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 .
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination, in the “Request for Continued Examination (RCE)” filed on 12/08/2025, under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/08/2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendment of claim 1 and addition of new claim 21 in “Claims” filed on 12/08/2025 with the “Request for Continued Examination (RCE)” filed on 12/08/2025, have been acknowledged and entered by Examiner.
This office action consider claims 1-10 and 12-21 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-10, 12, and 21 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
1. The finality of the previous Office Action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114 in respect with the request for continued examination, in the “Request for Continued Examination (RCE)” filed on 12/08/2025, under 37 CFR 1.114
Applicant's arguments filed in the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on 12/08/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, because of the following: Applicant's amendment of claim 1 necessitated the shift in rejection detailed in sections below. Furthermore, the second impurity (zirconium into zirconium oxide; see [0041, 0076], zirconium oxide; see [0041] where is states layers 306-1 and 306-3 include other materials created through doping by diffusion. In other embodiments, the layers 306-1 and/or 306-3 may be separately deposited layers, and may therefore include different metal oxide materials) is located at a specific height (see Fig. 3E, where the second impurity is located at a specific height between an upper surface and a lower surface of the second dielectric layer ({306-1)) in the first direction that is between an upper surface and a lower surface of the second dielectric layer ({306-1}; Fig. 3E; [0041]). The shift in grounds of rejection renders the Applicant's arguments moot.
Please see the analysis of rejection for claims below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1-2, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiang et al. (US 20100243983 A1; hereinafter Chiang).
Regarding claim 1, Chiang teaches a semiconductor device (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0002+], and as cited below), comprising:
a capacitor structure (Fig. 3E; [0037, 0058]),
wherein the capacitor structure (Fig. 3E; [0037, 0058]) comprises a bottom electrode (304; Fig. 3E; [0038]), a dielectric layer ({306-1, 306-2, 306-3}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0050]), and a top electrode (306; Fig. 3E; [0057]) that are stacked in a first direction,
the dielectric layer ({306-1, 306-2, 306-3}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0050]) comprises a first dielectric layer ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0050]), a second dielectric layer ({306-1}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0050]) stacked on the first dielectric layer ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0050]) in the first direction, and a first impurity (see [0041, 0043-0048, 0049-0050]; Al.sup.+3 into hafnium oxide) provided in the first dielectric layer ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]), and a second impurity in the second dielectric layer ({306-1}; Fig. 3E; see [0041, 0076], zirconium oxide; see [0041] where is states layers 306-1 and 306-3 include other materials created through doping by diffusion. In other embodiments, the layers 306-1 and/or 306-3 may be separately deposited layers, and may therefore include different metal oxide materials; and see [0076] the dopant may be the same metal as the metal oxide into which the dopant is doped; thus, it is construed that the dopant comprises of zirconium and the metal oxide is zirconium oxide);
the first dielectric layer ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]) comprises a ferroelectric material (see [0041, 0049-0050]; hafnium oxide; see [0020] of the Specification of the instant disclosure where it states “The first dielectric layer 210 is formed of or includes a ferroelectric material. In an embodiment, the first dielectric layer 210 is formed of or includes at least one of hafnium oxide (e.g., HfO2)”),
the second dielectric layer ({306-1}; Fig. 3E; [0041], where is states layers 306-1 and 306-3 include other materials created through doping by diffusion. In other embodiments, the layers 306-1 and/or 306-3 may be separately deposited layers, and may therefore include different metal oxide materials) comprises an anti-ferroelectric material (see [0041, 0076]; zirconium oxide; see [0020] of the Specification of the instant disclosure where it states “The second dielectric layer 220 is formed of or includes an anti-ferroelectric material or a material that has an electric field-induced phase transition property. In an embodiment, the second dielectric layer 220 is formed of or includes at least one of zirconium oxide”), and
wherein the second impurity (zirconium into zirconium oxide; see [0041, 0076], zirconium oxide; see [0041] where is states layers 306-1 and 306-3 include other materials created through doping by diffusion. In other embodiments, the layers 306-1 and/or 306-3 may be separately deposited layers, and may therefore include different metal oxide materials; and see [0076] the dopant may be the same metal as the metal oxide into which the dopant is doped; thus, it is construed that the dopant comprises of zirconium and the metal oxide is zirconium oxide) is located at a specific height (see Fig. 3E, where the second impurity is located at a specific height between an upper surface and a lower surface of the second dielectric layer ({306-1)) in the first direction that is between an upper surface and a lower surface of the second dielectric layer ({306-1}; Fig. 3E; [0041], where is states layers 306-1 and 306-3 include other materials created through doping by diffusion. In other embodiments, the layers 306-1 and/or 306-3 may be separately deposited layers, and may therefore include different metal oxide materials).
Regarding claim 2, Chiang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Chiang further teaches wherein the first impurity (see [0041, 0043-0048, 0049-0050]; Al.sup.+3 into hafnium oxide; see [0022] of the Specification of the instant disclosure where it states “The first impurity 215 includes a trivalent cation material. In an embodiment, the first impurity 215 includes at least one of Y3+, La3+ or Al3+”) comprises a trivalent cation material (see [0041, 0043-0048, 0049-0050]; Al.sup.+3; see [0022] of the Specification of the instant disclosure where it states “The first impurity 215 includes a trivalent cation material. In an embodiment, the first impurity 215 includes … Al3+”).
Regarding claim 7, Chiang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Chiang further teaches wherein the second dielectric layer ({306-1}; Fig. 3E; [0041], where is states layers 306-1 and 306-3 include other materials created through doping by diffusion. In other embodiments, the layers 306-1 and/or 306-3 may be separately deposited layers, and may therefore include different metal oxide materials) includes a plurality of second dielectric layers ({306-1, 306-3}; Fig. 3E; [0041], where is states layers 306-1 and 306-3 include other materials created through doping by diffusion. In other embodiments, the layers 306-1 and/or 306-3 may be separately deposited layers, and may therefore include different metal oxide materials), and the first dielectric layer ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]) is interposed between two second dielectric layers ({306-1, 306-3}; Fig. 3E; [0041], where is states layers 306-1 and 306-3 include other materials created through doping by diffusion. In other embodiments, the layers 306-1 and/or 306-3 may be separately deposited layers, and may therefore include different metal oxide materials) that are adjacent to each other in the first direction.
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 of this title, 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.
3. Claims 3-6, 8-10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Chiang et al. (US 20100243983 A1; hereinafter Chiang), in view the following statement.
Regarding claim 3, Chiang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Chiang further teaches wherein a total thickness in the first direction of the dielectric layer ({306-1, 306-2, 306-3}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0050]) (see below for “is less than or equal to 60 A”).
While Chiang does not expressly disclose “wherein a total thickness in the first direction of the dielectric layer is less than or equal to 60 A”, some if its values fall within the claim range of less than or equal to 60 Å, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enable using “the thickness of the entire metal oxide layer 306 may range from 50-1000 .ANG” ([0041]), as disclosed in prior art Chiang, to arrive at the recited limitation of wherein a total thickness in the first direction of the dielectric layer ({306-1, 306-2, 306-3}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0050]) is less than or equal to 60 A (see [0041]; where some of the values from a thickness range of 50-1000 .ANG, specifically 50-60 .ANG, are within the claimed thickness range; see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 4, Chiang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Chiang further teaches wherein a thickness in the first direction of the first dielectric layer ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]) (see below for “is less than or equal to 10 A”).
While Chiang does not expressly disclose “wherein a thickness in the first direction of the first dielectric layer is less than or equal to 10 A”, some if its values fall within the claim range of less than or equal to 10 Å, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enable using “For example, the thickness of the entire metal oxide layer 306 may range from 50-1000 .ANG., while the layers 306-1 and 306-3 may be 5-50 .ANG” ([0041]), as disclosed in prior art Chiang, to arrive at the recited limitation of wherein a thickness in the first direction of the first dielectric layer ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]) is less than or equal to 10 A (see [0041], where the thickness of the entire metal oxide layer 306 may be 60 .ANG., while the layers 306-1 and 306-3 may be 26 .ANG each, and layer 306-2 is 8.ANG; see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 5, Chiang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Chiang further teaches wherein a thickness in the first direction of the first dielectric layer ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]) (see below for “is less than a thickness in”) the first direction of the second dielectric layer ({306-1}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]).
While Chiang does not expressly disclose “wherein a thickness in the first direction of the first dielectric layer is less than a thickness in the first direction of the second dielectric layer”, some if its values fall within the claim range of wherein a thickness in the first direction of the first dielectric layer is less than a thickness in the first direction of the second dielectric layer, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enable using “For example, the thickness of the entire metal oxide layer 306 may range from 50-1000 .ANG., while the layers 306-1 and 306-3 may be 5-50 .ANG” ([0041]), as disclosed in prior art Chiang, to arrive at the recited limitation of wherein a thickness in the first direction of the first dielectric layer ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]) is less than a thickness in (see [0041], where the thickness of the entire metal oxide layer 306 may be 60 .ANG., while the layers 306-1 and 306-3 may be 26 .ANG each, and layer 306-2 is 8.ANG; see MPEP § 2144.05.I) the first direction of the second dielectric layer ({306-1}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]).
Regarding claim 6, Chiang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Chiang further teaches wherein a thickness in the first direction of the first dielectric layer ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]) (see below for “is less than or equal to 30% of a”) total thickness in the first direction of the dielectric layer ({306-1, 306-2, 306-3}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0050]).
While Chiang does not expressly disclose “wherein a thickness in the first direction of the first dielectric layer is less than or equal to 30% of a total thickness in the first direction of the dielectric layer”, some if its values fall within the claim range of wherein a thickness in the first direction of the first dielectric layer is less than or equal to 30% of a total thickness in the first direction of the dielectric layer, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enable using “For example, the thickness of the entire metal oxide layer 306 may range from 50-1000 .ANG., while the layers 306-1 and 306-3 may be 5-50 .ANG” ([0041]), as disclosed in prior art Chiang, to arrive at the recited limitation of
wherein a thickness in the first direction of the first dielectric layer ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]) is less than or equal to 30% of a total thickness (see [0041], where the thickness of the entire metal oxide layer 306 may be 60 .ANG., while the layers 306-1 and 306-3 may be 26 .ANG each, and layer 306-2 is 8.ANG; see MPEP § 2144.05.I) in the first direction of the dielectric layer ({306-1, 306-2, 306-3}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0050]).
Regarding claim 8, Chiang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Chiang further teaches wherein the first dielectric layer ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]; hafnium oxide) includes a plurality of first dielectric layers ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]; see [0041], where it states that layer 306 may include one or more layers of metal oxide material, including one or more of hafnium oxide; thus it is construed that there are multiple layers of 306-2), the second dielectric layer ({306-1}; Fig. 3E; [0041], where is states layers 306-1 and 306-3 include other materials created through doping by diffusion. In other embodiments, the layers 306-1 and/or 306-3 may be separately deposited layers, and may therefore include different metal oxide materials) includes a plurality of second dielectric layers ({306-1, 306-3}; Fig. 3E; [0041], where is states layers 306-1 and 306-3 include other materials created through doping by diffusion. In other embodiments, the layers 306-1 and/or 306-3 may be separately deposited layers, and may therefore include different metal oxide materials), the first dielectric layers and the second dielectric layers ({306-1, 306-3}; Fig. 3E; [0041], where is states layers 306-1 and 306-3 include other materials created through doping by diffusion. In other embodiments, the layers 306-1 and/or 306-3 may be separately deposited layers, and may therefore include different metal oxide materials) are (see below for “alternately stacked in”) the first direction, and the first impurity is provided in at least one of the first dielectric layers ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0050]; see [0041, 0043-0048, 0049-0050]; Al.sup.+3 into hafnium oxide).
As noted above, Chiang does not expressly disclose “wherein the first dielectric layer includes a plurality of first dielectric layers, the second dielectric layer includes a plurality of second dielectric layers, the first dielectric layers and the second dielectric layers are alternately stacked in the first direction, and the first impurity is provided in at least one of the first dielectric layers”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the first dielectric layer includes a plurality of first dielectric layers, the second dielectric layer includes a plurality of second dielectric layers, the first dielectric layers and the second dielectric layers are alternately stacked in the first direction, and the first impurity is provided in at least one of the first dielectric layers” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the first dielectric layer includes a plurality of first dielectric layers, the second dielectric layer includes a plurality of second dielectric layers, the first dielectric layers and the second dielectric layers are alternately stacked in the first direction, and the first impurity is provided in at least one of the first dielectric layers). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the first dielectric layer includes a plurality of first dielectric layers, the second dielectric layer includes a plurality of second dielectric layers, the first dielectric layers and the second dielectric layers are alternately stacked in the first direction, and the first impurity is provided in at least one of the first dielectric layers” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, paragraph [0029] of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “In an embodiment, as shown in FIG. 3, a plurality of second dielectric layers 220 are provided, and the first dielectric layer 210 is interposed between two second dielectric layers 220 that are adjacent to each other in the first direction VD. At least one of the second dielectric layers 220 is interposed between the bottom electrode BE and the first dielectric layer 210, and the other second dielectric layers 220 are interposed between the top electrode TE and the first dielectric layer 210”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the first dielectric layer includes a plurality of first dielectric layers, the second dielectric layer includes a plurality of second dielectric layers, the first dielectric layers and the second dielectric layers are alternately stacked in the first direction, and the first impurity is provided in at least one of the first dielectric layers”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the first dielectric layer includes a plurality of first dielectric layers, the second dielectric layer includes a plurality of second dielectric layers, the first dielectric layers and the second dielectric layers are alternately stacked in the first direction, and the first impurity is provided in at least one of the first dielectric layers” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the first dielectric layer includes a plurality of first dielectric layers, the second dielectric layer includes a plurality of second dielectric layers, the first dielectric layers and the second dielectric layers are alternately stacked in the first direction, and the first impurity is provided in at least one of the first dielectric layers” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the first dielectric layer includes a plurality of first dielectric layers, the second dielectric layer includes a plurality of second dielectric layers, the first dielectric layers and the second dielectric layers are alternately stacked in the first direction, and the first impurity is provided in at least one of the first dielectric layers” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the first dielectric layer includes a plurality of first dielectric layers, the second dielectric layer includes a plurality of second dielectric layers, the first dielectric layers and the second dielectric layers are alternately stacked in the first direction, and the first impurity is provided in at least one of the first dielectric layers”” is not patentable over Chiang.
Furthermore, the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) See MPEP § 2144.04 VI. B.
Regarding claim 9, Chiang teaches all of the features of claim 8.
Chiang further teaches wherein a thickness in the first direction of each of the first dielectric layers ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]; see [0041], where it states that layer 306 may include one or more layers of metal oxide material, including one or more of hafnium oxide; thus it is construed that there are multiple layers of 306-2) is less than or equal to 10 A.
While Chiang does not expressly disclose “wherein a thickness in the first direction of each of the first dielectric layers is less than or equal to 10 A”, some if its values fall within the claim range of less than or equal to 10 Å, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enable using “For example, the thickness of the entire metal oxide layer 306 may range from 50-1000 .ANG., while the layers 306-1 and 306-3 may be 5-50 .ANG” ([0041]), as disclosed in prior art Chiang, to arrive at the recited limitation of wherein a thickness in the first direction of the first dielectric layer ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]; see [0041], where it states that layer 306 may include one or more layers of metal oxide material, including one or more of hafnium oxide; thus it is construed that there are multiple layers of 306-2) is less than or equal to 10 A ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]; see [0041], where the thickness of the entire metal oxide layer 306 may be 60 .ANG., while the layers 306-1 and 306-3 may be 25 .ANG each, and layers 306-2 are 5.ANG each; see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 10, Chiang teaches all of the features of claim 8.
Chiang further teaches wherein a sum of thicknesses of the first dielectric layers ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]; see [0041], where it states that layer 306 may include one or more layers of metal oxide material, including one or more of hafnium oxide; thus it is construed that there are multiple layers of 306-2) (see below for “is less than or equal to 30% of a”) total thickness of the dielectric layer ({306-1, 306-2, 306-3, 306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0050]) in the first direction.
While Chiang does not expressly disclose “wherein a sum of the thicknesses of the first dielectric layers is less than or equal to 30% of a total thickness of the dielectric layer in the first direction”, some if its values fall within the claim range of wherein a sum of the thicknesses of the first dielectric layers is less than or equal to 30% of a total thickness of the dielectric layer in the first direction, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enable using “For example, the thickness of the entire metal oxide layer 306 may range from 50-1000 .ANG., while the layers 306-1 and 306-3 may be 5-50 .ANG” ([0041]), as disclosed in prior art Chiang, to arrive at the recited limitation of
Chiang further teaches wherein a sum of the thicknesses of the first dielectric layers ({306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0049, 0050]; see [0041], where it states that layer 306 may include one or more layers of metal oxide material, including one or more of hafnium oxide; thus it is construed that there are multiple layers of 306-2) is less than or equal to 30% of a total thickness of the dielectric layer ({306-1, 306-2, 306-3, 306-2}; Fig. 3E; [0041, 0050]) in the first direction see [0041], where the thickness of the entire metal oxide layer 306 may be 60 .ANG., while the layers 306-1 and 306-3 may be 25 .ANG each, and layers 306-2 are 5.ANG each; see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Regarding claim 12, Chiang teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Chiang further teaches wherein the second impurity (see [0041, 0072, 0076], see [0072], where it states that zirconium oxide is a metal oxide that has a bandgap that is greater than 4 eV; see [0076], where it states that the dopant may be the same metal as the metal oxide into which the dopant is doped) comprises a material that has a band gap (see below for “greater than or equal to 5 eV”).
While Chiang does not expressly disclose “wherein the second impurity comprises a material that has a band gap greater than or equal to 5 eV”, some if its values fall within the claim range of greater than or equal to 5 eV, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to enable using “where it states that zirconium oxide is a metal oxide that has a bandgap that is greater than 4 eV; see [0076], where it states that the dopant may be the same metal as the metal oxide into which the dopant is doped” ([0041, 0072, 0076]), as disclosed in prior art Chiang, to arrive at the recited limitation of wherein the second impurity (see [0041, 0072, 0076], see [0072], where it states that zirconium oxide is a metal oxide that has a bandgap that is greater than 4 eV; see [0076], where it states that the dopant may be the same metal as the metal oxide into which the dopant is doped) comprises a material that has a band gap greater than or equal to 5 eV (see [0041, 0072, 0076]; where some of the values from a range greater than 4 eV, specifically 5 ev, are within the claimed range; see MPEP § 2144.05.I).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: A search of the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations “wherein the specific height in the first direction is near half of a total height of the dielectric layer” of claim 21 (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m..
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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898