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 election of group I, claims 1-14, without traverse, is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2010/0033058), (hereinafter, Lee) in view of Castellanos-Gomez et al. ("Single-Layer MoS2 Mechanical Resonators," Advanced Materials, 25, pp 6719-6723, October 2nd, 2013), (hereinafter, Castellanos-Gomez).
RE Claims 1, 2, 4 and 5, Lee discloses method for using a MEMS-based piezoelectric microcantilever resonator array which enables to quantitatively and simultaneously analyze a mass loading effect and a surface stress change effect and a manufacturing method thereof. Examiner notes that “opto-electromechanical system” is an intended use language, which does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art, thus claimed invention is only an art recognized suitability for an intended purpose, MPEP 2144.07. Lee discloses in FIGS. 1-3 a method of using micromechanical cantilever system comprising:
generating, from a film 4 of a material “silicon nitride” and a substrate 6 “made of silicon” on which the film 4 is disposed, a suspended portion of the film 4 by removing a first portion of the substrate 6, referring to FIG. 3E that is adjacent to a first portion of the film 4 prior to the first portion of the substrate being removed, referring to FIGS. 3A-3E,
wherein the first portion of the film 4 becomes the suspended portion after removing the first portion of the substrate 6, referring to FIG. 3E, and
wherein a second portion of the film 4 is adjacent, i.e. supported by, to a second portion of the substrate 6 after removing the first portion of the substrate 6, referring to FIG. 3E. Examiner notes that the first portion suspended of the film 4 is forming a cantilever;
wherein the cantilever, made of silicon nitride [0010, 0018] extends from the second portion of the film 4, referring to FIG. 3E, and
forming a piezoelectric layer 1 “PZT” over the silicon nitride cantilever.
Lee does not disclose transferring a two-dimensional nanomaterial onto a section of the suspended portion of the film,
wherein the transferring is an all-dry process; and
generating a cantilever from the suspended portion of the film,
wherein the cantilever includes the section onto which the two-dimensional nanomaterial is transferred such that the two-dimensional nanomaterial is disposed on the cantilever.
However, in a related art, Castellanos-Gomez discloses a single layer or few layer [left-hand column on page 6722], hence meeting the limitation of Claim 5, two-dimensional molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) resonator stamped, by an all-dry transfer technique, onto pre-patterned micro-trenches using a viscoelastic stamp by mechanical exfoliation of natural MoS2 by pressing the viscoelastic substrate surface containing MoS2 flakes against the pre-patterned substrate with the help of a micromanipulator. The viscoelastic substrate is then peeled-off very slowly using the micromanipulator [left and right-columns, page 6719 and experimental section on page 6722].
Furthermore, Examiner notes that single layer two-dimensional molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) has strong piezoelectric properties.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to transfer the two-dimensional molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) nanomaterial of Castellanos-Gomez disclosure onto a section of the suspended portion of the film 4 of Lee, wherein the transferring is an all-dry process, similar to Castellanos-Gomez disclosure; and generating a cantilever from the suspended portion of the film 4 silicon nitride cantilever instead of the PZT layer 1, as a simple substitution, wherein the cantilever extends from the second portion of the film, and wherein the cantilever includes the section onto which two-dimensional molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) nanomaterial of Castellanos-Gomez disclosure is transferred such that the two-dimensional nanomaterial is disposed on the cantilever instead of the PZT layer 1, as a simple substitution of one known material element PZT layer 1 of Lee’s disclosure, i.e. for another functionally equivalent such as the two-dimensional molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) nanomaterial of Castellanos-Gomez disclosure in order to achieve nanoscale, flexible, and atomic-level precision devices.
RE Claim 7, Lee discloses method, further comprising metalizing a plurality of electrodes 3 onto the PZT “piezoelectric” material 1 prior to generating the cantilever 4, referring to FIGS. 3D-3E.
Lee does not disclose a method, with the two-dimensional nanomaterial.
However, Castellanos-Gomez discloses a single layer or few layer [left-hand column on page 6722], hence meeting the limitation of Claim 5, two-dimensional molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) resonator stamped, by an all-dry transfer technique, onto pre-patterned micro-trenches using a viscoelastic stamp by mechanical exfoliation of natural MoS2 by pressing the viscoelastic substrate surface containing MoS2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to substitute the PZT layer with the two-dimensional molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) of Castellanos-Gomez disclosure and metalizing a plurality of electrodes 3 onto the two-dimensional molybdenum disulfide (MoS2) in order to achieve nanoscale, flexible, and atomic-level precision devices.
RE Claim 8, Lee in view of Castellanos-Gomez do not disclose a method, wherein the all-dry process of transferring the two-dimensional nanomaterial onto the section of the suspended portion of the film is performed using polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) glue.
However, examiner takes an Official Notice that using polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) glue in the all-dry process of transferring the two-dimensional nanomaterial for the exfoliation process is well-known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to use the well-known method of performing the two-dimensional material layer using polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) glue in the stamping process in order to achieve the most efficient process of transferring the two-dimensional material layer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-14 are allowed.
Claims 3, 6, 9, 10, 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSER ABDELAZIEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-5783. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 6 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, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571)270-3691. 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.
/YASSER A ABDELAZIEZ, PhD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights