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 of Group I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 8/28/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 16 and 17, directed to the invention(s) of a method of making a semiconductor device, require all the limitations of an allowable product claim, otherwise they cannot be rejoined. Claims 16 and 17 do not include all the allowable limitations of claim 1.
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 1-15 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 strained monolayer" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the electromagnetic radiation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 3, line 2, it appears that --a-- should be inserted before “controller”.
In claim 3, line 2, it appears that --that-- should be inserted before “controls”.
In claim 3, line 5, it appears that --and-- should be inserted after “drain”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the twisted electromagnetic radiation" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the temperature" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the doped silicon substrate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Claims 2-15 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 the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With respect to claim 1, the known prior art does not teach the claim as a whole. In particular, the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest wherein the a gate voltage applied to the gate contact with respect to the source contact modulates a ferroelectric response of the monolayer when strained and a current through the monolayer between the source contact and the drain contact; and wherein: the substrate is rigid and the monolayer experiences asymmetric lattice expansion when strained against the rigid substrate in response to an external magnetic field perpendicular to a surface of the monolayer and when cooled below 20 degrees Kelvin, or the substrate is a strain engineered substrate inducing asymmetric lattice expansion of the monolayer in combination with the remaining limitations recited in claim 1.
None of the prior art on record contains such a limitation, nor given the prior art on record is it obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art to add said limitations as recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 is allowed as it is not anticipated by or obvious over the teachings of the prior art on record. Furthermore, claims 2-15 are also allowed as they depend from an allowed base claim.
The closest prior art is Jonker et al. (2018/0158934). Jonker et al. disclose (Abstract; Claims 1 to 3; Fig. 4; Paragraphs [0003]-[0005] and [0014]) a straining monolayer of TMD (Abstract; Fig. 4; TMD) as an active region (Paragraphs [0003]-[0005] and [0014]~ when a voltage is applied to the gate, the channel formed in the FET constitutes an active region) of a field effect transistor (Fig. 4); and measuring (Fig. 4; I,V) a ferroelectric response (Fig. 4; FE; Claims 1-3; Abstract) of the monolayer (Abstract).
However, Jonker et al. does not disclose the substrate is rigid and the monolayer experiences asymmetric lattice expansion when strained against the rigid substrate in response to an external magnetic field perpendicular to a surface of the monolayer and when cooled below 20 degrees Kelvin, or the substrate is a strain engineered substrate inducing asymmetric lattice expansion of the monolayer, and as explained above.
Therefore, Jonker et al. alone or in combination does not anticipate or render obvious the claimed invention.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2023/0088634 A1, US 2020/0303417 A1 and US 2023/0014134 A1 disclose a similar configuration of a field effect transistor with a monolayer of a single crystal semiconducting transition metal dichalcogenide (TMD).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 September 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights