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
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election, with traverse, of claims 1-7 and 10-11 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 11/12/2025 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
Applicant’s traversal arguments, in “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made” with the reply “Response to Election / Restriction Filed” filed on 11/12/2025, see “Moreover, the Office has not shown the alleged species are mutually exclusive. For example, the claims are directed to a dielectric layer including a perovskite material layer and a rocksalt layer forming a stack structure. The Office Action differentiates the listed species based on (Species 1) the composition of the layers, (Species 2) the number of layers, and (Species 3) the inclusion of the dielectric layer in a capacitor. The Office has not shown that alleged Species 1 is mutually exclusive with alleged Species 2 such that the dielectric cannot have both the composition of Species 1 and the number of layers of alleged Species 2, nor has the Office not shown that alleged Species 3 is mutually exclusive with alleged Species 1 and/or 2 such that the dielectric layer in a capacitor cannot have both the composition of Species 1 and the number of layers of alleged Species 2. Additionally, the Examiner will naturally find art for all the listed species in searching for features of the generic claims”, (remarks on page 2) have been fully considered. The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s arguments for the following reasons:
Firstly, Species 1-3, as claimed, are independent or distinct because they have been disclosed in separate figures and different embodiments, and are characterized by mutually exclusive characteristics. For example Species 1-3 as claimed are independent or distinct because they have been disclosed in separate Figures and different examples, and are characterized by mutually exclusive characteristics, regarding Species 1-3, mutually exclusive devices and the difference between the depicted devices are “wherein the perovskite material layer comprises a material expressed by a chemical formula ((A, A′)BX3)m, in which A and A′ are different Group II elements, B is a Group IV element, X is an oxygen element O, and m is a natural number, and the rocksalt layer comprises a material expressed by a chemical formula (C, C′)X, in which C and C′ are different Group II elements” in Species 1; and “comprising a plurality of the stack structure” in Species 2; and “a lower electrode; an upper electrode; and the dielectric thin film of claim 1 isolating the upper electrode from the lower electrode” in Species 3. Secondly, there is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reasons apply: the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter as exemplified by the aforementioned mutually exclusive characteristics, while the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (different search strategies or search queries, as evidenced by the above-defined distinctions between the species) (see MPEP § 808.02) and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the inventions are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
This office action considers claims 1-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 8-9 and 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, and 1-7 and 10-11 are presented for examination.
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, 4-5, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shimizu et al. (US 20050040481 A1; hereinafter Shimizu).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu teaches a dielectric thin film (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1+; [0163+], and as cited below), comprising:
a stack structure including a perovskite material layer ((Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)TiO.sub.3; [0495]) including at least two Group II elements (Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4); [0495]), and
a rocksalt layer (Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)O; [0495]) on the perovskite material layer ((Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)TiO.sub.3; [0495]) and including at least Group II elements Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4); [0495]),
wherein a first content ratio of the at least two Group II elements ((Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4); [0495]) included in the perovskite material layer ((Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)TiO.sub.3; [0495]) is the same as a second content ratio of the at least two Group II elements (Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4); [0495]) included in the rocksalt layer (Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)O; [0495]).
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shimizu further teaches wherein the rocksalt layer has a thickness of a unit cell scale (see [0495-0501]).
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shimizu further teaches wherein the perovskite material layer ((Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)TiO.sub.3; [0495]) comprises a material expressed by a chemical formula ((A, A')BX3)m, in which A and A' are different Group II elements, B is a Group IV element, X is an oxygen element O, and m is a natural number ([0495]; where m is 1), and the rocksalt layer (Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)O; [0495]) comprises a material expressed by a chemical formula (C, C')X, in which C and C' are different Group II elements.
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu teaches all of the features of claim 5.
Shimizu further teaches wherein A and C (Ba; [0495]) are the same Group II element, A' and C' (Sr; [0495]) are the same Group II element, and the first content ratio is represented by A/A' (Ba.sub.0.6/ Ba.sub.0.6) and the second content ratio is represented by C/C' (Sr.sub.0.4/ Sr.sub.0.4).
Regarding claim 11, Shimizu teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shimizu further teaches wherein spontaneous polarization occurs at an interface between the perovskite material layer ((Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)TiO.sub.3; [0495, 0501]) and the rocksalt layer (Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)O; [0495, 0501]).
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 2-3, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US 20050040481 A1; hereinafter Shimizu), in view of the following statement(s).
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shimizu further teaches wherein a dissipation factor of the dielectric thin film (see [0495-0501]) (see below for “is 0.05 or less”).
Shimizu does not expressly disclose “wherein a dissipation factor of the dielectric thin film is 0.05 or less".
However, Shimizu uses the same material for the rocksalt layer (Ba,Sr,O; [0495]) and the perovskite material layer (Ba,Sr,TiO.sub.3; [0495]) under the same conditions as detailed in the “Specifications” of the instant invention. As a result, the same results are obtained. Therefore, a dissipation factor of the dielectric thin film is 0.05 or less.
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shimizu further teaches wherein a lowest energy level in a conduction band of the rocksalt layer (Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)O; [0495]) (see below for “is greater than”) a lowest energy level in a conduction band of the perovskite material layer ((Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)TiO.sub.3; [0495]).
Shimizu does not expressly disclose “wherein a lowest energy level in a conduction band of the rocksalt layer is greater than a lowest energy level in a conduction band of the perovskite material layer ".
However, Shimizu uses the same material for the rocksalt layer (Ba,Sr,O; [0495]) and the perovskite material layer (Ba,Sr,TiO.sub.3; [0495]) under the same conditions as detailed in the “Specifications” of the instant invention. As a result, the same results are obtained. Therefore, a lowest energy level in a conduction band of the rocksalt layer (Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)O; [0495]) is greater than a lowest energy level in a conduction band of the perovskite material layer ((Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)TiO.sub.3; [0495]).
Regarding claim 6, Shimizu teaches all of the features of claim 5.
Shimizu further teaches wherein m ([0495]; where m is 1) is a natural number below for “greater than or equal to 2”).
Shimizu does not expressly disclose “wherein m is a natural number below for greater than or equal to 2”).
However, the instant specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed “wherein m is a natural number below for greater than or equal to 2” or of any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is aid to be based upon particular chosen compositions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen compositions are critical. (.In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).). Thus, it is not critical to have m be a natural number greater than or equal to 2.
Regarding claim 10, Shimizu teaches all of the features of claim 1.
Shimizu further teaches wherein the perovskite material layer ((Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)TiO.sub.3; [0495]) includes a first lattice constant, the rocksalt layer (Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)O; [0495]) includes a second lattice constant, and (see below for “the first lattice constant is greater than the second lattice constant”)
Shimizu does not expressly disclose “wherein the perovskite material layer includes a first lattice constant, the rocksalt layer includes a second lattice constant, and the first lattice constant is greater than the second lattice constant".
However, Shimizu uses the same material for the rocksalt layer (Ba,Sr,O; [0495]) and the perovskite material layer (Ba,Sr,TiO.sub.3; [0495]) under the same conditions as detailed in the “Specifications” of the instant invention. As a result, the same results are obtained. Therefore, wherein the perovskite material layer includes a first lattice constant, the rocksalt layer includes a second lattice constant, and the first lattice constant is greater than the second lattice constant.
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