DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed 4/13/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 21-35 are pending. Claims 4 and 7-20 have been canceled. Claims 21-35 are new. Claim 5 has been withdrawn. Claims 1-3 and 5-6 have been amended.
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 1-3, 6 and 21-35 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims reciting “the narrow band gap ferroelectric materials each having a band gap of no more than 2eV” in combination with the narrow band gap ferroelectric materials comprise … BaTiO3, (K, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3-δ, Bi(Fe0.5Cr0.5)O3, or (K, Na, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3-δ as recited in claims 1, 21, 23, 24, 25, 29, 31, and 32 lacks adequate written description. In fact, Applicant’s remark submitted on 4/13/2026 (page 5) and non-patent literature Zidi et al. cited in IDS filed on 4/13/2026 shows BaTiO3 has a band gap of greater than 3eV. There is no clear written description on BaTiO3 having a band gap of no more than 2eV. Similar question is raised as to whether Applicant has possession for all possible material covered by each of the formulae (K, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3-δ, Bi(Fe0.5Cr0.5)O3, and (K, Na, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3-δ to have a band gap of no more than 2eV. E.g. it is unclear if K0.5Na0.5NbO3 would have a band gap of no more than 2eV. As a result, there is insufficient written description for the list of the claimed materials to each have a band gap of no more than 2eV.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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, 6 and 21-35 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.
Claims reciting “the narrow band gap ferroelectric materials each having a band gap of no more than 2eV” and the narrow band gap ferroelectric materials comprise … BaTiO3, (K, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3-δ, Bi(Fe0.5Cr0.5)O3, or (K, Na, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3-δ as recited in claims 1, 21, 23, 24, 25, 29, 31, and 32 render the claim indefinite. As detailed above, Applicant’s remark submitted on 4/13/2026 (page 5) and non-patent literature Zidi et al. cited in IDS filed on 4/13/2026 shows evidence of contrary. More specifically, Applicant argues BaTiO3 has a band gap of greater than 3eV. Therefore, it is unclear how does Applicant’s claimed BaTiO3 possess a band gap of no more than 2eV. Similarly, it is unclear which of the material covered by the formulae (K, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3-δ, Bi(Fe0.5Cr0.5)O3, and (K, Na, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3-δ would necessarily possess a band gap of no more than 2EV. Therefore, it is unclear what is the intended scope of the claims due to evidence of apparently contradictory limitations.
Other claims are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 21-25, 28-29, 31-32, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beelen et al. US 2010/0182730 A1 (Beelen) in view Gu et al. US 2020/0240000 A1 (Gu).
PNG
media_image1.png
756
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, as best understood, Beelen teaches an apparatus, comprising:
an integrated circuit (IC) die (the varactor is implemented into well-known integrated circuit for its good high-frequency operation, ¶ 29,49,82) comprising one or more varactor devices (FIGs. 1-2), wherein at least one varactor of the one or more varactor devices comprises:
a first electrode 106,210.1;
a second electrode 110,210.2; and
a multi-layer stack 108,208 of ferroelectric materials (¶ 74,85) between the first and second electrodes, the multi-layer stack 108,208 comprising alternating layers of wide band gap ferroelectric materials PLZT and narrow band gap ferroelectric materials BST.
Beelen discloses the alternating structure improves the tuning range of the varactor (see Abstract, ¶ 82).
As best understood, as disclosed by Applicant and recited in claims 21, 23, 29, 31, BaTiO3 is a narrow band gap ferroelectric material having a band gap of no more than 2eV. Beelen discloses BaxSrTiO3 wherein x can be equal to 1 (¶ 74). Beelen further discloses use of different compositions to obtain desired tuning range (¶ 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the alternating layers using narrow band gap BaTiO3 to achieved the desired band gap tuning range.
Alternatively, Gu teaches potassium barium nickel niobate KBNNO (K, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3 and Bi(Fe,Cr)O3 are known perovskite materials (¶ 123) used for e.g. capacitor dielectrics (¶ 181,187).
Both KBNNO and Bi(Fe,Cr)O3 are narrow bandgap ferroelectric materials each have a band gap of no more than 2 eV as disclosed and claimed by Applicant in claims 21, 24, 25, 29, 32.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a narrow band gap ferroelectric material such as KBNNO or Bi(Fe,Cr)O3 to form the alternating layer structure with the wider band gap ferroelectric materials, e.g. PLZT layers, to obtain desired band gap tuning range as taught by Beelen and Gu.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
In re claim 2, Beelen discloses (e.g. FIG. 1) wherein the multi-layer stack of ferroelectric materials comprises a hysteretic oxide material (¶ 74-75).
In re claim 3, Beelen discloses (e.g. FIG. 1) wherein the multi-layer stack 108 of ferroelectric materials 108.1,108.2 is a ferroelectric superlattice (¶ 74-75).
In re claim 21, as best understood, Beelen discloses the narrow band gap ferroelectric materials comprises BaTiO3 (BaxSrTiO3 comprises BaTiO3 when x=1, ¶ 74).
Gu discloses the narrow band gap ferroelectric materials comprises KBNNO and Bi(Fe,Cr)O3 (¶ 123). The claimed generic formulae (K, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3-δ, Bi(Fe0.5Cr0.5)O3, or (K, Na, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3-δ do not distinguish over KBNNO and Bi(Fe,Cr)O3 taught by Gu.
In re claim 22, Beelen discloses the wide band gap ferroelectric materials comprises at least one of SrTiO3, HfOx, ZrOx, and PZT (e.g. PLZT, ¶ 74,85).
In re claim 23, as best understood, Beelen discloses the narrow band gap ferroelectric materials comprises BaTiO3 (BaxSrTiO3 comprises BaTiO3 when x=1, ¶ 74). Although Beelen discloses the wide band gap material is PLZT, Beelen further discloses use of different compositions to obtain desired tuning range (¶ 25).
Gu discloses lead zirconate titanate PZT and strontium titanate SrTiO3 are known alternative perovskites (¶ 121-122)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use SrTiO3 as the wide band gap ferroelectric material to form the alternating layer structure to obtain desired band gap tuning range as taught by Beelen and Gu.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
In re claim 24, as best understood, Gu discloses the narrow band gap ferroelectric materials are each KBNNO (¶ 123). The claimed generic formulae (K, Na, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3-δ do not distinguish over KBNNO taught by Gu.
In re claim 25, as best understood, Gu discloses the narrow band gap ferroelectric materials are each Bi(Fe,Cr)O3 (¶ 123). The claimed Bi(Fe0.5Cr0.5)O3 is obvious in view of Gu teaching Bi(Fe,Cr)O3.
In re claim 28, Beelen discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) further comprising:
a substrate 102,202; and
a power supply (not shown, ¶ 124), wherein the IC die is attached to the substrate 102,202 and coupled to the power supply (¶ 124).
In re claim 29, as best understood, Beelen teaches an apparatus, comprising:
an integrated circuit (IC) die (the varactor is implemented into well-known integrated circuit for its good high-frequency operation, ¶ 29,49,82) comprising one or more varactor devices (FIGs. 1-2), wherein at least one varactor of the one or more varactor devices comprises:
a first electrode 106,210.1;
a second electrode 110,210.2; and
a multi-layer stack 108,208 of ferroelectric materials (¶ 74,85) between the first and second electrodes, the multi-layer stack 108,208 comprising alternating layers of wide band gap ferroelectric materials PLZT and narrow band gap ferroelectric materials BST, the wide band gap ferroelectric materials each having a band gap of more than 2eV and comprising at least one of SrTiO3, HfOx, ZrOx, and PZT (e.g. PLZT, ¶ 74,85), and the narrow band gap ferroelectric materials each comprising BaTiO3 (BaxSrTiO3 comprises BaTiO3 when x=1, ¶ 74).
Beelen discloses the alternating structure improves the tuning range of the varactor (see Abstract, ¶ 82).
As best understood, as disclosed by Applicant and recited in claims 21, 23, 29, 31, BaTiO3 is a narrow band gap ferroelectric material having a band gap of no more than 2eV. Beelen discloses BaxSrTiO3 wherein x can be equal to 1 (¶ 74). Beelen further discloses use of different compositions to obtain desired tuning range (¶ 25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the alternating layers using narrow band gap BaTiO3 to achieved the desired band gap tuning range.
Alternatively, Gu teaches potassium barium nickel niobate KBNNO (K, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3 and Bi(Fe,Cr)O3 are known perovskite materials (¶ 123) used for e.g. capacitor dielectrics (¶ 181,187).
Both KBNNO and Bi(Fe,Cr)O3 are narrow bandgap ferroelectric materials each have a band gap of no more than 2 eV as disclosed and claimed by Applicant in claims 21, 24, 25, 29, 32.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a narrow band gap ferroelectric material such as KBNNO or Bi(Fe,Cr)O3 to form the alternating layer structure with the wider band gap ferroelectric materials, e.g. PLZT layers, to obtain desired band gap tuning range as taught by Beelen and Gu.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
In re claim 31, as best understood, Beelen discloses the narrow band gap ferroelectric materials comprises BaTiO3 (BaxSrTiO3 comprises BaTiO3 when x=1, ¶ 74). Although Beelen discloses the wide band gap material is PLZT, Beelen further discloses use of different compositions to obtain desired tuning range (¶ 25).
Gu discloses lead zirconate titanate PZT and strontium titanate SrTiO3 are known alternative perovskites (¶ 121-122)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use SrTiO3 as the wide band gap ferroelectric material to form the alternating layer structure to obtain desired band gap tuning range as taught by Beelen and Gu.
It has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
In re claim 32, as best understood, Gu discloses the narrow band gap ferroelectric materials are each KBNNO or each Bi(Fe,Cr)O3 (¶ 123). The claimed generic formulae (K, Na, Ba)(Nb, Ni)O3-δ do not distinguish over KBNNO taught by Gu. The claimed Bi(Fe0.5Cr0.5)O3 is obvious in view of Gu teaching Bi(Fe,Cr)O3.
In re claim 35, Beelen discloses (e.g. FIGs. 1-2) further comprising:
a substrate 102,202; and
a power supply (not shown, ¶ 124), wherein the IC die is attached to the substrate 102,202 and coupled to the power supply (¶ 124).
Claims 6 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beelen and Gu as applied to claims 1 and 29 above, and further in view of Kingon et al. US 5,555,486 A1 (Kingon).
In re claims 6 and 30, Beelen discloses (e.g. FIG. 2) wherein the first and second electrodes 210.1, 210.2 are interdigitated electrodes (¶ 84).
Beelen does not explicitly discloses a semiconductor layer directly on the multi-layer stack of ferroelectric materials, and at least one of the first and second electrodes is directly on the semiconductor layer.
According to Applicant’s disclosure, “semiconductor layer” can be InOx, ZnOx, ZnN, ITO, ZTO, IZO ,etc.
Kingon discloses (e.g. FIG. 1b) a ferroelectric capacitor comprising a metal oxide layer (e.g. indium tin oxide; Column 6, lines 5-18) between the ferroelectric layer PZT and the Pt electrode. Kingon discloses the provision of conductive oxide such as ITO between the ferroelectric layer and the Pt electrode to improve capacitor fatigue and leakage current (see Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form an ITO layer between Beelen’s electrodes 210.1,210.2 and the ferroelectric layers 208 to improve fatigue and leakage current as taught by Kingon.
As such, the ITO layer teaches the claimed “semiconductor layer” as disclosed by Applicant’s own disclosure.
Claims 26-27 and 33-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beelen and Gu as applied to claims 1 and 29 above, and further in view of Chiu et al. US 2022/0310471 A1 (Chiu).
PNG
media_image2.png
460
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claims 26 and 33, Beelen discloses the claimed apparatus comprising the varactor device. Beelen does not explicitly disclose the apparatus further comprising a cooling structure coupled to the IC die, wherein the cooling structure to maintain an operating temperature of the IC die at or below 0°C.
However, Chiu discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) an apparatus, comprising:
an integrated circuit (IC) die 12+14 comprising one or more varactor devices 38 (tunable varactors and can include ferroelectric dielectrics, ¶ 31), and further comprising:
a cooling structure 74A,74B (¶ 51) coupled to the IC die, wherein the cooling structure to remove heat from the IC die 12+14. The heat exchanger 74A,74B as taught by Chiu is capable of functioning to remove heat from the apparatus so as to maintain an operating temperature of the IC die at or below 0°C. Furthermore, the claimed operation temperature pertains to the manner in which the claimed device is intended to be operated. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to couple a cooling structure to the apparatus embodying the Beelen’s varactor in IC die so as to remove heat from the device to the outside to sure optimum operation condition of the device as taught by Chiu.
In re claims 27 and 34, Chiu discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) wherein the IC die comprises front-side layers (e.g. layers below substrate 16 in FIG. 4, including 14, 74A, and 74B) and back-side layers (e.g. layers above substrate 16 in FIG. 4), wherein the at least one varactor 38 is in the front-side layers 14+74A+74B, and the IC die further comprises die-level microchannels in the front-side layers to convey a heat transfer fluid therein (no specific “microchannels” claimed that would distinguish over any conveying channels through which Chiu’s heat exchange liquid is feed through, ¶ 51).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 21-35 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 YU CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7881. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9AM-5PM 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, WILLIAM KRAIG can be reached on 5712728660. 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.
/YU CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
YU CHEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights