DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention Group I and Species III (FIG. 5C), encompassing claims 1-4, 6-10 and 12-15 in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 5, 11 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/08/2025.
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 1-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beelen et al. US 2010/0182730 A1 (Beelen) in view Shen et al. US 2021/0159224 A1 (Shen).
PNG
media_image1.png
756
786
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Beelen teaches an integrated circuit (IC) die (¶ 29,49,82) comprising a varactor device (FIGs. 1-2), wherein the varactor device comprises:
a first electrode 106,210.1;
a second electrode 110,210.2; and
a multi-layer stack 108,208 of ferroelectric material (¶ 74,85) between the first and second electrodes.
Beelen discloses the varactor is implemented into well-known integrated circuit for its good high-frequency operation (¶ 29,49,82). Beelen does not explicitly teach the IC die comprises a plurality of varactor devices.
However, Shen discloses (e.g. FIGs. 9-23) IC dies may contain more than one capacitors 265,395,495 (¶ 22,35,36,41) for incorporating additional functionalities.
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 a plurality of Beelen’s varactor devices in the IC die to incorporate additional functionalities as desired, e.g. to increase device storage capacity. It has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involve only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8 (7th Cir. 1977).
In re claim 2, Beelen discloses (e.g. FIG. 1) wherein the ferroelectric material comprises hysteretic oxide material (¶ 74-75).
In re claim 3, Beelen discloses (e.g. FIG. 1) wherein the multi-layer stack 108 of hysteretic oxide material 108.1,108.2 is a ferroelectric superlattice (¶ 74-75).
In re claim 4, Beelen discloses (e.g. FIG. 1, ¶ 74-75) wherein the ferroelectric superlattice 108 comprises alternated layers of wide band gap layers (PLZT) and narrow band gap layers (BST). Beelen discloses the stoichiometry of PLZT and BST can be varied to obtain desired characteristics (¶ 23-26). 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 of PLZT and BST to have a stoichiometry such that their band gaps are different forming alternating wide band gap layers and narrow band gap layers. E.g. a PLZT could have a band gap up to ~3.8eV, BST can have a band gap of ~3.2eV for BaTiO3. 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 6, Beelen discloses (e.g. FIG. 2) wherein the first and second electrodes 210.1, 210.2 are arranged as interdigitated electrodes (¶ 84).
Claims 7-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiu et al. US 2022/0310471 A1 (Chiu) in view of Beelen et al. US 2010/0182730 A1 (Beelen).
PNG
media_image2.png
460
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In re claim 7, Chiu discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) a system, comprising:
a substrate 78; and
an integrated circuit (IC) die 12+14 attached to the substrate 78 and coupled to the power supply (obvious to include a power supply to provide power to the device as taught by Beelen below), the IC die comprising a plurality of varactor devices 38 (tunable varactors and can include ferroelectric dielectrics, ¶ 31).
Chiu does not explicitly disclose the structure of the varactor devices 38.
Beelen teaches an integrated circuit (IC) die (¶ 29,49,82) coupled to a power supply (not shown, ¶ 124), the IC die comprising a varactor device (FIGs. 1-2), wherein the varactor device comprises:
a first electrode 106,210.1;
a second electrode 110,210.2; and
a multi-layer stack 108,208 of ferroelectric material (¶ 74,85) between the first and second electrodes.
Beelen teaches the varactor having the ferroelectric material stack have improved tuning range and high breakdown voltage (¶ 10,81-82).
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 Chiu’s tunable varactors 38 to have the structure of a tunable varactor with a multi-layer stack of ferroelectric material to improve tuning range and breakdown as taught by Beelen.
In re claim 8, Beelen discloses (e.g. FIG. 1) wherein the ferroelectric material comprises hysteretic oxide material (¶ 74-75).
In re claim 9, Beelen discloses (e.g. FIG. 1) wherein the multi-layer stack 108 of hysteretic oxide material 108.1,108.2 is a ferroelectric superlattice (¶ 74-75).
In re claim 10, Beelen discloses (e.g. FIG. 1, ¶ 74-75) wherein the ferroelectric superlattice 108 comprises alternated layers of wide band gap layers (PLZT) and narrow band gap layers (BST). Beelen discloses the stoichiometry of PLZT and BST can be varied to obtain desired characteristics (¶ 23-26). 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 of PLZT and BST to have a stoichiometry such that their band gaps are different forming alternating wide band gap layers and narrow band gap layers. E.g. a PLZT could have a band gap up to ~3.8eV, BST can have a band gap of ~3.2eV for BaTiO3. 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 12, Beelen discloses (e.g. FIG. 2) wherein the first and second electrodes 210.1, 210.2 are arranged as interdigitated electrodes (¶ 84).
In re claim 13, Chiu discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) wherein the IC die further comprises:
front-side layers (e.g. layers above substrate 16 in FIG. 4) ; and
back-side layers (e.g. layers below substrate 16 in FIG. 4, including 14), wherein the at least one varactor of the plurality of varactor devices 38 is in the back-side layers.
In re claim 14, Chiu and Beelen teaches varactors which can be “configured to operate as a diode”. No specific “diode” has been claimed that would render the device claimed structurally distinguish over the device taught by prior art. 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). 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)
In re claim 15, Chiu discloses (e.g. FIG. 4) further comprising: a cooling structure 74A,74B (¶ 51) operable 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 form the system so as to achieve an operating temperature 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).
Conclusion
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