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 1-13 in the reply filed on January 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claims 14-20 have been withdrawn without traverse.
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 August 15, 2023 was considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 12-13 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 12,
Claim 12 does not add any new structure to claim 1. Claim 12 is simply relabeling the first electrode to a source electrode. The same for the second electrode and third electrode. This is because the first electrode only comprises one thing a source electrode, and the source electrode is the first electrode. Therefore, claim 12 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13,
Claim 13 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1. Claim 13 simply relabels the preamble of claim 1 from a semiconductor device to an electronic device. This is not necessary to give life and meaning to the claim. As such, the change to the preamble does not carry patentable weight. Because of this claim 13 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
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) 1-3, 6-9, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al., “Graphene Via Contact Architecture for Vertical Integration of vdW Heterostructure Devices”, Small, Vol. 18, Issue 28, June 19, 2022, (“Shin”) referencing Radisavljevic et al., “Single-Layer MoS2 Transistors”, 2011, 6, 147- 150 (“Radisavljevic”).
PNG
media_image1.png
351
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Shin teaches at least in figure 3, and Examiner’s annotated figure 3 above.
a first two-dimensional (2D) material layer (A) comprising a first surface (top of A);
a second 2D material layer (B) comprising a second surface (bottom of B) facing the first surface of the first 2D material layer (top surface of A);
a first electrode (C) electrically connected between a first end region on the first surface of the first 2D material layer (C is connected to the top of A) and a first end region on the second surface of the second 2D material layer (C is connected to the bottom of B);
a second electrode (D) on a second end region on the first surface of the first 2D material layer (A);
a first gate electrode (E) and a second gate electrode (As shown in figure 3b, E functions as a first gate electrode and second gate electrode. Therefore, while a physical second gate electrode is not shown it functionally equivalent to the claimed first and second gate electrode as shown in the schematic of figure 3b) between the first 2D material layer (A) and the second 2D material layer (B),
the first gate electrode and the second gate (E) being between the first electrode (C) and the second electrode (D); and
a third electrode (F) on a second end region on the second surface of the second 2D material layer (B),
wherein a Fermi-level is pinned on an interfacial surface between the first 2D material layer and the first electrode, and the Fermi-level is depinned on an interfacial surface between the second 2D material layer and the first electrode (Per Applicant’s ¶ 0051, the fermi level may be pinned due to defects during the deposition process. It is obvious that during manufacturing of the device there will inherently be defects in deposition processes. Thus, this is obvious characteristic of forming the first electrode. Per Applicant’s ¶ 0053, the depinning is due to the formation of the second 3D material layer and the Van der Waal force holding the 2D material to the electrode. This is the same as the prior art. Shin reference 1, Radisavljevic et al., “Single-Layer MoS2 Transistors”, 2011, 6, 147- 150, where a scotch tape transfer process is used (Radisavljevic pg. 147 at col. 2. Applicant in ¶¶ 0051, and 53 state they use a transfer process. Therefore, because the process used by the prior art is the same as Applicant’s it is obvious that the material will have the same claimed characteristics.
Regarding claim 2, Shin teaches at least in figure 3, and Examiner’s annotated figure 3 above.
wherein the interfacial surface between the first 2D material layer and the first electrode comprises a contact of an n-type polarity, and the interfacial surface between the second 2D material layer and the first electrode comprises a contact of a p-type polarity (as shown in figures 2a-2b one of the transistors is n-type and the other is p-type. The above limitation is taught in at least pg 1 at col. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Shin teaches at least in figure 3, and Examiner’s annotated figure 3 above.
wherein the first 2D material layer comprises MoS2 or WS2 (A is MoS2).
Regarding claim 6, Shin teaches at least in figure 3, and Examiner’s annotated figure 3 above.
a first insulating layer (hBN between A and E) on the first 2D material layer (A); and
a second insulating layer (hBN between E and B) on the second gate electrode (top of E).
Regarding claim 7, Shin teaches at least in figure 3, and Examiner’s annotated figure 3 above.
an intermediate layer (a portion of hBN between C and B) between the first electrode (C) and the second 2D material layer (B).
Regarding claim 8, Shin teaches at least in figure 3, and Examiner’s annotated figure 3 above.
wherein the intermediate layer comprises amorphous carbon, graphene, or hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN) (see claim 7 where the intermediate layer is hBN).
Regarding claim 9, Shin does not expressly state.
Wherein a thickness of the intermediate layer is less than or equal to 1nm.
However, based upon the breath of the claimed intermediate layer it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there are a plurality of portions of hBN between B and C which could meet this claimed thickness. Based upon the scale shown in figure 2C it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of the obviousness of this claimed thickness based upon how the intermediate layer is being claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Shin teaches at least in figure 3, and Examiner’s annotated figure 3 above.
wherein the first electrode (C), the second electrode (D), and the third electrode (E) comprise an identical material (They are all the same material as taught by Shin).
Regarding claim 12, Shin teaches at least in figure 3, and Examiner’s annotated figure 3 above.
wherein the first electrode (C) comprises a source electrode (C can be labeled as a source electrode), and
the second electrode (D) and the third electrode (F) each comprise a drain electrode (D and F can be labeled as a drain electrode).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin referencing Radisavljevic, in view of Khaderbad et al. (US 2021/0305372 A1) (“Khaderbad”).
Regarding claim 4, Shin teaches at least in figure 3, and Examiner’s annotated figure 3 above.
wherein the second 2D material layer comprises MoTe2
Shin does not teach:
wherein the second 2D material layer comprises WSe2
However, Khaderbad teaches:
That WSe2 and MoTe2 are art recognized equivalent 2D material layers. Which can include p-type or n-type doping. ¶ 0033.
Based upon Khaderbad it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that they could have replaced the MoTe2 material layer disclosed as p-type in Shin, with the WSe2 layer (a p-type material), and this material could be doped to adjust its desired conductivity and bandgap.
Regarding claim 5, Shin teaches at least in figure 3, and Examiner’s annotated figure 3 above.
wherein the first 2D material layer (A) and the second 2D material layer (B) comprise MoTe2 (Shin teaches B is MoTe2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the MoS2 of A with a doped, or undoped (MoTe2 is naturally an n-type material), as Khaderbad teaches these are all functionally equivalent materials which can have their conductivity and bandgap changed. See claim 4 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not teach the structure of Applicant’s figure 3 represented by claim 10.
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