DETAILED ACTION
As per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
In responding to this Office action, the applicant is requested to include specific references (figures, paragraphs, lines, etc.) to the drawings/specification of the present application and/or the cited prior arts that clearly support any amendments/arguments presented in the response, to facilitate consideration of the amendments/arguments.
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 .
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 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 37-42 and 52-56 in the reply filed on 12/10/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the to induce internal interfacial electric field normal to the layers plane at an interface between the two stacked material layers, as recited in claim 37, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 40, 41, 52, and 53 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 40 and 41 recite “comprising” after the preamble when --further comprising-- is the customary linking clause.
Claim(s) 52 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “multilayer is N doped”, where independent claim uses the term “n-doped” and should be used consistently throughout the claims.
Claim(s) 53 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “multilayer is P doped”, where independent claim uses the term “p-doped” and should be used consistently throughout the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 37-42 and 52-56 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 37 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “A conductive stacked multilayer diatomic hexagonal material or a conductive stacked multilayer structure”, where claims 38-42 and 52-56 are only drawn to “the material”. The scope of the claimed invention is unclear because the limitations of statutory invention recited in the independent claim is not required in its respective dependent claims.
Claim(s) 37 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “a conductive stacked multilayer diatomic hexagonal material or a conductive stacked multilayer structure formed by orienting any two stacked layers of a doped diatomic hexagonal material…the two stacked material layers and in-plane conductivity, wherein”, where it appears the applicant is trying to structure the preamble of the claim as a product-by-process (see MPEP 2173.05(p)). The “conductive stacked multilayer structure” is not recited as a process, i.e. steps of depositing, etching, positioning, etc., but instead recites a device which incorporates the claimed “material”, thus the claim improperly implements a product-by-process. Examiner suggests amending the claim so that the “conductive stacked multilayer structure” is unambiguously implemented in the process of fabricating the “conductive stacked multilayer diatomic hexagonal material”, or that the “conductive stacked multilayer structure” and the “conductive stacked multilayer diatomic hexagonal material” are recited as different independent claims.
Claim(s) 37 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “into a stacked (substantially) parallel lattice orientation to induce”, where the use of paratheses with “substantially” implies a subjectivity to the limitation (see MPEP 2173.05(b).IV). Reciting “(substantially)” in the claim renders the claim language indefinite and not patentable.
Claim(s) 38 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “doping of the 2D materials prior”, where “2D materials” lacks antecedent basis.
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) 37-39, 42, and 52-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li, X., et al. (2016), Isoelectronic Tungsten Doping in Monolayer MoSe2 for Carrier Type Modulation. Adv. Mater., 28: 8240-8247, hereafter cited as NPL Li
As to claim 37, NPL Li discloses a conductive stacked multilayer diatomic hexagonal material (see NPL Li Fig 5 Ref junction; The use of “or” means that only one of the recited inventions needs rejected.) or a conductive stacked multilayer structure formed by orienting any two stacked layers of a doped diatomic hexagonal material into a stacked (substantially) parallel lattice orientation to induce internal interfacial electric field normal to the layers plane at an interface between the two stacked material layers and in-plane conductivity, wherein
the multilayer is n-doped or p-doped (see NPL Li Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
As to claim 38, NPL Li discloses the material according to claim 32, wherein
the doped multilayer is formed by chemical doping of the 2D materials prior to forming the multilayer structure (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
As to claim 39, NPL Li discloses the material according to claim 32, wherein
the doped multilayer is formed by electrostatic doping of a preformed multilayer (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4; Examiner takes notice that the diffusive phenomenon disclosed in citation 29 is well known in the art.).
As to claim 42, NPL Li discloses a device implementing a material according to claim 37 (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 1, Para 1).
As to claim 52, NPL Li discloses the material according to claim 37, wherein
the multilayer is N doped (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
As to claim 53, NPL Li discloses the material according to claim 37, wherein
the multilayer is P doped (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
As to claim 54, NPL Li discloses the material according to claim 37, wherein the diatomic hexagonal material is a 2D material (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
As to claim 55, NPL Li discloses the material according to claim 37, wherein
the diatomic hexagonal material is selected from hexagonal-boron-nitride (h-BN), transition-metal- dichalcogenides (TMD), hexagonal-aluminum-nitride (h-AIN), hexagonal-zinc-oxide (h- ZnO), and hexagonal-gallium-nitride (h-GaN) (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
As to claim 56, NPL Li discloses the material according to claim 54, wherein
the 2D material is a transition-metal-dichalcogenides (TMD) selected from MoS2, WS2, MoSe2 and WSe2 (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
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 of this title, 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) 37-42, and 52-56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unuchek, US 20210217919 A1, in view of Li, X., et al. (2016), Isoelectronic Tungsten Doping in Monolayer MoSe2 for Carrier Type Modulation. Adv. Mater., 28: 8240-8247, hereafter cited as NPL Li.
As to claim 37, Unuchek discloses a conductive stacked multilayer diatomic hexagonal material or a conductive stacked multilayer structure (see Unuchek Fig 1b; The use of “or” means that only one of the recited inventions needs rejected.) formed by orienting any two stacked layers of a doped diatomic hexagonal material (see Fig 1b Refs 103 and 105) into a stacked (substantially) parallel lattice orientation (see Fig 1b Refs 103 and 105) to induce internal interfacial electric field normal (see Para [0015] and Fig 1b Ref p) to the layers plane at an interface (see Fig 1b Refs 103 and 105) between the two stacked material layers.
Unuchek does not appear to explicitly disclose in-plane conductivity, wherein
the multilayer is n-doped or p-doped.
NPL Li discloses in-plane conductivity (see NPL Xi Fig 5b), wherein the multilayer is n-doped or p-doped (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention that a conductive stacked multilayer structure, as disclosed by Unuchek, may implement conductive, doped layers, as disclosed by NPL Li The inventions are well known variants of devices implement 2D semiconductors, and the combination of known inventions which produces predictable results is obvious, and not patentable. Further evidence to the obviousness of their combination is NPL Li’s attempt to engineer band structures (see NPL LI Page 1, Col 1, Para 2).
As to claim 38, Unuchek and NPL Li disclose the material according to claim 32, wherein
the doped multilayer is formed by chemical doping of the 2D materials prior to forming the multilayer structure (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
As to claim 39, Unuchek and NPL Li disclose the material according to claim 32, wherein
the doped multilayer is formed by electrostatic doping of a preformed multilayer (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4; Examiner takes notice that the diffusive phenomenon disclosed in citation 29 is well known in the art.).
As to claim 40, Unuchek and NPL Li disclose the material according to claim 32, comprising two or more stacked layers of a 2D material exhibiting out-of-plane switchable polarization (see Unuchek Para [0122]) and comprising free charge carriers of a density that is at least 1010 cm-2 (see Unuchek Fig 26i) evenly distributed in the multilayer (see Unuchek Para [0160]).
As to claim 41, Unuchek and NPL Li disclose the material according to claim 40, comprising two or more layers of a TMD material stacked in a substantially parallel lattice orientation and exhibiting out-of-plane switchable polarization (see Unuchek Para [0122]) and comprising free electrons or holes of a density that is at least 1010 cm-2 (see Unuchek Fig 26i) evenly distributed in the multilayer (see Unuchek Para [0160]).
As to claim 42, Unuchek and NPL Li disclose a device implementing a material according to claim 37 (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 1, Para 1).
As to claim 52, Unuchek and NPL Li disclose the material according to claim 37, wherein
the multilayer is N doped (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
As to claim 53, Unuchek and NPL Li disclose the material according to claim 37, wherein
the multilayer is P doped (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
As to claim 54, Unuchek and NPL Li disclose the material according to claim 37, wherein the diatomic hexagonal material is a 2D material (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
As to claim 55, Unuchek and NPL Li disclose the material according to claim 37, wherein
the diatomic hexagonal material is selected from hexagonal-boron-nitride (h-BN), transition-metal- dichalcogenides (TMD), hexagonal-aluminum-nitride (h-AIN), hexagonal-zinc-oxide (h- ZnO), and hexagonal-gallium-nitride (h-GaN) (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
As to claim 56, Unuchek and NPL Li disclose the material according to claim 54, wherein
the 2D material is a transition-metal-dichalcogenides (TMD) selected from MoS2, WS2, MoSe2 and WSe2 (see NPL Xi Page 1, Col 2, Para 4).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu, W., et al. (2013), Role of Metal Contacts in Designing High-Performance Monolayer n-Type WSe2 Field Effect Transistors, Nano Letters 2013 13 (5) discloses electrostatic doping.
Wang, US 20200312398 A1 discloses an internal interfacial electric field.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME LARRY LEBOEUF whose telephone number is (571)272-7612. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00AM - 6:00PM 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, RICHARD ELMS can be reached at (517)272-1869. 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.
/JEROME LEBOEUF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824 - 03/11/2026