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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3,5,9-15,17 and 21-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejections below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 23 is 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.
The applicant amended claim 23 to disclose “and greater than 0 nm.”
There does not appear to be written description support for “and greater than 0 nm.”
The applicant has not pointed to support in the original specification for this claim amendment. MPEP 2163 II A discloses “[w]ith respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007)”.
The limitation “and greater than 0 nm” would encompass 0.1 nm and 1 nm. However, the specification as filed fails to disclose 0.1 nm and 1 nm. The Federal Circuit has held:
As we explained in Ariad, the written description inquiry looks to "the four corners of the specification" to discern the extent to which the inventor(s) had possession of the invention as broadly claimed. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351 ; see also Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565 , 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("It is the disclosures of the applications that count."). The knowledge of ordinary artisans may be used to inform what is actually in the specification, see Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1571 , but not to teach limitations that are not in the specification, even if those limitations would be rendered obvious by the disclosure in the specification. Id. at 1571-72 .
Rivera v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 857 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
In this case it might be obvious that the original specification discloses “and greater than 0 nm”, but the original specification fails to disclose distances of 0.1 nm and 1 nm. Paragraph [0148] of the original specification discloses “This distance may be less than 20 nm, and may be reduced to about 15 nm”, but fails to disclose 1 nm and 0.1 nm.
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 1-3, 5, 9-15 and 21-26 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation wherein the first metal included in the metal nanoparticles is one of Gd, Sc, Y, Ca, Er, Tm, Ho, Lu, Dy, Th, Be, Sm, Yb, Nd, Mg, Ce, La, Sr, Li, Eu, Al, Hf, Zr, Ba, Eu, or Ti, a second metal included in the metal oxide is one of Rb, Ti, Ba, Zr, Ca, Hf, Sr, Sc, B, Mg, Al, K, Y, La, Si, Be, Nb, Ni, Ta, W, V, La, Gd, Cu, Mo, Cr, or Mn,, and the claim also recites wherein an oxide formation energy of the first metal is less than or equal to an oxide formation energy of the second metal which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Table 2 [0089] in the applicant’s specification discloses the oxidation formation energy for the different elements.
Claims 23 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.
The applicant amended claim 23 to disclose “and greater than 0 nm.”
The examiner is not clear what is encompassed by the limitation “and greater than 0 nm.”
The limitation “and greater than 0 nm” would seem to encompass 0.1 nm and 1 nm, but the specification is not clear on support for 0.1 nm and 1 nm.
The examiner submits there are two 112(b) rejections on claim 23. MPEP 2173.06 II disclose “where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In reSteele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.” Therefore, prior art will not be applied to claim 23.
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) 1, 2, 5, 9-14, 21, 22 , 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0203430) in view of Glarvey et al. (US 2015/0194577).
Regarding claim 1, Lee et al. disclose a supporting layer including an insulating material (220)[0037](rotated 90 degrees to right figures 2 and 3); a variable resistance layer (215) on the supporting layer, and including a first layer (205)(fig. 3) including a metal oxide [0040, transition metal oxide, HfO2 or SrTiO3] and metal nanoparticles(190)[0045], the variable resistance layer further including a second layer (185) on the first layer, the second layer including a second oxide(185)[aluminum oxide, 0040],; a channel layer (175) on the variable resistance layer; a gate insulating layer (160) on the channel layer; and a gate electrode (142) on the gate insulating layer, wherein an oxide formation energy of the first metal (Pt, Hf)[0040] is less than or equal to an oxide formation energy of a second metal (Sr, Al)[0040] included in the metal oxide.
Lee discloses the quantum dot may include a metal [0045]. Lee discloses the metal oxide is HfO2 [0040].
Lee fails to disclose the metal nanoparticles are one or more particles of Mg,
Glarvey et al. disclose quantum dots (nanoparticles) that have Mg or Al[abstract].
The combination of Lee and Glarvey would disclose the metal oxide is HfO2, and the metal nanoparticles are one or more particles of Mg. The combination Lee and Glarvey would disclose the metal nanoparticles included in the first layer include a first metal capable of combining with oxygen ions of the metal oxide included in the first layer and wherein an oxide formation energy of the first metal (Mg)[abstract] is less than or equal to an oxide formation energy of a second metal (Sr, Al, Ti, Hf)[0040] included in the metal oxide. (Lee et al. and Glarvey disclose the same structure and materials. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would expect the same results)
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using quantum dots made of magnesium), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the magnesium and aluminum are metals in the quantum dot/nanoparticle and have been found more stable to Ostwald ripening [Glarey et al. abstract]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee et al. disclose the second layer (185) contacts the channel layer, and the second oxide [0040, aluminum oxide] included in the second layer includes an oxide of a material of the channel layer[0040, aluminum oxide].
Regarding claim 5, Lee et al. disclose an oxide formation energy of the first metal (Pt)[0045] is less than or equal to - 880kJ/mol.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Lee disclose the metal oxide is HfO2 [0040] and Glarvey disclose quantum dots (nanoparticles) that have Mg [abstract].
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. and Glarvey et al. disclose an oxide formation energy of the first metal (Mg)[Glarvey, abstract] is less than an oxide formation energy of a second metal (Al) [ Lee, 0040] included in the metal oxide, and an absolute value difference between the oxide formation energy of the first metal and the oxide formation energy of the second metal is 20 kJ/mol or more.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lee et al. and Glarvey et al. disclose Mg [Glarvey, abstract] for the nano particle and metal oxide is (Sr, Al, Ti, Hf)[ Lee 0040] and would result in an oxygen vacancy formation energy of the variable resistance layer is lower than 0.5 eV. The same structure would have the same properties. The applicant noted in the response to the 105 requirement applicant noted that “the first metal included in the metal nanoparticles may be selected from the group consisting of Gd, Sc, Y, Ca, Er, Tm, Ho, Lu, Dy, Th, Be, Sm, Yb, Nd, Mg, Ce, La, Sr, Li, Eu, Al, Hf, Zr, Ba, Eu, or Ti, while the second metal included in the metal oxide may be selected from the group consisting of Rb, Ti, Ba, Zr, Ca, Hf, Sr, Sc, B, Mg, Al, K, Y, La, Si, Be, Nb, Ni, Ta, W, V, La, Gd, Cu, Mo, Cr, or Mn. See, e.g., paragraphs [0014] and [0015] of the instant application.”
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. disclose the combination of Lee et al. and Glarvey et al. disclose Mg [Glarvey, abstract] for the nano particle and metal oxide is (Sr, Al, Ti, Hf)[ Lee 0040] and would result in when the variable resistance layer is a high resistance state, a number of oxygen vacancies per unit volume is 2/nm3 or more. The same structure would have the same properties. The applicant noted in the response to the 105 requirement applicant noted that “the first metal included in the metal nanoparticles may be selected from the group consisting of Gd, Sc, Y, Ca, Er, Tm, Ho, Lu, Dy, Th, Be, Sm, Yb, Nd, Mg, Ce, La, Sr, Li, Eu, Al, Hf, Zr, Ba, Eu, or Ti, while the second metal included in the metal oxide may be selected from the group consisting of Rb, Ti, Ba, Zr, Ca, Hf, Sr, Sc, B, Mg, Al, K, Y, La, Si, Be, Nb, Ni, Ta, W, V, La, Gd, Cu, Mo, Cr, or Mn. See, e.g., paragraphs [0014] and [0015] of the instant application.”
Regarding claim 14, Glarvey disclose quantum dots (nanoparticles) a size (diameter) of the metal nanoparticles is 2 nm [Glarvey, 0006] (i.e. below 2.5 nm). Moreover, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).Differences in electrode thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such electrode thickness are critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).Since the applicant has not established the criticality, and this quantum dot size has been used in similar devices in the art (see, Glarvey) it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these values in the device. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 21, Lee et al. disclose the gate electrode includes a plurality of gate electrodes (142)[0031] spaced apart from each other in a first direction parallel to the channel layer, and a plurality of insulators (135)[0033] are respectively between the plurality of gate electrodes(rotated 90 to the right degrees figs. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 22, Lee et al. disclose the supporting layer has a cylinder shape extending in the first direction, and the variable resistance layer, the channel layer, the gate insulating layer, and the plurality of gate electrodes have a shape surrounding the gate insulating layer (figure 2).
Regarding claim 24, Lee et al. disclose a drain region (230) in contact with one end of the channel layer and a source region (120, 110) in contact with another end of the channel layer and with the variable resistance layer, the one end and the other end in the first direction (figure 2) .
Regarding claim 25, Lee et al. disclose a bit line (300) connected to the drain region (230 via 280), a source line connected to the source region, and a plurality of word lines (142) [0029, gate electrode serves as wordline so inherently are connected] respectively connected to the plurality of gate electrodes.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0203430) in view of Glarvey et al. (US 2015/0194577)as applied to claim 1 above.
Lee in view of in view of Glarvey disclose the invention supra.
Lee discloses the the channel layer includes a polysilicon material (175)[0037].
Lee and Glarvey et al. fail to disclose the second layer includes a silicon oxide.
Lee does disclose using silicon oxide for the gate insulation layer (160).
The examiner submits one could use the silicon oxide (used for the gate insulation layer) as in the second insulation layer.
The prior art contained a device (method, product, etc.) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (silicon oxide into the second insulation layer) with other components.
The substituted components and their functions were known in the art. (Silicon oxide is a notoriously well known insulator in the semiconductor industry).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element (i.e. silicon oxide) for another (the second oxide), and the results of the substitution would have been predictable (i.e. the silicon oxide would perform as an insulation layer).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0203430) in view of Glarvey et al. (US 2015/0194577)as applied to claim 1 above in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0135138).
Lee and Glarvey et al. disclose the invention supra. Lee discloses the quantum dot may include a metal [0045].
Lee and Glarvey et al. fail to disclose a content of the first metal included in the second layer is greater than 0 at% and less than or equal to 40.0 at%. Glarvey disclose quantum dots (nanoparticles) that have Mg [abstract].
Kim et al. disclose magnesium in a compound with a formula Zn1-xMgxO [0136](where m is mg and 0≤x≤0.5). ( If x is .5 then the formula would be Zn0.5Mn0.5O (or ZnMgO2) and the atomic % would be 25 atomic percent Mg, which is between 0 and 40 atomic percent).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using an atomic percent of Mg), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the nanoparticle was perform as a quantum dot/nanoparticle).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0203430) in view of Glarvey et al. (US 2015/0194577) as applied to claim 1 in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0135138).
Lee and Glarvey et al. disclose the invention supra. Lee discloses the quantum dot may include a metal [0045]. Glarvey et al. disclose quantum dots (nanoparticles) that have Mg [abstract].
Lee and Glarvey et al. fail to disclose a valence of the first metal is 2, and a content of the first metal is in a range from about 14.3 at% to about 20.0 at%.
Kim et al. disclose magnesium (a valence of the first metal is 2) and a content of the first metal is about 20.0 at% (In Zn1-xMgxO) [0136](where m is mg and 0≤x≤0.5). ( If x is .3333 then the formula would be Zn0.6666Mg0.333O (or Zn6Mg3O10) and the atomic % would be 15 atomic percent Mg, which is between 14.3 and 20 atomic percent).
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using an atomic percent of Mg), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the nanoparticle was perform as a quantum dot/nanoparticle).
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0203430) in view of Glarvey et al. (US 2015/0194577) as applied to claim 1 in view of Keeth (US Patent 5,946,257).
Lee and Glarvey et al. disclose the invention supra.
Lee and Glarvey et al. fail to disclose a memory cell array in which a plurality of memory cells including the variable resistance memory device of claim 1 are arrayed; a voltage generator configured to generate a voltage to be applied to the memory cell array, and a memory controller configured to control the memory device.
Keeth disclose disclose a memory cell array in which a plurality of memory cells including the variable resistance memory device of claim 1 are arrayed; a voltage generator (804) configured to generate a voltage to be applied to the memory cell array, and a memory controller (816) configured to control the memory device [col. 8 lines43-64].
The combination of Lee Glarvey et al. and Keeth would form a memory cell array in which a plurality of memory cells including the variable resistance memory device are arrayed.
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (controlling a memory array), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the memory array would be controlled).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2020/0203430) in view of Glarvey et al. (US 2015/0194577).
Regarding claim 27, Lee et al. disclose a supporting layer including an insulating material (220)[0037](rotated 90 degrees to right figures 2 and 3); a variable resistance layer (215) on the supporting layer, and including a first layer (205)(fig. 3) including a metal oxide [0040, transition metal oxide, HfO2] and metal nanoparticles(190)[0045], the variable resistance layer further including a second layer (185) on the first layer, the second layer including a second oxide(185)[0040],; a channel layer (175) on the variable resistance layer; a gate insulating layer (160) on the channel layer; and a gate electrode (142) on the gate insulating layer, the second layer (185) contacts the channel layer, and the second oxide [0040, alumninum oxide] included in the second layer includes an oxide of a material of the channel layer[0040, aluminum oxide].
Lee discloses the quantum dot may include a metal [0045]. Lee discloses the metal oxide is HfO2 [0040].
Lee fails to disclose the metal nanoparticles are one or more particles of Al,
Glarvey et al. disclose quantum dots (nanoparticles) that have Al [abstract].
The combination of Lee and Glarvey would disclose the metal oxide is HfO2, and the metal nanoparticles are one or more particles of Mg. The combination Lee and Glarvey would disclose of the metal nanoparticles included in the first layer include a first metal capable of combining with oxygen ions of the metal oxide included in the first layer (Lee et al. and Glarvey disclose the same structure and materials. Therefore, one of ordinary skill would expect the same results)
The prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (using quantum dots made of magnesium), and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (the aluminum is a metal in the quantum dot/nanoparticle and have been found more stable to Ostwald ripening [Glarey et al. abstract]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY K SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1884. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10am-6pm.
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, Marlon Fletcher can be reached at 571-272-2063. 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.
/BRADLEY SMITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights