RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
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 .
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejections of claim 33 made of record in the office action mailed on have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 10/10/2025.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Claims 1, 21, 27-28, 34-35 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Materano et al. (Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A, Vol. 38, No. 2, Jan. 10, 2020, pp 022402-1-022402-7) (cited in the IDS filed on 12/14/2022).
Regarding claim 1, Materano et al. discloses HfxZr1-xO2 crystalline thin films for semiconductor applications which are inherently ferroelectric. (Abstract and Introduction, page 1, left col.). Materano et al. discloses a carbon content ranging from 0 to 6 at. % (see Fig. 4 (b))
With respect to the limitations directed to the fact that the crystalline material is “derived from” the claimed precursors, the claims are directed to the claimed crystalline film of claim 1 but include limitations directed to the precursor for these films. Since these precursors are not present in the final claimed crystalline film material, the claims are being treated as equivalent to a “product by process” claim under MPEP 2113 wherein the “process” is the selection of the precursor. Since the precursor does not impart inherent structural features to the claimed crystalline film, the selection of which precursor material is used to form the claimed crystalline thin film material is not germane to the patentability thereof, the precursor no longer existing in the structure of the claimed product. Unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art, the crystalline film disclosed in Materano et al. anticipates the claim for having the same structural/composition features as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 2, the HfxZr1-xO2 film are deposited as pure films (page 2, left column and Fig. 2) with an impurity concentration of less than 15% (Fig. 4). HfxZr1-xO2 is discloses to have three phases: monoclinic, orthorhombic and tetragonal and that concentration of the m-phase (i.e. non-ferroelectric can range from 100-0 based on the relative components of Zr content in the oxide material. (pages 4-5, Fig. 5). Materano et al. therefore discloses a ferroelectric phase and non-ferroelectric phase within the ranges presently claimed.
Regarding claim 21, Materano et al. discloses a relative ratio of hafnium oxide to zirconium oxide of 1:1 by disclosing Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 (Fig. 1 and see Fig. 5-7 which a Zr content fluctuating between 0 to 100%).
Regarding claims 27-28, Materano et al. discloses a carbon content ranging from 0 to 6 at. % (see Fig. 4 (b))
Regarding claims 34-35, the claims are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1 above, with respect to the discussion on the precursor limitations.
Regarding claim 68, the film of Materano has a remanent polarization of 0 to about 20 µC/cm2. (Fig. 9).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
Claim 60 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Materano et al. (Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A, Vol. 38, No. 2, Jan. 10, 2020, pp 022402-1-022402-7) (cited in the IDS filed on 12/14/2022).
Materano et al. discloses a film thickness of about 10-20 nm, which overlaps with the presently claimed range. (page 3, left col.). As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Materano et al. (Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A, Vol. 38, No. 2, Jan. 10, 2020, pp 022402-1-022402-7) in view of Howard et al. (WO 2018/231210).
Materano et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above. Materano et al. does not explicitly disclose the relative amounts of non-ferroelectric to ferroelectric phases but does disclose a change in the relative amount of monoclinical (i.e. non-ferroelectric phase) from 0 to 100 based on the relative content of Zr in the HfZrO crystalline layer. (Fig. 5-6).
Howard et al. discloses a method for providing thin film ferroelectric materials and methods for improving the orthorhombic phase which results in higher ferroelectric phase. (Abstract). Howard et al. teaches including network stabilizers for promoting the orthorhombic phase (par. [0067]) which results in about 80% of the phase to be ferroelectric, implying the remaining 20% is not. (par. [0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the HfxZr1-xO2 crystalline film of Materano et al. having a ferroelectric phase content of about 80% as disclosed in Howard et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have 80% of the film be ferroelectric in view of the teachings in Howard et al. that high ferroelectric content layers are desirable due to their improved performance with respect to remnant polarization, endurance cycles and retention times. (Howard et al., Abstract).
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 10/10/2025 regarding the rejections made of record in the office action mailed on 04/10/2025 have been carefully considered but are deemed unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the disclosure in Materano et al. of the carbon content is directed to hafnium/zirconium oxide films made using precursor materials which are distinct from those presently claimed and therefore do not teach the present limitations. The Examiner disagrees.
Claim 1 is directed to a thin film crystalline material in which the composition and properties are disclosed in Materano et al. While the precursor material used in Materano et al. does not meet the limitations of those presently claimed, given that the precursors themselves are not part of the thin film crystalline material, these claimed compounds are not germane to the patentability claimed film. The limitations are essentially directed to materials used in the process of making the claimed product (“derived from”). MPEP 2113 states that “the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Since Materano et al. meets all of the structural and composition features of claim 1, including the carbon content thereof, the claims are unpatentable over the prior art reference.
If Applicant believes there is a nonobvious difference between the thin film crystalline material as claimed and that disclosed in the prior art, they should provide evidence in the record to that effect.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm ET.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 10/27/2025