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 with traverse of Group (claims 1, 2, and 4) in the reply filed on 02/02/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the prior art CN107287578 (cited in IDS) does not disclose all limitations of the amended claim 1 and thus amended claims 1-12 possess both novelty and inventiveness over CN107287578 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 5). This is not found persuasive because CN’578 discloses a MoS2 continuous film on substrate (Abstract; [0027]- [0043]), characterized in that, the domain size of the MoS2 continuous film is larger than 10 mm ([0032]); wherein the MoS2 continuous film has multilayer (Figs. 1 and 2).
CN’578 does not disclose that the layer number ≥3. CN’578 however discloses forming a double layer molybdenum disulfide film (Abstract). CN’578 further discloses forming a large-scale uniform double-layer Mos2 film with controllable number of layers on a growth substrate ([0005]- [0007]). Moreover, CN’578 discloses that forming multilayer MoS2 structures are reported in the prior art ([0004]). Thus, forming several bilayer structures are mere duplication of part of the method already disclosed by CN’578. And according to MPEP 2144/04, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the layer number of layers ≥3 for the purpose of for the purpose of realizing large scale production of related optoelectronic devices (CN’578, [0042]).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 5-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 02/02/2026.
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.
Claim 1, 2, and 4 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 1 recites the limitation "the domain size" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and therefore this limitaiton renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the layer number" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and therefore this limitaiton renders the claim indefinite.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the average field-effect mobility" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and therefore this limitaiton renders the claim indefinite.
Claims 2 and 4 are indefinite due to their dependance on indefinite claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’578 (CN107287578, Machine Translation is provided), cited in IDS.
Regarding claim 1, CN’578 discloses a MoS2 continuous film on substrate (Abstract; [0027]- [0043]), characterized in that, the domain size of the MoS2 continuous film is larger than 10 mm ([0032]); wherein the MoS2 continuous film has multilayer (Figs. 1 and 2).
CN’578 does not disclose that the layer number ≥3. CN’578 however discloses forming a double layer molybdenum disulfide film (Abstract). CN’578 further discloses forming a large-scale uniform double-layer MoS2 film with controllable number of layers on a growth substrate ([0005]- [0007]). Moreover, CN’578 discloses that forming multilayer MoS2 structures are reported in the prior art ([0004]). Thus, forming several bilayer structures are mere duplication of part of the method already disclosed by CN’578. And according to MPEP 2144/04, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the layer number of layers ≥3 for the purpose of for the purpose of realizing large scale production of related optoelectronic devices (CN’578, [0042]).
Regarding claim 2, CN’578 discloses the substrate is one or more selected from of the group consisting of sapphire, Si/SiO2 substrate, mica ([0013], Example 1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN’578 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Perera (Perera et al., “Improved Carrier Mobility in Few-Layer MoS2 Field-Effect Transistors with Ionic-Liquid Gating,” ACS Nano, vol. 7, no 5, pp.4449-4458, 2013).
Regarding claim 4, CN’578 does not discloses, the MoS2 film has three layers. and the average field-effect mobility is 120~140 cm2/Vs.
CN’578 however discloses forming the MOS2 structure with controlled number of layers and high field-effect mobility ([0041]). And Perera discloses that the MoS2 film has three layers. and the average field-effect mobility is 120~140 cm2/Vs (page 4450, column 2, paragraph 2; page 4451, column 2; page 4453, column 1, page 4454, Fig.5b.)
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify CN’578 with Perera to have the number of layers and field-effect mobility to be in the claimed range for the purpose of fabrication MoS2 based field effect transistor with high mobilities (Perera, page 4456, “Conclusion”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA SLUTSKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3849. 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/JULIA SLUTSKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights