intended use. The simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is within the capabilities of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See, e.g., MPEP 2143(B).
Regarding claim 22, Harutyunyan, Yang, and Gatt do not explicitly teach that the TMD monolayer crystal exhibits clear zigzag chains with a Mo-Mo distance of 2.8 Å; wherein the TMD monolayer crystal demonstrates a typical diffraction pattern of a 1T' phase with a lower symmetrical
1
×
3
rectangular supercell compared to that of a 1T phase; and wherein the TMD monolayer crystal remains pure 1T' phase up to 350 °C. However, it is noted that the recited limitations merely appear to be materials properties of the resulting MoS2 TMD crystal that occur as a result of performing the claimed method and, as such, merely recite the intended result of the process. In this regard, the wherein clause is not given patentable weight because it simply recites the intended result of the claimed process steps. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court noted that a “whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.” See MPEP 2111.04(I). Alternatively, since the method of Harutyunyan, Yang, and Gatt performs each and every step of the claimed process it must necessarily produce the same results, namely the formation of a MoS2 TMD single crystal comprised of Mo-Mo zigzag chains with a separation of 2.8 Å and a diffraction pattern with a lower symmetrical
1
×
3
rectangular supercell which remains pure 1T’ phase up to 350 °C. It is axiomatic that one who performs the steps of the known process must necessarily produce all of its advantages. Mere recitation of a newly discovered function or property, that is inherently possessed by things in the prior art does not cause a claim drawn to these things to distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, the formation of a MoS2 TMD single crystal having the claimed properties, if not clearly envisaged, would be reasonably expected by the skilled artisan. See Leinoff v. Louis Milona & Sons, Inc. 220 USPQ 845 (CAFC 1984).
Claims 9 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harutyunyan in view of Yang and further in view of Gatt and still further in view of a publication to Clark, et al. entitled “Vapor-transport growth of high optical quality WSe2 monolayers, APL Materials,” Vol. 2, p. 101101 (2014) (“Clark”).
Regarding claim 9, Harutyunyan, Yang, and Gatt do not explicitly teach that the molybdenum compound powder is a molybdenum disulfide powder. However, in Fig. 1 and pp. 101101-1 to 101101-2 Clark teaches an analogous method of forming a transition metal dichalcogenide such as WSe2 by chemical vapor deposition in which a source powder is vaporized, transported through a furnace by an inert gas mixture, and then deposited on a SiO2 substrate. As shown specifically in Fig. 1 and associated descriptive text, the powder source has the same composition as the deposited WSe2 thin film, being comprised of WSe2 powder such that both W and Se species are evaporated upon heating and redeposited on the substrate as a transition metal dichalcogenide. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Clark and would recognize that a precursor powder comprised of MoS2 may be utilized as a source of the transition metal Mo (13) in the apparatus (14) of Harutyunyan. In this case the use of MoS2 as the precursor powder (13) would involve nothing more than the use of a known material according to its intended use or the simple substitution of a known material for another for the same purpose, which is the deposition of a monolayer of MoS2. Moreover, the addition of MoS2 as a precursor powder (13) in the method of Harutyunyan would enable additional control over the ratio of Mo and S atomic species during film growth as it directly affects the amount of Mo and S that vaporize upon heating.
Regarding claim 21, Harutyunyan teaches that the heating up of the CVD furnace to the growth temperature within the heat-up time and keeping the CVD furnace at the growth temperature for the growth time under the mixed gas flow of H2 and Ar comprising the following ordered steps:
filling up the CVD furnace with Ar gas (see ¶[0079] of Example 1 which teaches purging the quartz tube with a 500 sccm Ar gas flow);
heating up the CVD furnace to a first temperature within a first heat-up time (see ¶[0079] of Example 1 which teaches that the furnace was heated to 770 °C at a ramping rate of 40 °C/min);
keeping the CVD furnace at the first temperature for a first-temperature keeping time under a gas flow of Ar (as the temperature is heated to 770 °C under the Ar gas flow it is necessarily maintained at a first temperature such as 500 °C for a predetermined time during the heat-up process);
heating up the CVD furnace to the growth temperature within a second heat-up time (as the temperature is heated from 500 °C to the growth temperature of 770 °C this necessarily occurs during a second heat-up time);
keeping the CVD furnace at the growth temperature for the growth time under the mixed gas flow of H2 and Ar (see ¶[0079] of Example 1 which teaches that the reaction was conducted at 770 °C for three minutes under an 80 sccm flow of Ar gas).
Harutyunyan, Yang, and Gatt do not teach that growth is performed under a mixed gas flow of H2 and Ar, wherein the mixed gas flow of H2 and Ar having a volumetric flow rate ratio of H2/Ar ranging from 1/5 to 2/3. However, as noted supra with respect to the rejection of claim 9, in Fig. 1 and pp. 101101-1 to 101101-2 Clark teaches an analogous method of forming a transition metal dichalcogenide such as WSe2 by chemical vapor deposition in which a source powder is vaporized, transported through a furnace by an inert gas mixture, and then deposited on a SiO2 substrate. In the third paragraph at p. 101101-2 Clark specifically teaches the use of a carrier gas comprised of a flow of 80 sccm of Ar and 25 sccm of H2 for a H2/Ar ratio of 1:3.2 which falls within the claimed range. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Clark and would recognize that the inert gas flow utilized in the method of Harutyunyan may be comprised of a mixed gas of Ar and H2 in a H2/Ar ratio in the overlapping range of 1:3.2 and would be motivated to include H2 in the inert gas flow in this ratio to take advantage of its reducing properties and to efficiently transport the desired precursor materials within the furnace. Moreover, in this case the use of both Ar and H2 would involve nothing more than the use of known materials according to their intended use as a carrier gas which supports a prima facie determination of obviousness.
Claim 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harutyunyan in view of Yang and further in view of Gatt and still further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2018/0057359 to Rajen Patel (“Patel”).
Regarding claim 19, Harutyunyan, Yang, and Gatt do not teach that the mixing of the molybdenum compound powder and the K2CO3 powder to form the precursor comprises grounding the molybdenum compound powder and the K2CO3 powder in an agate mortar for a grounding time. However, in Fig. 2 and ¶¶[0046]-[0052] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Patel teaches an analogous method of preparing a powdered source material comprised of multiple different precursors for a subsequent CVD reaction. In ¶[0048] Patel specifically teaches that the precursors are mixed and reduced in particle size by grinding using an agate mortar for a predetermined period of time. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would use an agate mortar to mix the molybdenum compound powder and K2CO3 powder utilized in the method of Harutyunyan, Yang, and Gatt for a predetermined time with the motivation for doing so being to produce a uniform powdered mixture having the desired particle size. Moreover, the use of an agate mortar as per the teachings of Patel to grind the powdered precursors in the method of Harutyunyan, Yang, and Gatt would involve nothing more than the use of a known device or method according to its intended use which supports a prima facie showing of obviousness.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harutyunyan in view of Yang and further in view of Gatt and still further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0330735 to Modtland, et al. (“Modtland”).
Regarding claim 20, Harutyunyan teaches that placement of the substrate on top of the precursor comprises: transferring the precursor to a crucible; and covering the precursor in the crucible with the substrate (see Fig. 1A, ¶¶[0032]-[0037], and ¶¶[0046]-[0051] which teach providing a precursor powder (13) in a crucible (16) and placing a substrate (17) on top of the precursor powder (13)), but does not explicitly teach that the crucible is a quartz crucible. However, in Fig. 1 and ¶¶[0031]-[0041] as well as elsewhere throughout the entire reference Modtland teaches an analogous system and method of growing a transition metal dichalcogenide using a source material comprised of WS2 powder mixed with a salt such as NaCl. In ¶[0034] Modtland specifically teaches that the WS2 powder and NaCl salt are contained within a quartz crucible (12) which is contained within a furnace tube (14). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Modtland and would recognize that the crucible utilized in the method of Harutyunyan, Yang ,and Gatt may be constructed from quartz instead of alumina as this would involve nothing more than the use of a known equivalent for the same purpose or, alternatively, the use of a known material suitable for its intended use. It is prima facie obvious to combine or substitute known equivalents for the same purpose. See MPEP 2144.06. Use of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use has been held to support a prima facie determination of obviousness. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1947). See also MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed February 26, 2026, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection set forth in this Office Action.
Applicants argue that the cited references do not teach or suggest positioning the substrate exactly on top of the precursor with a negligible distance between the substrate and precursor as this is critical to create a thermal and chemical gradient between the sulfur powder and the precursor for stabilizing the metastable 1T’ phase during crystal growth. See applicants’ 2/26/2026 reply, p. 6. Applicants’ argument is noted, but is unpersuasive. First, it is pointed out that it is unclear as to what is meant by a “negligible distance” as claimed. How close does the substrate have to be to the precursor in order for there to be a “negligible distance” therebetween? Second, in Fig. 1A and ¶[0050] of Harutyunyan the substrate (17) is shown as being disposed directly above and in close proximity to the precursor powder (13). The substrate (17) in Fig. 1A is close enough to the precursor powder (13) that there may be considered as being a “negligible distance” therebetween.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH A BRATLAND JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1604. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday, 7:30 am to 4:30 pm EST.
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.
/KENNETH A BRATLAND JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714