Notice of 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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12-13 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.
Claim 12 and claim 13 states: said materials are selected such that when said polarization is at one state; it is unclear whether Applicant is referring to one of the materials of the two-dimensional ferroelectric material and two-dimensional semiconductor material or both or a different material not previously disclosed.
For purpose of examination, claim 12 and claim 13 will be treated as referring to the “two-dimensional ferroelectric material and two-dimensional semiconductor material”.
Proper correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0151446 A1) and Jo et al. (US 2019/0378946 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1: Lee teaches (e.g., Fig. 4D and Fig. 5) a heterostructure system, comprising:
a substrate ([0075]: 401);
a two-dimensional ferroelectric material ([0075]: 405) on said substrate;
a semiconductor material ([0075]: 407) having a first region disposed on said ferroelectric material (405) and a second region (Annotated Fig. 4D) disposed on said substrate,
wherein an edge of said ferroelectric material (Annotated Fig. 4D; ferroelectric material 405) is between said first region and said second region (Annotated Fig. 4D; first region and said second region of semiconductor material 407); and
a polarization actuation mechanism ([0075]: 409 is an electrode and thus serves as a polarization actuation mechanism; [0072], [0084]-[0086]) configured to actuate non-volatile polarization at said edge ([0074]-[0075]: 409 is capable of polarization actuation; [0044], [0072] and [0084]-[0086]).
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee does not expressly teach
a dielectric substrate and a two-dimensional semiconductor material.
Jo teaches (e.g., Fig. 1C) a heterostructure system, comprising a dielectric substrate ([0080]) and a two-dimensional semiconductor material ([0084]: “2D semiconducting material”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the device of Lee, the dielectric substrate and a two-dimensional semiconductor material, as taught by Jo, for the benefits or reducing device breakage by introducing a substrate with some flexibility to absorb stress and providing an efficient switching mechanism (Jo: [0005]).
Regarding claim 2: Lee and Jo teach the claim limitation of the system of claim 1, on which this claim depends,
wherein said polarization actuation mechanism is configured to electrically actuate said non-volatile polarization (Lee: [0052], [0072], [0075] and [0084]-[0086]: 409 is capable of electrically actuate said non-volatile polarization).
Regarding claim 3: Lee and Jo teach the claim limitation of the system of claim 2, on which this claim depends,
wherein said polarization actuation mechanism comprises at least one mechanism selected from the group consisting of a top gate electrode, a back gate electrode, and a pair of source and drain electrodes connected to said semiconducting material (Lee: [0074]-[0075]: 409 is a top gate).
Regarding claim 4: Lee and Jo teach the claim limitation of the system of claim 1, on which this claim depends,
wherein said polarization actuation mechanism is configured to optically actuate said non-volatile polarization (Lee: [0052], [0072], [0075] and [0084]-[0086]; in a device structure, when the claimed elements are taught, the functions are assumed to be inherent; therefore, the claimed limitation requirement is met).
Applicant is reminded that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 5: Lee and Jo teach the claim limitation of the system of claim 1, on which this claim depends,
wherein said semiconductor material comprises a transition metal dichalcogenide (Jo: [0011]: Mo.S2).
Regarding claim 6: Lee and Jo teach the claim limitation of the system of claim 5, on which this claim depends,
wherein said transition metal dichalcogenide is selected from the group consisting of MoS2, WSe2, WS2, MoSe2, TiS2, TiSe2, TiTe2, VS2, VSe2, VTe2, CrS2, CoTe2, NiTe2, ZrS2, ZrSe2, YSe2, NbS2, NbSe2, NbTe2, TcS2, TcSe2, TcTe2, PdS2, PdSe2, PdTe2, LaSe2, HfS2, HfSe2, HfTe2, TaS2, TaSe2, TaTe2, WS2, WSe2, WTe2, ReS2, ReSe2, IrTe2, PtS2, PtSe2, PtTe2 and AuTe2 (Jo: [0011]: Mo.S2).
Regarding claim 11: Lee and Jo teach the system of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
wherein said polarization actuation mechanism (Lee: [0072], [0075] and [0084]-[0086]: 409) is configured to invert an in-plane or/and an out-of-plane polarization of said ferroelectric material and to modulate the charge concentration at the semiconductor material at said edge (Lee: [0072], [0075], [0084]-[0086]: polarization actuation mechanism 409 is capable of inverting an in-plane or/and an out-of-plane polarization of said ferroelectric material and to modulate the charge concentration at the semiconductor material at said edge).
Applicant is reminded that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 12: Lee and Jo teach the system of claim 11, on which this claim depends,
Lee as modified by Jo teaches that said “two-dimensional ferroelectric material and two-dimensional semiconductor material” are selected such that when said polarization is at one state, said first region has doped properties and when said polarization is at an opposite state, said first region has intrinsic properties (Lee: [0072], [0075], [0084]-[0086]; Jo: [0080]).
It is noted that the claimed limitation is referring to the state and properties of polarization of the first region and the two-dimensional semiconductor material on the two-dimensional ferroelectric material; which is linked to the functions of the system).
Applicant is reminded that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 13: Lee and Jo teach the system of claim 11, on which this claim depends,
wherein said “two-dimensional ferroelectric material and two-dimensional semiconductor material” are selected such that when said polarization is at one state, said first region has doped properties of a first polarity and when said polarization is at an opposite state, said first region has doped properties of a second polarity opposite to said first polarity (Lee: [0072], [0075] and [0084]-[0086]; Jo: [0080]).
it is noted that the claimed limitation is referring to the state and properties of polarization of the first region and the two-dimensional semiconductor material on the two-dimensional ferroelectric material; which is linked to the functions of the system.
Applicant is reminded that when the structure recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, the claimed properties or functions are presumed inherent. MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 14: Lee and Jo teach the system of claim 1, on which this claim depends,
Lee as modified by Jo teaches that the system of claim 1 being a component in a device selected from the group consisting of a field effect transistor, a transducer, a sensor, a non-volatile memory, a neuromorphic device, and an energy harvesting device (Lee: [0107]: a non-volatile memory).
Regarding claim 15: Lee and Jo teach the system of claim 14, on which this claim depends,
Lee as modified by Jo teaches that said transducer is an optical transducer (Jo: [0010] and [0066]).
Regarding claim 16: Lee and Jo teach the system of claim 14, on which this claim depends,
Lee as modified by Jo teaches that said sensor is a photo-sensor (Jo: [0010] and [0066]).
Regarding claim 17: Lee and Jo teach the in-memory computing device, comprising the system of claim 1 (Lee: [0052]-[0053] and [0074]-[0075]).
Regarding independent claim 18: Lee teaches (e.g., Fig. 4D and Fig. 5) a method of fabricating a heterostructure system, comprising:
applying a two-dimensional ferroelectric material ([0075]: 405) onto a substrate ([0075]: 401); and
applying a semiconductor material ([0075]: 407) over said substrate and said ferroelectric material (405) in a manner that
a first region of said semiconductor material is disposed on said ferroelectric material (Annotated Fig. 4D) and
a second region of said semiconductor material is disposed on said substrate (Annotated Fig. 4D),
wherein an edge of said ferroelectric material is between said first region and said second region of said semiconductor material (Annotated Fig. 4D).
PNG
media_image1.png
850
1240
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee does not expressly teach
a dielectric substrate and a two-dimensional semiconductor material.
Jo teaches (e.g., Fig. 1C) a method of fabricating a heterostructure system, comprising: forming a dielectric substrate ([0080]) and a two-dimensional semiconductor material ([0084]: “2D semiconducting material”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the method of Lee, the method of forming the dielectric substrate and a two-dimensional semiconductor material, as taught by Jo, for the benefits or reducing device breakage by introducing a substrate with some flexibility to absorb stress and providing an efficient switching mechanism (Jo: [0005]).
Regarding claim 19: Lee and Jo teaches the method of claim 18, on which this claim depends,
comprising forming a polarization actuation mechanism ([0075]: 409 is an electrode and thus serves as a polarization actuation mechanism; [0072], [0084]-[0086]) contacting at least one of said semiconductor material and said dielectric substrate ([0075]: semiconductor material 407) to allow electrically actuation of non-volatile polarization at said edge ([0044], [0072] and [0084]-[0086]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0151446 A1) and Jo et al. (US 2019/0378946 A1) as applied above and further in view of Rabkin et al. (US 2020/0203381 A1).
Regarding claim 7: Lee and Jo teach the claim limitation of the system of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
Lee as modified by Jo does not expressly teach that said ferroelectric material is selected from the group consisting of In2Se3, CuInP2S6, CuInP2Se6, CuCrP2S6, and CuCrP2Se6.
Rabkin teaches (e.g., Figs. 1-43) a heterostructure system, comprising a ferroelectric material ([0008], [0226]);
Rabkin further teaches that said ferroelectric material is selected from the group consisting of In2Se3, CuInP2S6, CuInP2Se6, CuCrP2S6, and CuCrP2Se6 ([0226]: CuInP2Se6).
Note that CuInP2Se6 is art recognized as a suitable ferroelectric material.
Applicant is reminded that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.
"Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.).
See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Claimed agricultural bagging machine, which differed from a prior art machine only in that the brake means were hydraulically operated rather than mechanically operated, was held to be obvious over the prior art machine in view of references which disclosed hydraulic brakes for performing the same function, albeit in a different environment). MPEP 2144.07: Art Recognized Suitability for an Intended Purpose.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the device of Lee as modified by Jo, the device including selecting CuInP2Se6 as a material known for its suitability and with the motivation that there will be a greater predictability and higher possibility of success for the functioning of the manufactured device.
Regarding claim 8: Lee and Jo teach the claim limitation of the system of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
Lee as modified by Jo does not expressly teach that said ferroelectric material and said semiconductor material are attached to each other by van der Waals forces.
Rabkin teaches (e.g., Figs. 1-43) a heterostructure system, comprising a ferroelectric material ([0008], [0080], [0104]-[0106]) and two-dimensional semiconductor layer ([0084]-[0086], [0097]-[0098]: 40);
Rabkin further teaches that the ferroelectric material ([0008], [0080], [0104]-[0106]) and said semiconductor material ([0084]-[0086], [0097]-[0098]: 40) are attached to each other by Van der Waals forces ([0006]-[0007] and [0224]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the system of Lee as modified by Jo, the device, wherein the ferroelectric material and said semiconductor material are attached to each other by Van der Waals forces, as taught by Rabkin, because Van der Waals forces are intermolecular attraction and interaction forces that arise naturally when certain layers are stacked together; this creates an adhesion between the layers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2021/0151446 A1) and Jo et al. (US 2019/0378946 A1) as applied above and further in view of Shin et al. (US 2015/0333196 A1).
Regarding claim 9: Lee and Jo teach the system of claim 1, on which this claim depends.
Lee as modified by Jo does not expressly teach that the system further comprises a polarization screening layer between said ferroelectric material and said semiconductor material.
Shin teaches (e.g., Fig. 2) a system comprising a polarization screening layer (E20; see [0070]: graphene layer functions as a polarization screening layer) between a ferroelectric material (F10, see [0071]) and a semiconductor material (A10, see [0070]-[0071]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to include in the system of Lee as modified by Jo, the system further comprising a polarization screening layer between said ferroelectric material and said semiconductor material, as taught by Shin, for the benefits of enhancing phase stability; by effectively screening polarization bound charges at surfaces, the phase stability of ferroelectric materials is improved and improving polarization retention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 20 are 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:
Regarding claim 10: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features, a heterostructure system, comprising:
“said polarization screening layer is between said ferroelectric material and said semiconductor material but not between said semiconductor material and said dielectric substrate”.
Regarding claim 20: the cited prior art of record, either singly or in proper combination, does not teach or make obvious, along with the other claimed features a method of fabricating a heterostructure system, comprising:
“applying a polarization screening layer on said ferroelectric material prior to said application of said semiconductor material, wherein said semiconductor material is applied to said polarization screening layer”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2606. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 08:30 AM-5:30 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, DAVIENNE MONBLEAU can be reached at 571-272-1945. 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.
/HERVE-LOUIS Y ASSOUMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2812