CTNF 18/347,938 CTNF 86637 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Election/Restrictions The restriction requirement of 4.2.2026 is hereby withdrawn in view of applicant’s traversal filed 4.17.2026 on the grounds of lack of burden of examination/search. Claims 1-20 are examined. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: replace “represent” with –represented --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: 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 of carrying out his invention. 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-31-01 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Note : original claims are subject to the written description requirement per MPEP 2163 and “The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification” (MPEP 2163.03). Regarding claims 1 and 15 , the claims fail to comply with the written description requirement because they encompass more embodiments than those supported by the original filing. First, “M x O y N Z ” encompasses more embodiments than those disclosed by the original filing because the element “M” is not limited by the claims and encompasses more than “M may be one or more selected from Ti, Nb, Ta, V, Ru, Mo, and W” of [0048]. For example, the claims encompass materials such as Si or Al, which are not supported by the original filing. The only dependent claim to address this issue is claim 10. Second, “M x O y N Z ” does not limit the subscripts x, y and z in any way which encompasses more embodiments than “a ratio of z to a sum of y and z may be 0.1 or less, and/or 0 or more. For example, in M x O y N z , 0≤ z:(y+z)≤ 0.1” of [0048] and “x in M x O y N z may be a rational number from 1 to 3. In addition, in M x O y N z , a sum of y and z may be a rational number from 1 to 5. In at least one embodiment, the sum of y and z may be any rational number from 1.5 to 4.5”. For example, the claims encompass 0≤ z:(y+z)≤ 0.3 or y+z=6 which are not supported by the original filing. The only dependent claim to address this issue is claim 11. Third, “a diffusion energy barrier value of M is equal to or greater than a diffusion energy barrier value of the first metal ion” requires a direct comparison of two separate diffusion energy barriers values in order to meet the claimed relationship. The specification only provides for values of for one of said required values at [0059] as “Specifically, as elements having a diffusion energy barrier value of 5.9 eV or more, Ti, Nb, Ta, V, Ru, Mo, and W are considered” but fails to provide any values for the other diffusion energy barrier in order to make the required comparison. Hence, the claims encompass embodiments that exceed the original filing and therefore fail to comply with the written description requirement. No dependent claims address this limitation. Regarding claim 7 , “wherein the diffusion energy barrier value of M is equal to or greater than a diffusion energy barrier value of the B in the ABO 3 ” requires a direct comparison of two separate diffusion energy barriers values in order to meet the claimed relationship. The specification only provides for values of for one of said required values at [0059] as “Specifically, as elements having a diffusion energy barrier value of 5.9 eV or more, Ti, Nb, Ta, V, Ru, Mo, and W are considered” but fails to provide any values for the other diffusion energy barrier in order to make the required comparison. Hence, the claims encompass embodiments that exceed the original filing and therefore fail to comply with the written description requirement. 07-34-01 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Note : “A claim, although clear on its face, may also be indefinite when a conflict or inconsistency between the claimed subject matter and the specification disclosure renders the scope of the claim uncertain as inconsistency with the specification disclosure or prior art teachings may make an otherwise definite claim take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty” (MPEP 2713.03). That is, inconsistencies between the specification and the claims are the basis for indefiniteness. Regarding claims 1 and 15 , the claims are indefinite as they include inconsistencies or conflicts with the specification which is a basis for indefiniteness per MPEP 2173.03. First, “M x O y N Z ” as claimed conflicts with the specification because element “M” is not limited by the claims but it is limited by the specification as “M may be one or more selected from Ti, Nb, Ta, V, Ru, Mo, and W” of [0048]. Hence, there is an inconsistency between the specification and the claims as it pertains to the scope of element M which renders the claims indefinite per MPEP 2173.03. The only dependent claim to address this issue is claim 10. Second, “M x O y N Z ” does not limit the subscripts x, y and z which are limited in the specification as “a ratio of z to a sum of y and z may be 0.1 or less, and/or 0 or more. For example, in M x O y N z , 0≤ z:(y+z)≤ 0.1” of [0048] and “x in M x O y N z may be a rational number from 1 to 3. In addition, in M x O y N z , a sum of y and z may be a rational number from 1 to 5. In at least one embodiment, the sum of y and z may be any rational number from 1.5 to 4.5”. Hence, there is an inconsistency between the specification and the claims as it pertains to the scope of subscripts x, y and z which renders the claims indefinite per MPEP 2173.03. The only dependent claim to address this issue is claim 11. Third, “a diffusion energy barrier value of M is equal to or greater than a diffusion energy barrier value of the first metal ion” requires a direct comparison of two separate diffusion energy barriers values in order to meet the claimed relationship. An inconsistency or conflict with the specification arises because the specification only provides specific values for one of the required values at [0059] as “Specifically, as elements having a diffusion energy barrier value of 5.9 eV or more, Ti, Nb, Ta, V, Ru, Mo, and W are considered” but fails to provide any values for the other diffusion energy barrier in order to make the required comparison. Hence, the claims and the specification have a conflict/inconsistency related to the manner how the claimed comparison can be achieved which renders the claims indefinite per MPEP 2173.03. None of the dependent claims addresses this issue. Regarding claim 3 , it is unclear what chemical compound “MON” refers to. Regarding claim 7 , “wherein the diffusion energy barrier value of M is equal to or greater than a diffusion energy barrier value of the B in the ABO 3 ” requires a direct comparison of two separate diffusion energy barriers values in order to meet the claimed relationship. The specification only provides for values of for one of said required values at [0059] as “Specifically, as elements having a diffusion energy barrier value of 5.9 eV or more, Ti, Nb, Ta, V, Ru, Mo, and W are considered” but fails to provide any values for the other diffusion energy barrier in order to make the required comparison. Hence, the claim and the specification have a conflict/inconsistency related to the manner how the claimed comparison can be achieved which renders the claims indefinite per MPEP 2173.03. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 20 , “An electronic apparatus comprising the semiconductor device of claim 15” fails to further limit claim 15. In this case, “electronic apparatus” of the preamble does not impart any additional structure to the scope of the claim . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Song et al. (US 20210118982 A1) . Regarding claim 15 , Song discloses a semiconductor device (Figs. 1 and 9) comprising: a field-effect transistor (TR); and a capacitor (C) electrically connected to the field-effect transistor (Fig. 9), wherein the capacitor (Fig. 1) includes a first electrode (110, MM’N) including a first metal ion (M or M’, [0063]); a second electrode (150) spaced apart from the first electrode; a dielectric layer (130) between the first electrode and the second electrode; and an interfacial layer (120) between the first electrode and the dielectric layer, the interfacial layer including a compound represented by M x O y N z (MM’ON, [0069]. Note that “MM’N….a metal nitride MN doped with the element M′” at [0063] and “The interfacial layer 120 is formed by surface oxidation of the lower electrode 110” at [0070]; based on this , MxOyNz is met since M’ is a dopant), wherein a diffusion energy barrier value of M (M of MM’ON) is greater than or equal to a diffusion energy barrier value of the first metal ion (M or M’ of MM’N. M is common to both so the “equal” is met. Also, M and M’ match materials of applicant at e.g., claims 2-3, 10 and 17 so the “greater” is presumed to be met unless shown otherwise). Regarding claim 17 , Song discloses the semiconductor device of claim 15, wherein the first metal ion (M or M’) is a cation of at least one of W, Ta, Ti, Ru, Nb, Sc, Al, Mo, Pd, Pt, Sn, or La ([0064-0065]). Regarding claim 19 , Song discloses the semiconductor device of claim 15, wherein a (not a total thickness) thickness of the capacitor is 300 A or less ([0097] – “0.5 nm to about 2 nm”). Regarding claim 20 , Song discloses an electronic apparatus comprising the semiconductor device of claim 15 (Fig. 9) . 07-27-aia AIA Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Song et al. (US 20210118982 A1) . Regarding claim 16 , Song discloses the semiconductor device of claim 15, wherein the field-effect transistor (TR, Fig. 9) comprises: a source and a drain (connected to BL and/or C), a channel between the source and the drain (channel being inherent to the transistor symbol shown which is presumed to be that of a MOSFET), a gate dielectric layer on the channel (gate dielectric being inherent to the transistor symbol shown which is presumed to be that of a MOSFET), and a gate electrode on the gate dielectric layer (connected to WL). In the event the transistor symbol of Fig. 9 does not provide for the claimed structure, which the examiner does not concede, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to include MOSFET transistors with the claimed structure in Song because MOSFET transistors are well-known and commonly employed in semiconductor devices . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 20210118982 A1) in view of Basceri et al. (US 6525365 B1) . Regarding claim 1 , Song discloses a capacitor (Fig. 1) comprising: a first electrode (110, [0063] – “MM’N….a metal nitride MN doped with the element M′”) including a first metal ion (M or M’); a second electrode (150) spaced apart from the first electrode; a dielectric layer (130) between the first electrode and the second electrode, the dielectric layer comprising a dielectric material ([0074]) with a perovskite crystal structure ; and an interfacial layer (120) between the first electrode and the dielectric layer, the interfacial layer including a compound represented by MxOyNz (MM′ON, [0069]. Note that “MM’N….a metal nitride MN doped with the element M′” at [0063] and “The interfacial layer 120 is formed by surface oxidation of the lower electrode 110” at [0070]; based on this , MxOyNz is met since M’ is a dopant), wherein a diffusion energy barrier value of M (as M of MM′ON) is equal to or greater than a diffusion energy barrier value of the first metal ion (as M or M’ of MM’N, [0064-0065]. M is common to both so the “equal” is met. Also, M and M’ match materials of claims 2-3 and 10 so the “greater” is presumed to be met unless shown otherwise). Song fails to discloses a dielectric material with a perovskite crystal structure. Basceri discloses a dielectric material with a perovskite crystal structure (6:10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the material of Basceri in Song and arrive at the claimed invention because said material is well-known and commonly employed in capacitor structures and its use would have yielded predictable results, and/or, so as to achieve desired dielectric constant values (Basceri, 6: 10-15). Regarding claim 2 , Song /Basceri discloses the capacitor of claim 1, wherein the first metal ion (M or M’) is a cation of at least one of W, Ta, Ti, Ru, Nb, Sc, Al, Mo, Pd, Pt, Sn, or La ([0064-0065]). Regarding claim 3 , Song /Basceri discloses the capacitor of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first and second electrodes comprises at least one of W, TaN, TiN, RuOx, NbN, Sc, Al, Mo, MON, Pd, Pt, Sn, La, or Ru ([0064-0065], [0075]). Regarding claim 4 , Song /Basceri discloses the capacitor of claim 1, wherein one of the first and second electrodes comprises a semiconductor material ([0064-0065], e.g., Si and Ge). Regarding claim 5 , Song/ Basceri discloses the capacitor of claim 1, wherein the dielectric material comprises a three-component or four-component perovskite material (6: 10-15). Regarding claim 6 , Song/ Basceri discloses the capacitor of claim 1, wherein the dielectric material is represented by ABO 3 (6:10-15), wherein A is one of Ba, Sr, or Ba and Sr (6:10-15); and Bis at least one of Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Zr, Mo, Ru, Hf, or Sn (6:10-15). Regarding claim 7 , Song / Basceri discloses the capacitor of claim 6, wherein the diffusion energy barrier value of M (M of MM’ON, [0064-0065] of Song, Ti is disclosed) is equal to or greater than a diffusion energy barrier value of the B (Ti of Basceri) in the ABO 3 (Ti is disclosed in both which meet “equal”). Regarding claim 8 , Song /Basceri discloses the capacitor of claim 1, wherein the dielectric layer is at least one of a single-layer structure or a multi-layer structure in which different materials are stacked ([0074]). Regarding claim 9 , Song /Basceri discloses the capacitor of claim 1, wherein the diffusion energy barrier value of M is 5.9 eV or more. ([0064-0065] which discloses materials matching [0059] of applicant - “Specifically, as elements having a diffusion energy barrier value of 5.9 eV or more, Ti, Nb, Ta, V, Ru, Mo, and W are considered”). Regarding claim 10 , Song /Basceri discloses the capacitor of claim 1 wherein M is at least one of Ti, Nb, Ta, V, Ru, Mo, or W ([0064-0065]). Regarding claim 11 , Song/Basceri fails to disclose the capacitor of claim 1, wherein in the compound represent by MxOyNz, a ratio of z to a sum of y and z is 0.1 or less. Song discloses “The interfacial layer 120 is formed by surface oxidation of the lower electrode 110” at [0070]. Based on Song’s oxidation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to arrive at a value in the claimed range, by ensuring y is high, so as to ensure that oxidation is accomplished in order to form the interfacial layer separately from the first electrode and/or as a matter of routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05) Regarding claim 12 , Song /Basceri discloses the capacitor of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the interfacial layer (120) is 20 A or less ([0097], “of about 0.5 nm to about 2 nm”). Regarding claim 13 , Song/BASCERI fails to disclose the capacitor of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the interfacial layer is 7 A to 12 A. Song discloses “the interfacial layers 120 and/or 265 may have a thickness of about 0.5 nm to about 2 nm” which overlaps with the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to arrive at a value with the claimed range and within Song/BASCERI because “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” – MPEP 2144.05 and/or so as to minimize overall volume and allow for high-density integration of devices. Regarding claim 14 , Song/Basceri fails to disclose the capacitor of claim 1, wherein a total thickness of the capacitor is 300 A or less. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to arrive at a value with the claimed range in Song/Basceri so as to minimize overall volume and allow for high-density integration of devices. Regarding claim 18 , Song fails to disclose the semiconductor device of claim 15, wherein the dielectric layer comprises a dielectric material with a perovskite crystal structure. Basceri discloses wherein the dielectric layer comprises a dielectric material with a perovskite crystal structure (6:10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the material of Basceri in Song and arrive at the claimed invention because said material is well-known and commonly employed in capacitor structures and its use would have yielded predictable results, and/or, so as to achieve desired dielectric constant values (Basceri, 6: 10-15) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Song et al. (US 20210265458 A1) discloses a capacitor structure (Fig. 1) with an interfacial layer (300) and a dielectric layer (200) in between electrodes (100/400). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRES MUNOZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3346. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM Central Time. 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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571)270-3829. 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. /Andres Munoz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/347,938 Page 2 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/347,938 Page 3 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/347,938 Page 4 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/347,938 Page 5 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/347,938 Page 6 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/347,938 Page 7 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/347,938 Page 8 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/347,938 Page 9 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/347,938 Page 10 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/347,938 Page 11 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/347,938 Page 12 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/347,938 Page 13 Art Unit: 2818 Application/Control Number: 18/347,938 Page 14 Art Unit: 2818
Prosecution Insights