DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 and 22, in the reply filed on October 3, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 14-21 are withdrawn as directed to non-elected subject matter.
Incorporation by Reference
Applicants’ specification provides for the incorporation by references in their entirety in at least paragraphs 0028, 0029, 0030, 0056(three references), 0042, 0043 (14 references), and paragraph 0070 (73 references). Applicants state, in at least paragraph, 0103 that “All references throughout this application…are hereby incorporated by reference”. Given the incorporation of non-patent literature documents, including documents unpublished (paragraph 0043 document 10) or otherwise not readily accessible to the public, a copy of each reference listed in the specification, in it’s entirely, is required to ensure completeness of the specification. 37 C.F.R. 1.57 (f).
Information Disclosure Statement
Any documents listed in the specification, which applicants deem pertinent to the patentability of the claimed subject matter, should be listed in an information disclosure statement (IDS). This is NOT a requirement that all documents listed in the specification be listed on an IDS, however 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not necessarily been considered.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (Bipolar resistive switching behavior in Au/Pt-Fe2O3 core-shell nanoparticles assembly/Ti with 3 X 3 crossbar array structure, Microelectronic Engineering 127 (2014) 40-43).
Regarding applicants’ claim 1, Hu et al. disclose core-shell nanoparticles of Au/Pt-Fe2O3 where the Fe2O3 is a metal oxide shell surrounding a metallic core of Au/Pt, where the particles are demonstrated to provide bipolar switching behavior in response to an applied voltage (Section 3. Results and discussion).
Regarding applicants’ claim 3, Fe2O3 exhibits dielectric properties and is therefore considered to be a dielectric material.
Regarding applicants’ claim 10, the total size of the Au/Pt-Fe2O3 core-shell nanoparticles is about 15nm which falls within applicants’ claimed range of 3 to 100nm (Section 3. Results and discussion).
Claims 1-5 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Wei et al. (High permittivity polymer embedded with Co/ZnO core/shell nanoparticles modified by organophosphorus acid, Applied Physics Letters 91, 222907, 2007).
Regarding applicants’ claim 1, Wei et al. disclose Co/ZnO core-shell nanoparticles having an average diameter of 100nm (page 91 column 2).
Wei et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose that the nanoparticles are characterized by bipolar resistive switching in response to an applied voltage or current, however substantially identical materials are expected to exhibit substantially identical properties. Applicants disclose in the present specification a core/shell nanoparticle comprising a metal oxide surrounding a metallic core where the metallic core may be cobalt and the metal oxide surrounding the cobalt core is ZnO (paragraph 0006), the nanoparticles are 3 to 100nm in diameter (paragraph 0006). Wei et al. disclose Co/ZnO core-shell nanoparticles which constitutes a cobalt core surrounded by ZnO, where the particles have a diameter of 100nm (page 91 column 2).
Given that the core-shell particles of Wei et al. are substantially identical to particles disclosed by applicants, the particles of Wei et al. would be expected to have properties substantially identical to applicants’ core-shell particles, including being characterized by bipolar resistive switching in response to an applied voltage or current.
Regarding applicants’ claims 2-3, the Co/ZnO core-shell particles of Wei et al. have a metallic core of Co metal and a shell of ZnO (page 91).
Regarding applicants’ claim 4, ZnO exhibits dielectric properties and is therefore considered to be a dielectric material.
Regarding applicants’ claim 5, given that both Wei et al. and applicants’ disclose a shell of ZnO, the shell of Wie et al. would be expected to exhibit the same properties, including being characterized by electroforming-free bipolar resistive switching in response to an applied voltage or current.
Regarding applicants’ claim 10, Wei et al. disclose an average diameter of 100nm (page 91, column 2) which falls within applicants’ claimed range of 3 to 100 nm.
Regarding applicants’ claim 11, ZnO forms HCP-based and FCC-based structures and therefore is considered to have a face centered cubic or a hexagonal close packed crystal structure.
Regarding applicants’ claims 12 and 13, substantially identical materials are expected to exhibit substantially identical properties. Applicants disclose in the present specification a core/shell nanoparticle comprising a metal oxide surrounding a metallic core where the metallic core may be cobalt and the metal oxide surrounding the cobalt core is ZnO (paragraph 0006), where the nanoparticles are 3 to 100nm in diameter (paragraph 0006). Wei et al. disclose Co/ZnO core-shell nanoparticles where a cobalt core is surrounded by ZnO, the particles having a diameter of 100nm (page 91 column 2).
Given that the core-shell particles of Wei et al. are substantially identical to particles disclosed by applicants, the particles of Wei et al. would be expected to have properties substantially identical to applicants’ core-shell particles, including a memory window satisfying the claimed requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding applicants’ claim 6, Wei et al. disclose Co/ZnO core-shell nanoparticles having an average diameter of 100nm (page 91 column 2), however Wei et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose the shell to be single crystal. While Wei et al. disclose a shell formed of substantially identical material to that disclosed by applicants, the formation of single crystal would depend on the method of production. Given that Wei et al. do not disclose a method of production which is identical to the process disclosed by Wei et al. there is insufficient evidence such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that the shell of Wei et al. is inherently single crystal. Further there is no motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the particles or process of Wei et al. to form a single crystal shell.
Regarding applicants’ claim 7, Wei et al. disclose Co/ZnO core-shell nanoparticles having an average diameter of 100nm (page 91 column 2), however Wei et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose an epitaxial interface between the core and the shell. While Wei et al. disclose a shell formed of substantially identical material to that disclosed by applicants, the formation of an epitaxial interface would depend on the method of production. Given that Wei et al. do not disclose a method of production which is identical to the process disclosed by Wei et al. there is insufficient evidence such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that particles of Wei et al. inherently possess and epitaxial interface. Further there is no motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the particles or process of Wei et al. to form an epitaxial interface.
Regarding applicants’ claim 8-9, Wei et al. disclose Co/ZnO core-shell nanoparticles having an average diameter of 100nm (page 91 column 2), however Wei et al. do not appear to explicitly disclose an interface having dislocations as claimed. While Wei et al. disclose a shell formed of substantially identical material to that disclosed by applicants, the formation of dislocations as claimed would depend on the method of production. Given that Wei et al. do not disclose a method of production which is identical to the process disclosed by Wei et al. there is insufficient evidence such that one of ordinary skill in the art would have concluded that the interface in the particles of Wei et al. inherently possess dislocations as claimed. Further there is no motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the particles or process of Wei et al. to produce an interface including dislocations as claimed.
Claim 22 is allowed. Wei et al. disclose Co/ZnO core-shell nanoparticles having an average diameter of 100nm (page 91 column 2), however Wei et al. do not disclose forming of nanoclusters in a gas, depositing the nanoclusters on a substrate, and oxidizing the second material of each nanocluster. Further there is no motivation such that one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the production process of Wei et al. to form nanoclusters dispersed in a gas, deposit the nanoclusters on a substrate and oxidize the second material of each nanocluster.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM C KRUPICKA whose telephone number is (571)270-7086. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5pm EST.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/Adam Krupicka/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784