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 Species A, represented by figures 1, 5A-6, and claims 1-7 and 10-18 in the reply filed on December 19, 2025 is acknowledged.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 16, 2024, and March 12, 2024 were considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 14-18 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.
Regarding claim 14,
The term “partially depositing” is indefinite. What does it mean to “partially depositing metallic nanoparticles on the two-dimensional material layer”? Does it mean that there is a tube of nanoparticles and some of them are deposited; does it mean that only half of a nano particle is deposited; does it mean that nanoparticles are deposited on half of the two-dimensional material; or does it mean that the metallic nanoparticles do not fully cover the two-dimensional material layer? Thus, the term “partially depositing” is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim term are not defined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 fails to further limit the structure of claim 1. Claim 13 states in full…
An electronic device comprising: the semiconductor device of claim 1.
There is no new/additional structural elements in claim 13. Thus, it appears Applicant is simply relabeling claim 1 as an electronic device. This adds no patentable weight to the claim. Therefore, claim 13 fails to further limit the subject matter from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 114695575 A (“Xu”), in view of KIM KWANPYO ET AL, "Selective metal deposition at graphene line defects by atomic layer deposition", NATURE COMMUNICATIONS, vol. 5, no.1, (2014-12-17), XP093107713 (“Kim”).
Regarding claims 1, and 13-14, Xu teaches at least in figures 2-3:
a two-dimensional material layer (2) including a two-dimensional semiconductor material (pg. 3 ¶ 10);
metallic nanoparticles (6) partially on the two-dimensional material layer (2);
a source electrode (1) and a drain electrode (5) respectively on both sides of the two-dimensional material layer (2); and
a gate insulating layer (4) and a gate electrode (7) on the two-dimensional material layer (2) between the source electrode (1) and the drain electrode (5).
Xu does not teach:
a two-dimensional material layer having a polycrystalline structure.
This is because Xu incorporates an already formed two-dimensional material layer.
Kim teaches:
That when one forms a two-dimensional layer one wants it to be polycrystalline. Pg. 2, at ¶¶ 2-3. This is because monocrystalline two-dimensional material is chemically inert. With the introduction of grain boundaries, i.e. polycrystalline, and the use of metallic nanoparticles one can boost the electrical conduction of the two-dimensional material, and if one of ordinary skill in the art desires to use the device in optical situations one can maintain a high transmittance to optical light frequencies. Pg. 5 at ¶ 3. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the two-dimensional material layer of Xu to be a polycrystalline material layer, and have the metallic nanoparticles along grain boundaries.
Regarding claims 2, and 15, the prior art teaches:
wherein the metallic nanoparticles (Xu 6) are on at least one of a defect of the two-dimensional semiconductor material and a grain boundary of the two-dimensional semiconductor material (This is taught in Kim as discussed in claim 1 above).
Regarding claims 3, the prior art teaches:
wherein the two- dimensional semiconductor material comprises a material having a bandgap of 0.1 eV or more and 3.0 eV or less (the prior art is made of the same material disclosed by Applicant in ¶ 0070 of the specification. Therefore, it would be obvious that it would have this same material property.).
Regarding claims 4, Xu teaches at least in figures 2-3:
wherein the two- dimensional semiconductor material (8) comprises a transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD) or black phosphorous (pg 3 at ¶ 10).
Regarding claims 5, and 16, the prior art teaches:
wherein the two-dimensional material layer (8) comprises a first region (A) and a second region (B) (A and B are described below),
the gate electrode (7) is on the first region (A) of the two-dimensional material layer (8),
the source electrode (1) and the drain electrode (5) are on the second region (B) of the two-dimensional material layer (8).
Regarding claims 6-7, and 17-18, the prior art teaches:
These claims state the metallic particles in the first region and second region can be substantially uniform, or the metallic particles can have a higher density in the second region than first region.
How many metallic particles to put in the different regions of the two-dimensional material layer is design consideration that one of ordinary skill in the art would optimize based upon the their design requirements for the device. This is because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to engineer the two-dimensional material layer for the electrical and/or physical characteristics desired in their specific application. If one desires the source and drain to have a lower contact, or sheet, resistance one would adjust the metallic particles in that region. Conversely, if one wanted a section of the two-dimensional material layer to have less resistance one could also adjust the metallic particles in that region. Kim pg. 5 at col. 2. Thus, one can selectively change the conductivity of the two-dimensional material layer based upon the number of metallic particles in their respective region. Thus, these limitations would have been obvious as a matter of optimizing the electrical and/or optical characteristics of the two-dimensional material layer as described by Kim.
Regarding claims 10, Xu teaches at least in figures 2-3:
wherein the metallic nanoparticles (6) comprise Ru, RuO, Mo, W, Co, TiN, Ti, or Al (pg. 3 at ¶ 11).
Regarding claims 11, the prior art teaches
wherein the metallic nanoparticles comprise a material having a work function greater than a work function of the two-dimensional semiconductor material (the work function is a property of a material. The prior art teaches the same material as Applicant for the two-dimensional semiconductor material, and for the metallic nanoparticles. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that at least one of the resulting combinations of the material of the prior art would obviously have this claimed property limitation.).
Regarding claims 12, the prior art teaches
wherein the metallic nanoparticles comprise a material having a work function less than a work function of the two-dimensional semiconductor material (this claim is obvious for the same reason as claim 11 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898