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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
None filed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 4 and 5, respectively, require that each of the source electrode and the drain electrode is made of Cr and Au, and the source electrode has a thickness of 1nm to 3 nm and the drain electrode has a thickness of 30 nm to 50 nm.
The applicant’s disclosure states that “In some embodiments, each of the source electrode and the drain electrode includes a Cr layer and an Au layer, and the Cr layer is in contact with the molybdenum sulfide layer.” and “in the source electrode and the drain electrode, the Cr layer has a thickness of 1 nm to 3 nm and the Au layer has a thickness of 30 nm to 50 nm.”
There is no disclosure or process for how to make the entirety of the source electrode that must include both Cr layer (1 nm to 3 nm) and Au layer (30 nm to 50 nm), and to also have an overall thickness of only 1 nm to 3 nm, which does not make sense. As insofar as can be determined, the respective metal layers for the source and drain electrodes are formed at the same time with the same materials (Cr and Au) during manufacturing and there is no disclosure of enabling steps to make each electrode to be of a different thickness. As currently written, there is not enough written description or enablement to support this recitation in the claims.
The only feasible and reasonable interpretation is that thickness comparison in the claim refers to the Cr layer of the source electrode of 1 nm to 3nm and the Au layer of the drain electrode of 30 nm to 50 nm.
(See MPEP 2163.03 V. ORIGINAL CLAIM NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED):
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement." Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
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 6-12 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 6 is a method claim which depends on the device claim 1. Claim 6 must include all of the limitations of the parent claim 1. Claim 6 recites and reintroduces limitations from the parent claim which is not clear and concise such as the recitation of “to obtain a molybdenum sulfide layer” that makes unclear the relationship between elements introduced in the process steps of claim 6 with respect to the elements already present based on claim 1. Claim 6 also recites “the surface” at line 8 which lacks antecedent basis. Claims 7-12 include and do not cure the deficiencies of claim 6.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0018561).
Referring to Claim 1, Liang in Fig. 1A-1D (par. 57-62) for example, teaches a two-dimensional (2D) metal/semiconductor/metal (MSM) device with non-volatile and linearly tunable optical responsivity based on sulfur vacancy migration, comprising a device base, a source electrode (14), and a drain electrode (12); wherein the metal/semiconductor/metal (MSM) device base comprises a silicon/silica (p+-Si/SiO₂) substrate and a molybdenum sulfide layer (16) which are sequentially stacked; and the source electrode (14) and the drain electrode (12) are located on a surface of the molybdenum sulfide layer (16).
Referring to Claim 2, Liang further teaches wherein the molybdenum sulfide layer is composed of molybdenum sulfide nano-flakes (par. 51), and each of the molybdenum sulfide nano-flakes has a flake diameter of 10 µm to 15 µm and a thickness of 10 nm to 50 nm (par. 51-54, “thickness of 15-30nm”); (The initial MoS2 FET are fabricated by using a printing-based approach, which is described in MoS2 Transistors Fabricated via Plasma-Assisted Nanoprinting of Few-Layer-MoS2 Flakes into Large-Area Arrays. Nam, H.; Wi, S.; Rokni, H.; Chen, M.; Priessnitz, G.; Lu, W.; Liang, X. ACS Nano 2013, 7, 5870-5881, the entire disclosure of which is incorporated herein by reference; page 5872, right column, 1st paragraph, flakes 10µm; Fig. 2-4; page 5877, right column, 2nd paragraph, 10µm flakes).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0018561) in view of Liu et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0321578) or Hsueh (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0145478) or Wei et al. (CN110865113) or Suto et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0207633) or Sun (CN113948594).
Referring to Claim 3, Liang teaches the limitations of claim 1, wherein each of the source electrode and the drain electrode is made of Ti and Au (par. 51), but does not explicitly state wherein each of the source electrode and the drain electrode is made of Cr and Au.
Liu teaches a field effect transistor structure having a Si/SiO2 substrate, Cr/Au source/drain electrodes, a 2D channel molybdenum disulfide (par. 127). The Cr layer has a thickness of 5nm.
Hsueh teaches well-known materials Ti/Au or Cr/Au as suitable for source and drain electrodes (par. 46).
Wei teaches a field effect transistor structure having a Si/SiO2 substrate, Cr/Au source/drain electrodes (par. 24, 26, 28 and 30), a channel that may be 2D molybdenum disulfide, alternative to graphene (par. 9). The Cr layer has a thickness of 5nm.
Suto teaches well-known materials Ti/Au or Cr/Au as suitable for source and drain electrodes (par. 72), and that Ti and Cr function as adhesion layers.
Sun teaches a field effect transistor structure having a Si/SiO2 substrate, a 2D material channel and Cr/Au source/drain electrodes (par. 8, 14, 24, 33, 53). The Cr layer has a thickness of 5nm.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to utilize Cr/Au material as taught by Liu, Hsueh, Wei, Suto or Sun for the source/drain electrodes of Liang based on their well-known suitability in the art for providing the desired adhesion and electrical properties, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is well settled 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); In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Ritchie V. Vast Resources Inc. d/b/a Topco Sales, 90 USPQ2d 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2009); and MPEP § 2144.07.
Referring to Claims 4 and 5, Liang teaches limitations of claims 1 and 2, wherein the Si/SiO₂ substrate has a thickness of 500 µm/285 nm to 305 nm (par. 53-54); the molybdenum sulfide layer has a thickness of 10 nm to 50 nm (par. 53-54); and each of the source electrode and the drain electrode is made of Ti and Au, the Ti of the source electrode has a thickness of 5 nm, and the Au of the drain electrode has a thickness of 50 nm (par. 51).
Liang does not explicitly state wherein each of the source electrode and the drain electrode is made of Cr and Au. And however, though very close at 5 nm, does not explicitly state wherein the thickness of the Cr of the source electrode is of 1 nm to 3 nm.
Liu teaches a field effect transistor structure having a Si/SiO2 substrate, Cr/Au source/drain electrodes, a 2D channel molybdenum disulfide (par. 127). The Cr layer has a thickness of 5nm.
Hsueh teaches well-known materials Ti/Au or Cr/Au as suitable for source and drain electrodes (par. 46).
Wei teaches a field effect transistor structure having a Si/SiO2 substrate, Cr/Au source/drain electrodes (par. 24, 26, 28 and 30), a channel that may be 2D molybdenum disulfide, alternative to graphene (par. 9). The Cr layer has a thickness of 5nm.
Suto teaches well-known materials Ti/Au or Cr/Au as suitable for source and drain electrodes (par. 72), and that Ti and Cr function as adhesion layers.
Sun teaches a field effect transistor structure having a Si/SiO2 substrate, a 2D material channel and Cr/Au source/drain electrodes (par. 8, 14, 24, 33, 53). The Cr layer has a thickness of 5nm.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to utilize Cr/Au material as taught by Liu, Hsueh, Wei, Suto or Sun for the source/drain electrodes of Liang based on their well-known suitability in the art for providing the desired adhesion and electrical properties, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. It is well settled 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); In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960); Ritchie V. Vast Resources Inc. d/b/a Topco Sales, 90 USPQ2d 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2009); and MPEP § 2144.07.
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the thickness of the Cr layer (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to adjust the thickness through routine experimentation in order to achieve varying adhesion of the layer. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6-12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
As insofar as Claim 6 is definite, the prior art of record alone or in combination neither teaches nor makes obvious the invention of the method for preparing a 2D metal/semiconductor/metal (MSM) device with non-volatile and linearly tunable optical responsivity based on sulfur vacancy migration comprising the following steps: (1) applying a photoresist onto the molybdenum sulfide nano-flakes to obtain a molybdenum sulfide layer covered with the photoresist on a surface of a Si/SiO₂ substrate; (2) subjecting the photoresist to etching to obtain an exposed pattern, with an exposed source electrode window and an exposed drain electrode window on a surface of the molybdenum sulfide layer; (3) subjecting the molybdenum sulfide layer with the exposed source electrode window and the exposed drain electrode window in step (2) to O₂ plasma etching and Ar plasma etching sequentially; and (4) performing evaporation deposition of metal on a surface of the molybdenum sulfide layer with the exposed source electrode window and the exposed drain electrode window after plasma etching, and stripping the photoresist, to obtain a source electrode and a drain electrode on the surface of the molybdenum sulfide layer in combination with all of the limitations of Claim 6. Claims 7-12 include the limitations of claim 6.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EARL N TAYLOR whose telephone number is (571)272-8894. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, William Kraig can be reached on (571) 272-8660. 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.
/EARL N TAYLOR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
EARL N. TAYLOR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights