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 filed 12/10/22 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Interview Summary, the applicant alleges “Applicants have amended claim 1 in the manner discussed and substantively agreed to during the interview.” The examiner disagrees that the claims have been amended in the manner discussed in the interview. The applicant provided an agenda (which is filed as “Office Action Appendix” on 11/21/2025) for the interview presenting both claims 2 and 4 being amended into claim 1. The current amendment only amends the subject matter of claim 4 into claim one. The current amendment, filed 12/10/26, had neither been discussed nor agreed to, in the interview filed 11/21/2025.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12/10/25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection noted 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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17, and 21-27 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 1 and 27 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”. The examiner notes that claim 1 has to be broader than the dependent claim 8. MPEP 2164.08 [R-01.2024] discloses “[w]ith respect to dependent claims, 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, should be followed. These paragraphs state ‘a claim in a dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers’ and requires the dependent claim to further limit the subject matter claimed.”
Claim 8 discloses “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”.
The applicant admits, in the response filed 12/1025 to the requirement for information, “Applicants note 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,”.
As noted above, claim 1 must be broader than claim 8, but and the applicant admits “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,”. The examiner is not clear what other metals would be encompassed by the claim term “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” since this has to be broader than the dependent claim. MPEP 2164.08 [R-01.2024] discloses “[w]ith respect to dependent claims, 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, should be followed. These paragraphs state ‘a claim in a dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers’ and requires the dependent claim to further limit the subject matter claimed.” Therefore, since the scope of claim 1 must be broader than claim 8, and the applicant only noted “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” metals for the first layer, the specification as filed does not disclose metals other than “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” that would result in “the metal nanoparticles included in the first layer a first metal capable of combining with oxygen ions of the metal oxide included in the first layer” which is in claim 1 and claim 27.
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)”.
Claims 1-3, 5-15, 17, 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.
The examiner notes claim 1 and 27 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”. The examiner notes that claim 1 has to be broader than the dependent claim 8. MPEP 2164.08 [R-01.2024] discloses “[w]ith respect to dependent claims, 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, should be followed. These paragraphs state ‘a claim in a dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers’ and requires the dependent claim to further limit the subject matter claimed.”
Claim 8 discloses “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”.
The applicant admits, in the response filed 12/1025 to the requirement for information, “Applicants note 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,”.
As noted above, claim 1 must be broader than claim 8, but and the applicant admits “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,”. The examiner is not clear what other metals would be encompassed by the claim term “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” since this has to be broader than the dependent claim. MPEP 2164.08 [R-01.2024] discloses “[w]ith respect to dependent claims, 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph, should be followed. These paragraphs state ‘a claim in a dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers’ and requires the dependent claim to further limit the subject matter claimed.” Therefore, since the scope of claim 1 must be broader than claim 8, and the applicant only noted “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” metals for the first layer, the examiner is not clear what other metals would be encompassed by the limitation “a first metal capable of combining with oxygen ions of the metal oxide included in the first layer” which is in claim 1 and claim 27.
MPEP 2173.02III B. disclose “[a]n essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Zletz, 893 F.2d at 322, 13 USPQ2d at 1322. In this case, there is ambiguity as to the scope of claim 1 and 27. (Is claim 1 broader than claim 8 and, if so, what metals, other than the metals disclosed in claim 8, are encompassed by “a first metal capable of combining with oxygen ions of the metal oxide included in the first layer”?)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The applicant amended claim 1 to include “wherein an oxide formation energy of the first metal is less than or equal to an oxide formation energy of a second metal included in the metal oxide”, which is the same limitation that is disclosed in claim 6. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The applicant admits “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”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 5-14, 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 Park (US 2016/0262230).
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,
Park disclose quantum dots (nanoparticles) that have Mg [0198].
The combination of Lee and Park would disclose the metal oxide is HfO2, and the metal nanoparticles are one or more particles of Mg. The combination Lee and Park 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)[0198] 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 Park 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 is a metal quantum dot/nanoparticle).
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 claim 6, Lee et al. and Park disclose an oxide formation energy of the first metal(Mg)[Park, 0198] is less than or equal to an oxide formation energy of a second metal included in the metal oxide (Sr, Al)[0040].
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. disclose a second metal included in the metal oxide is Sr or Ti [0040].
Regarding claim 8, Park disclose quantum dots (nanoparticles) that have Mg [0198].
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Lee disclose the metal oxide is HfO2 [0040] and Park disclose quantum dots (nanoparticles) that have Mg [0198].
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. disclose an oxide formation energy of the first metal (Pt)(101.3kJ/mol) is less than an oxide formation energy of a second metal (Sr)(590kJ/mol) 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 Park disclose Mg [Park, 0198] 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 Park disclose Mg [Park, 0198] 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, Park disclose quantum dots (nanoparticles) a size (diameter) of the metal nanoparticles is .5nm to 2 nm [0198].
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 Park (US 2016/0262230) as applied to claim 1 above.
Lee in view of in view of Park disclose the invention supra.
Lee discloses the the channel layer includes a polysilicon material (175)[0037].
Lee and Park 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 Park (US 2016/0262230) as applied to claim 1 above in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0135138).
Lee and Park disclose the invention supra. Lee discloses the quantum dot may include a metal [0045].
Lee and Park 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%. Park disclose quantum dots (nanoparticles) that have Mg [0198].
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 Park (US 2016/0262230) as applied to claim 1 in view of Kim et al. (US 2021/0135138).
Lee and Park disclose the invention supra. Lee discloses the quantum dot may include a metal [0045]. Park disclose quantum dots (nanoparticles) that have Mg [0198].
Lee and Park 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 Park (US 2016/0262230) as applied to claim 1 in view of Keeth (US Patent 5,946,257).
Lee and Park disclose the invention supra.
Lee and Park 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 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 Park (US 2016/0262230).
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 Mg,
Park disclose quantum dots (nanoparticles) that have Mg [0198].
The combination of Lee and Park would disclose the metal oxide is HfO2, and the metal nanoparticles are one or more particles of Mg. The combination Lee and Park 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 Park 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 is a metal quantum dot/nanoparticle).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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