DETAILED ACTION
Examiner’s Note
This office action is in response to applicants’ amendments to the claims and remarks filed October 28, 2025. Claims 1-15 are pending, claims 6-10 have been examined for patentability, and claims 11-14 remain withdrawn.
Species Election
Applicants’ elected Species A, claims 1-5, 10, and 15 in the reply filed on June 12, 2025. Claims to the elected species have been found to distinguish over the prior art as such the next species is examined. Given only two species are present in the instant application (Species A and B), the species requirement is hereby withdrawn and all species examined for patentability. Claims 6-10 are no longer withdrawn and are now fully examined.
Restriction/Rejoinder
Applicants’ have elected group I with traverse. Group II, claims 11-14, remains withdrawn as the claims are directed to non-elected subject matter and are not in condition for rejoinder. The presence of claims 11-14 must be resolved before passing the application to allowance. Applicants should either cancel the withdrawn process claims or amend the claims such as they directly reflect each and every feature of an allowable claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 15 set forth two Markush groups using the language “a group consisted of” which is non-conventional phrasing. Generally the accepted convention for establishing a Markush group is “a group consisting of”. To ensure clarity and constancy applicants’ are asked to amend the language to “consisting of”.
Claim 6 also sets forth a Markush group using the same wording. Correction is requested.
Claims 2-11 are objected to as depending form one or more of the above objected to claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 6-9 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.
Claim 6 is rejoined and examined for patentability in light of elected species A distinguishing over the prior art. Claim 6 requires i) the first metal element composition to be one to two metal elements selected from a group of titanium and copper, ii) the second group including magnesium, zirconium, and hafnium, and iii) a work function of 3.8 to 4.3 eV. Claim 6 depends from claim 1 which does not include i) titanium or copper in the first metal element composition, ii) does not include magnesium, zirconium, and hafnium as the second metal element composition, and iii) which requires a mutually exclusive work function of not less than 4.7 eV. The scope of claim 6 is unclear where the parent claim limits the composition and work function to separate and distinct metal elements and work functions. For purposes of evaluating the prior art, claim 6 will be interpreted as a separate embodiment from claim 1, which requires all of the limitations of claim 1 but substituting the metal element composition requirements, and work function requirement from claim 6.
Claims 7-9 are rejected for depending from claim 6 as rejected above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections to the claims as set forth in this Office action.
Do et al. (KR20090104340A) disclose a capacitor which includes shape memory nickel and titanium alloy film where a work function of 4.8 to 5.1eV can be secured, however Do et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose first and second metal elements meeting the requirements of as amended claim 1 (previously claim 2). Further there is insufficient evidence such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the shape memory alloy film of Do et al. to use a first and second material meeting the claimed requirements. Claims 2-5 and 10 depend from claim 1 and therefore distinguish over the prior art for these reasons.
Claims 6-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Do et al. (KR20090104340A) disclose a capacitor which includes shape memory nickel and titanium alloy film where a work function of 4.8 to 5.1eV however the alloy does not satisfy the requirement of a work function of 3.8 to 4.3eV. There is insufficient motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicants’ claimed invention to would have found it obvious to modify the capacitor of Do et al. to achieve the claimed metal element composition in combination with the required work function of 3.8 to 4.3eV.
Claim 15 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections to the claims, set forth in this Office action.
Do et al. disclose a capacitor which includes shape memory nickel and titanium alloy film where a work function of 4.8 to 5.1eV can be secured as discussed above, however Do et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose a capacitor structure of a semiconductor device having an electrode layer, oxide layer, base layer, and multicomponent-alloy layer where the base layer is disposed between the electrode layer and the oxide layer and wherein the base layer contacts one of two sides of the oxide layer with the multicomponent-alloy material layer positioned on the other one of the two sides. Further there is insufficient motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to arrange or modify the layers of the capacitor of Do et al. such as to conform to the claimed structure.
Response to Applicants
Applicants’ remarks filed October 28, 2025 have been considered. Applicants’ amendments to the claims move the application towards allowance, however introduce issues requiring new grounds of rejection. Applicants’ amendments to claim 1 are incompatible with withdrawn claims 6-9 which were reintroduced following determination that Species A distinguishes over the prior art. Further applicants’ election of Group I with traverse leaves claims 11-14 unresolved as they remain pending but are not found to be in condition for rejoinder as they to not reflect each and every limitation of an allowable product claim. For these reasons applicants’ claims are found to distinguish over the prior art but are not yet in condition for allowance.
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 ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm 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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784