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
Status of Claims
Applicant's amendment of claims 1 and 10, and cancellation of claims 4 and 16 in “Claims - 05/27/2026” with “Amendment/Req. Reconsideration-After Non-Final Reject - 05/27/2026”, have been acknowledged by Examiner.
This office action considers claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-20 pending for prosecution, wherein claims 8-9 and 12-15, and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration, and claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-11 are presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the “Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment” on 05/27/2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive, because of the following: the Applicant's amendment of claim 1 necessitated the shift in new grounds of rejection detailed in sections below. 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 § 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.
1. Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding claim 1, 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. While the claim recites the limitations “wherein the rocksalt layer includes a rocksalt material including a unit cell having a lattice constant, and a thickness of the rocksalt layer and the lattice constant are the same”, neither original specification nor drawings support “wherein the rocksalt layer includes a rocksalt material including a unit cell having a lattice constant, and a thickness of the rocksalt layer and the lattice constant are the same” in “Claim 1, Lines 9-11”. Although paragraph [0071] of the “Specification” filed on 12/01/2022 states “When C is Ba and C′ is Sr, each of the rocksalt layers 11-1, 11-2, 11-3, … , and 11-n may include (Ba, Sr)O. In these cases, each of the rocksalt layers 11-1, 11-2, 11-3, … , and 11-n may be formed in a single layer having a thickness of a unit cell scale including (Ba, Sr)O. As such, as each of the rocksalt layers 11-1, 11-2, 11-3, … , and 11-n is formed in a single layer having a thickness of a unit cell scale, each of the rocksalt layers 11-1, 11-2, 11-3, …”, it does not state that “wherein the rocksalt layer includes a rocksalt material including a unit cell having a lattice constant, and a thickness of the rocksalt layer and the lattice constant are the same”.
Claims 2-3, 5-7, and 10-11are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because of their dependency status from claim 1.
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, 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 twp 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]),
wherein the rocksalt layer (Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)O; [0495-0501]) includes a rocksalt material including a unit cell having a lattice constant, and a thickness of the rocksalt layer (Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)O; [0495-0501]) and the lattice constant are the same (see section 1, above; 112(a) rejection).
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). 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.
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, the instant specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed “wherein a dissipation factor of the dielectric thin film is 0.05 or less” 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).).
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, the instant specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed “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” 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).).
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; [0495-0501]) includes a first lattice constant, and
the first lattice constant (see below for “is greater than”) the lattice constant of the rocksalt layer (Ba.sub.0.6,Sr.sub.0.4)O; [0495])
Shimizu does not expressly disclose “wherein the perovskite material layer includes a first lattice constant, and the first lattice constant is greater than the lattice constant of the rocksalt layer".
However, the instant specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed “wherein the perovskite material layer includes a first lattice constant, and the first lattice constant is greater than the lattice constant of the rocksalt layer” 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).).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights