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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tseng et al. (hereinafter Tseng, US 9,853,215).
In regards to independent claim 1, Tseng teaches an electronic device including a stack including, in order from the top face of a substrate, a first electrode (13), a layer of 2D material (16), and a second electrode (18),
wherein the top surface and flanks of the layer of 2D material are entirely covered by an encapsulation layer comprising at least the second electrode (Fig. 3A, 16 vs 18).
In regards to dependent claim 3, Tseng teaches wherein the encapsulation layer consists only of the second electrode (Fig. 3A, 18).
In regards to dependent claim 4, Tseng teaches between the layer of 2D material and the first electrode, an insulating layer (11), and a conductive via passing through the insulating layer, the conductive via being in contact by a first face with said layer made of 2D material and by a second face, opposite the first face, with the first electrode (Column 4 Lins 16-25, Fig. 1)).
In regards to dependent claim 5, Tseng teaches wherein the encapsulation layer comprises an insulating layer on, and in contact with, at least part of the flanks of the layer made of the 2D material (15).
In regards to dependent claim 6, Tseng teaches wherein the layer made of 2D material is in contact by a first face with the encapsulation layer, and with the first electrode by a second face opposite the first face (16, 18, 13).
In regards to dependent claim 7, Tseng teaches wherein the second electrode is in contact with only part of the layer made of 2D material (16, 18).
In regards to independent claim 13, Tseng teaches a method of manufacturing an electronic device including forming a stack including the following consecutive steps:
forming a first electrode on the top face of a substrate (Fig. 2a-2e);
forming a layer made of a 2D material on the top face of the first electrode (Fig. 2g);; and
forming a second electrode on the top face of the layer made of 2D material, so that the top face and flanks of the layer made of 2D material are entirely covered by an encapsulation layer comprising at least the second electrode (Fig. 2H-1).
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.
Claim(s) 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng in view of Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee, US 2020/0395540)
In regards to dependent claim 8, Tseng teaches the device according to claim 1. Tseng fails to teach wherein the 2D material is semiconducting. Lee teaches wherein the 2D material is semiconducting (Lee, [0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tseng and Lee before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ReRAM device taught by Tseng to include the 2D layer material makeup of Lee in order to obtain ReRAM with various semiconductor material 2D layer. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables the designer to customize device performance by change the type of material of the switching layer.
In regards to dependent claim 9, Tseng teaches the device according to claim 1. Tseng fails to teach wherein the 2D material is based on a transition metal dichalcogenide. Lee teaches wherein the 2D material is based on a transition metal dichalcogenide (Lee, [0085]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tseng and Lee before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ReRAM device taught by Tseng to include the 2D layer material makeup of Lee in order to obtain ReRAM with various semiconductor material 2D layer. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables the designer to customize device performance by change the type of material of the switching layer.
In regards to dependent claim 10, Tseng teaches the device according to claim 9. Tseng fails to teach wherein the 2D material is based on molybdenum disulfide. Lee teaches wherein the 2D material is based on molybdenum disulfide (Lee, [0084]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tseng and Lee before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ReRAM device taught by Tseng to include the 2D layer material makeup of Lee in order to obtain ReRAM with various semiconductor material 2D layer. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables the designer to customize device performance by change the type of material of the switching layer.
In regards to dependent claim 11, Tseng teaches the device according to claim 1. Tseng fails to teach wherein the layer made of 2D material is a stack of several monolayers of molybdenum disulfide and graphene. Lee teaches wherein the layer made of 2D material is a stack of several monolayers of molybdenum disulfide and graphene (Lee, [0093-0094]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tseng and Lee before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ReRAM device taught by Tseng to include the 2D layer material makeup of Lee in order to obtain ReRAM with various semiconductor material 2D layer. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables the designer to customize device performance by change the type of material of the switching layer.
In regards to dependent claim 12, Tseng teaches the device according to claim 1. Tseng fails to teach wherein the 2D material is based on hexagonal boron nitride. Lee teaches wherein the 2D material is based on hexagonal boron nitride (Lee, [0084]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Tseng and Lee before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ReRAM device taught by Tseng to include the 2D layer material makeup of Lee in order to obtain ReRAM with various semiconductor material 2D layer. One would have been motivated to make such a combination because it enables the designer to customize device performance by change the type of material of the switching layer.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 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: The preior art fails to teach “wherein the encapsulation layer has a bottom face coplanar with a bottom face of the 2D material layer”
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C TRAPANESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3304. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-12pm & 8pm-10pm EST.
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.
/WILLIAM C TRAPANESE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights