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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) submitted on October 4, 2023; July 23, 2024; and January 14, 2025 were filed before the mailing date of this first Office Action. With the exception of the October 4, 2023 IDS, the submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDSs are being considered by the Examiner, except for the “European Patent Application No. 22200942.5 Search Report (Jan. 19, 2023)” (reference AF of the October 4, 2023 IDS) because a copy thereof does not appear to have been submitted with this IDS as required by 37 CFR 1.98.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 3, “charge control device (114)” should be “charge control device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informality: on line 1, “The method (400)” should be “The method”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
on lines 1-2, “reducing the voltage or charge applied” should be “reducing the first voltage or charge applied”; and
on line 2, “the one conductive element” should be “the one of the pair of conductive elements”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 2 recites: “a pair of conductive elements electrically insulated from each other”. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, this recited language only states a problem solved or a result obtained (i.e., electrically insulating the pair of conductive elements from each other), rather than the structure that electrically insulates the pair of conductive elements from each other. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting line 2 of claim 1 as: reciting: “a pair of conductive elements” because of this structural omission.
Regarding claim 1, lines 3-4 recite: “a plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles arranged between the pair of conductive elements”. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear what a “nanoparticle” is because a ferroelectric structure or material of any shape and dimensions may be consider to be composed of a plurality of particles. Also, the dimensions and shape of such particles can be any measurement in terms of nanometers: one nanometer in all three dimensions (e.g., a square); one-thousandth of a nanometer in a first dimension and a thousand nanometers in second and third dimensions (e.g., a rectangle); pi (π) times the cube of a radius having a length of one-tenth of a nanometer (e.g., a sphere), one million nanometers in a longitudinal direction multiplied by pi (π) times the square of a radius having a length of one hundredth of a nanometer (e.g., a nanopillar, nanowire, or cylinder); an acicular-shape having dimensions measured in terms of nanometers (i.e., one-billionth of a meter), a granular-shape having dimensions measured in terms of nanometers in more than three directions because of its non-uniform shape, etc. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 3-4 of claim 1 as: reciting: “a plurality of ferroelectric structures arranged between the pair of conductive elements” because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 1, lines 5-6 recite: “wherein the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles is configured to provide at least three polarization states with different total ferroelectric polarizations.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, this recited language only states a result obtained (i.e., “to provide at least three polarization states with different total ferroelectric polarizations”) without a recitation of either the actual structure that causes the ferroelectric nanoparticles to achieve the “at least three polarization states with different total ferroelectric polarizations” or how the “the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticle is configured”. Perhaps there is no such additional structure and it is the ferroelectric nanoparticles themselves that are configured to provide at least three polarization states with different total ferroelectric polarizations? If so, then lines 5-6 of claim 1 recite neither the chemical composition nor the physical structure of such ferroelectric nanoparticles that allows them to achieve at least three polarization states with different total ferroelectric polarizations.
As another example, it is unclear what “different total ferroelectric polarizations” means. Does this recited language mean the total ferroelectric polarization of each ferroelectric particle or the total ferroelectric polarization of the plurality of ferroelectric particles? Also, is a polarization state a single polarization alignment within a ferroelectric particle or multiple polarization alignments withing a ferroelectric particle? Additionally, is ferroelectric polarization measured with respect to one axis, two axes, or three axes? Further, is the ferroelectric polarization temporary or permanent? If temporary, then for what time period? Still further, is “different total ferroelectric polarizations” a complete polarization of all dipoles or different total percentages (e.g., 10%, 50% and 99%) of polarization of all dipoles? For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 5-6 of claim 1 as reciting a result of operating the ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor device—i.e., wherein the ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor device can be operated so that the ferroelectric structures achieve at least three different polarizations—because of this structural omission and/or chemical composition omission, as well as the ambiguity of this recited language.
Claim 3, lines 1-4 recite: “wherein each conductive element of the pair of conductive elements comprise respective surfaces facing each other, and wherein a respective surface area of each of the respective surfaces exceeds an overall surface-projected area of the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles”. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear what “an overall surface-projected area” means because the structure on which the surface area of the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles is projected is not specified in claim 3 and the distance and orientation of such surface relative to the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles would be determinative of the area of such projection. As another example, it is unclear as to what angle relative to the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticle the projection is made which would also be determinative of the area of such projection. As an additional example, it is unclear what “overall” means with respect to “surface-projected area”—i.e., how does an “overall surface-projected area” differ from a surface-projected area? For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 1-4 of claim 3 as reciting: wherein each conductive element of the pair of conductive elements comprise respective surfaces facing each other because of this ambiguous language.
Regarding claim 10, lines 1-3 recite: “wherein a first conductive element of the pair of conductive elements is configured to carry a constant electrical charge and/or is electrically insulated and/or is electrically floating.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, this recited language only states a result obtained (i.e., “to carry a constant electrical charge and/or is electrically insulated and/or is electrically floating”) without a recitation of either the actual structure that causes the “first conductive element of the pair of conductive elements . . . to carry a constant electrical charge and/or is electrically insulated and/or is electrically floating” or how the “first conductive element of the pair of conductive elements” is “configured” to produce this result. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 1-3 of claim 10 as: reciting: “a first conductive element of the pair of conductive elements” because of this structural omission and ambiguity.
Regarding claim 11, lines 1-3 recite: “further comprising a charge control device configured to control and/or change a charge on a second conductive element of the pair of conductive elements.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, this recited language only states a result obtained (i.e., “to control and/or change a charge on a second conductive element of the pair of conductive elements”) without a recitation of either the structure that enables the “charge control device . . . to control and/or change a charge on a second conductive element of the pair of conductive elements” or how the “charge control device” is “configured” to produce this result. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 1-3 of claim 11 as: reciting: “a charge control device” because of this structural omission and ambiguity.
Regarding claim 12, lines 1-5 recite: “wherein the charge control device comprises an additional conductive element that is electrically insulated from the pair of conductive elements, and wherein the charge control device (114) is adapted to apply a voltage between the additional conductive element and the second conductive element.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, this recited language only states a problem solved or a result obtained (i.e., electrically insulating the additional conductive element from the pair of conductive elements), rather than the structure that electrically insulates the additional conductive element from the pair of conductive elements. As another example, this recited language only states a result obtained (i.e., “to apply a voltage between the additional conductive element and the second conductive element”) without a recitation of either the structure that enables the “charge control device . . . to apply a voltage between the additional conductive element and the second conductive element” or how the “charge control device” is “adapted”. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 1-5 of claim 12 as: reciting: “wherein the charge control device comprises an additional conductive element” because of this structural omission and ambiguity.
Regarding claim 13, lines 1-6 recite: “further comprising at least one of: a temperature-control element configured to control and/or change a temperature of the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles; and a force control element configured to control and/or change a mechanical force applied to the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles.” This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, this recited language only states a result obtained (i.e., to control and/or change a temperature of the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles and to control and/or change a mechanical force applied to the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles), without a recitation of either the structure that enables the “temperature-control element . . . to control and/or change a temperature of the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles” or the structure that enables the “force control element . . . to control and/or change a mechanical force applied to the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles”. As another example, this language neither recites how the “temperature-control element” is “configured” nor how the “force control element” is “configured” to produce these results. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 1-6 of claim 13 as: reciting: “further comprising at least one of: a temperature-control element and a force control element.” because of these structural omissions and ambiguities.
Regarding claim 14, line 3 recites: “a pair of conductive elements electrically insulated from each other”. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, this recited language only states a problem solved or a result obtained (i.e., electrically insulating the pair of conductive elements from each other), rather than the structure that electrically insulates the pair of conductive elements from each other. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting line 3 of claim 14 as: reciting: “a pair of conductive elements” because of this structural omission.
Regarding claim 14, lines 5-6 recite: “a plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles arranged between the pair of conductive elements”. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, it is unclear what a “nanoparticle” is because a ferroelectric structure or material of any shape and dimensions may be consider to be composed of a plurality of particles. Also, the dimensions and shape of such particles can be any measurement in terms of nanometers: one nanometer in all three dimensions (e.g., a square); one-thousandth of a nanometer in a first dimension and a thousand nanometers in second and third dimensions (e.g., a rectangle); pi (π) times the cube of a radius having a length of one-tenth of a nanometer (e.g., a sphere), one million nanometers in a longitudinal direction multiplied by pi (π) times the square of a radius having a length of one hundredth of a nanometer (e.g., a nanopillar, nanowire, or cylinder); an acicular-shape having dimensions measured in terms of nanometers (i.e., one-billionth of a meter), a granular-shape having dimensions measured in terms of nanometers in more than three directions because of its non-uniform shape, etc. For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 5-6 of claim 14 as: reciting: “a plurality of ferroelectric structures arranged between the pair of conductive elements” because of this ambiguity.
Regarding claim 14, lines 7-10 recite: “wherein the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles is configured to provide at least three polarization states with different total ferroelectric polarizations, including a minimum-ferroelectric-polarization state, a maximum-ferroelectric-polarization state, and at least one intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state”. This recited language used to define the invention is ambiguous and clarification and/or correction are/is required to make its meaning clear and precise whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. No new matter may be added. For example, this recited language only states a result obtained (i.e., “to provide at least three polarization states with different total ferroelectric polarizations”) without a recitation of either the actual structure that causes the ferroelectric nanoparticles to achieve the “at least three polarization states with different total ferroelectric polarizations” or how the “the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticle is configured”. Perhaps there is no such additional structure and it is the ferroelectric nanoparticles themselves that are configured to provide at least three polarization states with different total ferroelectric polarizations? If so, then lines 7-10 of claim 14 recite neither the chemical composition nor the physical structure of such ferroelectric nanoparticles that allows them to achieve at least three polarization states with different total ferroelectric polarizations.
As another example, it is unclear what “different total ferroelectric polarizations” means. Does this recited language mean the total ferroelectric polarization of each ferroelectric particle or the total ferroelectric polarization of the plurality of ferroelectric particles? Also, is a polarization state a single polarization alignment within a ferroelectric particle or multiple polarization alignments withing a ferroelectric particle? Additionally, is ferroelectric polarization measured with respect to one axis, two axes, or three axes? Further, is the ferroelectric polarization temporary or permanent? If temporary, then for what time period? Still further, is “different total ferroelectric polarizations” a complete polarization of all dipoles or different total percentages (e.g., 10%, 50% and 99%) of polarization of all dipoles? Also further, it is unclear what “a minimum-ferroelectric-polarization state, a maximum-ferroelectric-polarization state, and at least one intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state” are with respect to each other because no reference threshold or base state is recited. For example, is “a minimum-ferroelectric-polarization state” zero total polarization (e.g. random) or some other percentage (e.g., 1% total polarization)? For purpose of examination, the Examiner is interpreting lines 7-10 of claim 14 as reciting a result of operating the ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor device —i.e., wherein the ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor device can be operated so that the ferroelectric structures achieve at least three different polarizations—because of this structural omission and/or chemical composition omission, as well as the ambiguity of this recited language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al., A Novel Ferroelectric Nanopillar Multi-Level Cell Memory, September 6, 2022, SISPAD 2022 International Conference on Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices (Session 1A: Magnetism), pages 5-6 (hereinafter referred to as “Lee”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses, A ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device (FIG. 1), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
476
801
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a pair of conductive elements (conductive elements (metal plates are conductive elements); annotated FIG. 1, above; page 5) electrically insulated from each other (dielectric electrically insulates pair or conductive elements from each other; annotated FIG. 1, above; page 5); and
a plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles (plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) annotated FIG. 1, above; page 5) arranged between the pair of conductive elements (annotated FIG. 1, above);
wherein the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) is configured to provide at least three polarization states with different total ferroelectric polarizations (page 5).1 and 2
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses, The ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device (FIG. 1) of claim 1, wherein the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles includes:
at most 10 ferroelectric nanoparticles (FIG. 1—two ferroelectric nanoparticles are disclosed);
at most 5 ferroelectric nanoparticles;
at most 3 ferroelectric nanoparticles;
exactly 3 ferroelectric nanoparticles; or
exactly 2 ferroelectric nanoparticles (FIG. 1—two ferroelectric nanoparticles are disclosed).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses, The ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device of claim 1, wherein each conductive element of the pair of conductive elements (annotated FIG. 1, above) comprises respective surfaces facing each other (annotated FIG. 1, above), and wherein a respective surface area of each of the respective surfaces (annotated FIG. 1, above) exceeds an overall surface-projected area of the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles (annotated FIG. 1, above).3
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses, The ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device (FIG. 1) of claim 1, wherein individual ferroelectric particles (FE nanoparticle 1 or FE nanoparticle 2) of the plurality of ferroelectric particles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) are spaced apart from each other (annotated FIG. 1, above).
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses, The ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device (FIG. 1) of claim 4, further comprising a dielectric separator material (dielectric separator material; annotated FIG. 1, above; page 5) arranged between the individual ferroelectric nanoparticles (annotated FIG. 1, above).
Regarding claim 6, Lee discloses, The ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device (FIG. 1) of claim 1, wherein a first ferroelectric nanoparticle (annotated FIG. 2(d)(v), below) of the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) has a first size (page 6) and a second ferroelectric nanoparticle (annotated FIG. 2(d)(v), below) of the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) has a second size (page 6), and wherein the first size is larger than the second size (page 6; annotated FIG. 2(d)(v), below).
PNG
media_image2.png
513
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Lee discloses, The ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device of claim 6, wherein the first size is larger than the second size by one of:
at least 10% (h1 = 8 nm and h2 = 6nm; page 6);
at least 30% (h1 = 8 nm and h2 = 6nm; page 6);
at least 50%; and
at least a factor of two.
Regarding claim 8, Lee discloses, The ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device (FIG. 1) of claim 1, wherein respective sizes of the ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) along any direction do not exceed 100 nm (diameter is kept fixed at 6 nm and h ranges from 6-8 nm; FIG. 2; pages 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses, The ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device (FIG. 1) of claim 1, wherein the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles comprises respective monodomain ferroelectric states (page 6).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses, The ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device (FIG. 1) of claim 1, wherein a first conductive element (annotated FIG. 1, above) of the pair of conductive elements (annotated FIG. 1, above) is configured to carry a constant electrical charge and/or is electrically insulated (dielectric electrically insulates first conductive element; annotated FIG. 1, above) and/or is electrically floating.4 and 5
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses, The ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device (FIG. 1) of claim 10, further comprising a charge control device (charge control device (V); FIG. 1; page 6—applied voltage will control and change the charge on the second conductive element) configured to control and/or change a charge on a second conductive element (annotated FIG. 1, above) of the pair of conductive elements (annotated FIG. 1, above).6 and 7
Regarding claim 14, Lee discloses, A method for operating a ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device (FIG. 1), wherein the ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor device comprises:
a pair of conductive elements (conductive elements (metal plates are conductive elements); annotated FIG. 1, above; page 5) that are electrically insulated from each other (dielectric electrically insulates pair or conductive elements from each other; annotated FIG. 1, above; page 5); and
a plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles (plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) annotated FIG. 1, above; page 5) arranged between the pair of conductive elements (annotated FIG. 1, above);
wherein the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) is configured to provide at least three polarization states having different total ferroelectric polarizations (page 5), including a minimum-ferroelectric-polarization state, a maximum-ferroelectric-polarization state, and at least one intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state (FIGs. 2(b) and 2(c); pages 5-6);8
the method comprising:
selecting a selected intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state (page 6);
selecting a first voltage (first voltage (V); FIG. 1 and/or first voltage (VAPP); page 6) or charge according to the selected intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state (page 6); and
applying the first voltage (V and/or VAPP) or charge to one of the pair of conductive elements (annotated FIG. 1, above) to set the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) to the selected intermediate- ferroelectric-polarization state (page 6).
Regarding claim 15, Lee discloses, The method (400) of claim 14, further comprising, prior to applying the first voltage (V and/or VAPP) or charge to set the ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) to the selected intermediate- ferroelectric-polarization state (page 6):
providing the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) in a first polarization state (page 6) of the at least three polarization states (page 5), wherein the first polarization state (page 6) is different from the selected intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state (page 6);
selecting a second voltage (V and/or VAPP) (page 6—“[t]he pulse width is varied”) or charge according to the selected intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state (page 6) and/or according to the first polarization state (page 6); and
applying the second voltage (V and/or VAPP) or charge to the one of the pair of conductive elements (annotated FIG. 1, above) to set the ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) from the first polarization state (page 6) to a second polarization state (page 6) of the at least three polarization states (page 5);
wherein the second polarization state (page 6) is different from both the first polarization state (page 6) and the selected intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state (page 6).9
Regarding claim 16, Lee disclose, The method of claim 14, wherein the selected intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state (page 6) is a remanent state (pages 5-6 of Lee indicate that the at least three polarization states of the ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor device thereof enable high storage capacity for non-volatile memory (NVM) which means these states, including the intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state, are remanent states, otherwise the ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor device of Lee could not operate as a non-volatile memory (NVM)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 4 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US 2004/0095658 A1 (Buretea).
Regarding claim 2, Lee may arguably be interpreted by Applicant as not explicitly disclosing, wherein the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles includes:
at most 10 ferroelectric nanoparticles;
at most 5 ferroelectric nanoparticles;
at most 3 ferroelectric nanoparticles;
exactly 3 ferroelectric nanoparticles; or
exactly 2 ferroelectric nanoparticles.
However, in analogous art, Buretea discloses that it is well-known that the dielectric constant of materials comprising nanostructures (e.g., nanoparticles; Abstract)—i.e., composite materials (Abstract)—can be adjusted by adjusting the amount of ferroelectric nanoparticles included in the composite ([0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Lee and Buretea before him/her, that the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) of Lee includes: at most 10 ferroelectric nanoparticles; at most 5 ferroelectric nanoparticles; at most 3 ferroelectric nanoparticles; exactly 3 ferroelectric nanoparticles; or exactly 2 ferroelectric nanoparticles depending on a desired dielectric constant, as taught by Buretea. See also, MPEP 2144(IV)—The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Regarding claim 4, Lee may arguably be interpreted by Applicant as not explicitly disclosing, wherein individual ferroelectric particles of the plurality of ferroelectric particles are spaced apart from each other.
However, in analogous art, Buretea discloses that it is well-known that the dielectric nanoparticles (nanoparticles (9); FIG. 2; [0081]) may be predicably formed to be spaced apart from each other (FIG. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Lee and Buretea before him/her, that it was well-known that individual ferroelectric particles (FE nanoparticle 1 or FE nanoparticle 2) of the plurality of ferroelectric particles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) of Lee may be spaced apart from each other, as taught by Buretea, without a change in function of (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) of Lee because they would still operate as ferroelectric nanoparticles. See, MPEP 2143(A)—Combining Prior Art Elements According to Known Methods to Yield Predicable Results.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US 2016/0172113 A1 (Reig).
Regarding claim 12, Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the charge control device comprises an additional conductive element that is electrically insulated from the pair of conductive elements, and wherein the charge control device (114) is adapted to apply a voltage between the additional conductive element and the second conductive element.10 and 11
However, in analogous art, Reig discloses, a variable capacitor device (FIG. 1 of Reig) including a first conductive element (first conductive element (3); FIG. 1 of Reig; [0073]) and a second conductive element (second conductive element (4); FIG. 1 of Reig; [0082]) electrically isolated from each other by a dielectric (dielectric (10); FIG. 1 of Reig; [0070]). Reig also discloses that variable capacitor device (FIG. 1 of Reig) includes an additional conductive element (additional conductive element (6); FIG. 1 of Reig; [0074]) that is electrically insulated from pair of conductive elements (3 and 4) by dielectric (10). Reig additionally discloses that a control device is adapted to apply a voltage to a terminal (terminal (24); FIG. 2 of Reig; [0077]) of additional conductive element (6) ([0111]). Reig further discloses that variable capacitive devices are an essential component of the development of electronic circuits and in particular of RF (Radiofrequency) circuits ([0005]).
PNG
media_image3.png
617
1037
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Lee and Reig before him/her, that the charge control device (V) of Lee comprises an additional conductive element that is electrically insulated from the pair of conductive elements, as taught by Reig, and wherein the charge control device (V) of Lee is adapted to apply a voltage between the additional conductive element and the second conductive element (annotated FIG. 1 of Lee, above), a also taught by Reig, thereby making the ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor device (FIG. 1 of Lee) of Lee a variable ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor device which is an essential component of the development of electronic circuits and in particular of RF (Radiofrequency) circuits, as additionally taught by Reig. See also, MPEP 2144(IV), above.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of DE 102008030035 A1 (University of Dresden).
Regarding claim 13, Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose, further comprising at least one of:
a temperature-control element configured to control and/or change a temperature of the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles; and
a force control element configured to control and/or change a mechanical force applied to the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles.12 and 13
However, in analogous art, University of Dresden discloses, that it is well-known that control of a temperature of a plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles is important because the chemical composition of these ferroelectric nanoparticles can determine an operating temperature thereof and these ferroelectric nanoparticles can lose the property of ferroelectricity and behave chemically inactive outside of this operating temperature ([0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Lee and University of Dresden before him/her, that the ferroelectric nanoparticle device (FIG. 1 of Lee) of Lee further comprise at least one of: a temperature-control element configured to control and/or change a temperature of the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) of Lee, as taught by University of Dresden, so that the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) of Lee maintain an operating temperature, thereby helping to prevent loss of the property of ferroelectricity of ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) of Lee, as also taught by University of Dresden, and also helping to prevent ferroelectric nanoparticles (FE nanoparticle 1 and FE nanoparticle 2) of Lee from becoming chemically inactive, as additionally taught by University of Dresden. See also, MPEP 2144(IV), above.
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of US 2021/0098060 A1 (Ni).
Regarding claim 17, Lee does not appear to explicitly disclose, The method of claim 14, wherein the method further comprises reducing the voltage or charge applied to the one conductive element thereby preserving the set intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state.
However, in analogous art, Ni discloses, that it is well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device (FIG. 3) includes a plurality of set intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization states (plurality of set intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization states (FIG. 4A(B, C, E, and F); [0034]-[0035]) that may be set by controlling an applied voltage to at least one of the plurality of conductive elements of ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device (annotated FIG. 3, below; [0034]-[0035]).
PNG
media_image4.png
452
652
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Ni additionally discloses that a well-known technique to predicably preserve a set intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state is to reduce the applied voltage to help prevent the loss of a set intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state through inadvertent application of an increased applied voltage (see, example in annotated FIG. 4A, below).
PNG
media_image5.png
522
728
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Lee and Ni before him/her, to recognize that applying the known technique of reducing the voltage (V and/or VAPP) or charge applied to the one conductive element (annotated FIG. 1 of Lee, above) of Lee would improve the operation of the ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device (FIG. 1 of Lee) of Lee by achieving the predicable result of preserving the set intermediate-ferroelectric-polarization state (page 6 of Lee and FIG. 4A(B) of Ni) of Lee, as taught by Ni, by helping prevent inadvertent application of an increased applied voltage. See, MPEP 2143(D)—Applying A Known Technique To A Known Device (Method or Product) Ready For Improvement To Yield Predicable Results.
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Ni discloses, The method of claim 17, wherein reducing the voltage or charge includes reducing the voltage by one of:
at least 30% (annotated FIG 4A, above—from 2 Volts to 1 Volt);
at least a factor of 2;
at least a factor of 3;
at least a factor of 5;
at least a factor of 10; and
at least a factor of 100.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0035993 A1 (Chen)—Discloses a ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor device (ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor device (300); FIG. 2; [0026]) that includes a pair of conductive elements (pair of conductive elements (320 and 340); FIG. 2; [0025]) and a ferroelectric insulating layer (ferroelectric nanoparticle insulating layer (330); FIG. 2; [0025]). Also discloses ferroelectric nanoparticles (ferroelectric nanoparticle (350); FIG. 57; [0112]) have a first width (first width (w1); FIG. 57; [0112]) between about 5 nm and about 50nm ([0112]) and a second width (second width (w2); FIG. 57; [0112]) between about 5 nm and 50 nm ([0112]).
US 2021/0066318 (Chang)—Discloses a method of operating a ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor device (e.g., FIGs. 2A-2C).
US 2007/0138522 (Kijima)—Discloses a ferroelectric memory device and method of operating the same for use in a memory device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 Please see the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how claim 1 is being interpreted for purpose of examination. Nonetheless, to facilitate compact prosecution, where possible, the Examiner has identified structure and disclosure in Lee regarding these recited limitations.
2 The Examiner respectfully submits that the recited language “wherein the plurality of ferroelectric nanoparticles is configured to provide at least three polarization states with different total ferroelectric polarizations” does not differentiate claim 1 from the prior art because it is a manner of operating the ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device of claim 1. Please see, MPEP 2114(II)—Manner Of Operating The Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim From The Prior Art— "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). Nonetheless, to facilitate compact prosecution, the Examiner has identified structure disclosed in Lee regarding this recited limitation.
3 Please see the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how claim 3 is being interpreted for purpose of examination. Nonetheless, to facilitate compact prosecution, where possible, the Examiner has identified structure and disclosure in Lee regarding these recited limitations.
4 Please see the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how claim 10 is being interpreted for purpose of examination. Nonetheless, to facilitate compact prosecution, where possible, the Examiner has identified structure and disclosure in Lee regarding these recited limitations.
5 The Examiner respectfully submits that the recited language “configured to carry a constant electrical charge and/or is electrically insulated and/or is electrically floating” does not differentiate claim 10 from the prior art because it is a manner of operating the ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device of claim 10. Please see, MPEP 2114(II), above. Nonetheless, to facilitate compact prosecution, the Examiner has identified structure disclosed in Lee regarding this recited limitation.
6 Please see the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how claim 11 is being interpreted for purpose of examination. Nonetheless, to facilitate compact prosecution, where possible, the Examiner has identified structure and disclosure in Lee regarding these recited limitations.
7 The Examiner respectfully submits that the recited language “configured to control and/or change a charge on a second conductive element of the pair of conductive elements” does not differentiate claim 11 from the prior art because it is a manner of operating the ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device of claim 11. Please see, MPEP 2114(II), above. Nonetheless, to facilitate compact prosecution, the Examiner has identified structure disclosed in Lee regarding this recited limitation.
8 Please see the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how claim 14 is being interpreted for purpose of examination. Nonetheless, to facilitate compact prosecution, where possible, the Examiner has identified structure and disclosure in Lee regarding these recited limitations.
9 Claim 15 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee because Lee discloses the same structure as the ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device of claim 14, from which claim 15 depends, and this ferroelectric nanoparticle capacitor-device would, in its normal and usual operation, perform the recited method steps of claim 15 because Lee discloses changes in states of ferroelectric nanoparticles based on different applied voltages. See, MPEP 2112.02(I)—Process Claims—Prior Art Device Anticipates A Claimed Process If The Device Carries Out The Process During Normal Operation.
10 Please see the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), above, for how claim 12 is being interpreted for purpose of examination. Nonetheless, to facilitate compact prosecution, where possible, the Exam