DETAILED ACTION The claims 1-13 are pending and presented for the examination. 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2023 and 06/12/2025 are being considered by the examiner. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 3 is 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. Claim 3 recites that the dielectric includes a sputtered film. It is unclear if this is meant to indicate that the dielectric film itself is produced by sputtering, or if the claim covers embodiments wherein the film contains a separate sputtered film thereon. Because of these ambiguities, the metes and bounds of claim 3 are unclear and the claim is indefinite under USC 112. 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, 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. Claim s 1 -5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaartstra (US 6984592 B2) in view of Kim et al ( Solution-processed lanthanum-doped Al2O3 gate dielectrics for high-mobility metal-oxide thin-film transistors ) . Regarding claim 1 , Vaartstra teaches a metal-doped alumina layer used in a semi-conductor substrate. The alumina layer is doped with an element that can be La, Y, and mixtures thereof (see claim 18 and Abstract). Vaartstra teaches that the ratio of dopant to aluminum is 3:5 or less (see column 3, lines 24-26). Doping amounts in this upper range would lead to a combined x+y content range (which is the manner in which the dopant content is represented in the instant claims) that extends to values greater than 0.1 and is less than 0.5. The instantly claimed 0.1≤x+y<0.5 dopant content range would be 1:9 to 1:1 when expressed according to the dopant content in Vaartstra. As can be seen, the broader Vaartstra range overlaps a large portion of the dopant range instantly claimed. The oxygen content of the Vaartstra doped alumina would necessarily have a k value that maintains electroneutrality. Vaartstra teaches that the dopant is chosen from only five elements in embodiments (see claim 18); as such, routine optimization and experimentation with this small and finite list would lead one to form an embodiment wherein a combination of La and Y are used as the doping material. Because of the above-discussed Vaartstra teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been enabled to form a doped-Al 2 O 3 layer that contains La and Y dopants in an amount such that the x and y (and x+y ) ranges of the instant claim are overlapped and thus rendered obvious. That such dopant levels were known in the art at the time of the instant filing is further shown by the teachings of Kim et al. Kim et al teaches oxide gate dielectrics formed from lanthanum-doped Al 2 O 3 films. Said dielectrics are taught to be used in the same applications as those taught by Vaartstra (see column 13, lines 2-7). Kim et al teaches a doping level of 20 at% for the disclosed alumina films. This amount falls within the broader range taught by Vaartstra, and further the content would translate to an x+y value that falls within the instant range of 0.1-0.5. Thus, the Kim et al teachings would provide a further teaching and motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to produce doped Al 2 O 3 having a dopant level falling in the broader range of Vaartstra and also meeting the compositional limitation ( x+y ) of the instant claim. As discussed above, routine optimization and experimentation with the Vaartstra teachings would lead a skilled art isan to a doped alumina comprising La+Y as the dopants, and the prior art teachings would lead to a film having said La+Y in an amount such that the x+y doping level is within the range 0.1 to less than 0.5. Each limitation of claim 1 is therefore met by the prior art teachings, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 2 , Vaartstra teaches that the inventive layer is amorphous (see column 3, lines 25-30). Regarding claim 3 , Vaartstra teaches embodiments wherein electro films are deposited onto the doped alumina film through sputtering (see column 15, lines 3-5). The instant claim is to a dielectric and not a composition or layer, and thus the Vaartstra doped alumina film having a sputtering layer on would, as a whole, constitute a dielectric. Said dielectric includes a sputtered film and therefore meets the further limitations of instant claim 3. Regarding claim 4 , Vaartstra teaches that the inventive dielectric film is used as a part of a capacitor. Regarding claim 5 , as discussed above, Vaartstra teaches a dielectric layer meeting each limitation of instant claim 1. Vaartstra further teaches a capacitor formed from a first electrode, a dielectric layer provided thereon, and further a second electrode disposed over the dielectric layer opposite the first electrode (see column 13, lines 25-45). Each structural limitation of the claim is thus met by Vaartstra, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 9 , Vaartstra teaches that the inventive capacitor can comprise an electrode containing Pt or Rh. Claim s 6-8 and 10 -13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vaartstra (US 6984592 B2) in view of Kim et al ( Solution-processed lanthanum-doped Al2O3 gate dielectrics for high-mobility metal-oxide thin-film transistors ) and in further view of Arakawa et al (US 2018/0158611 A1). Regarding claim 6 , the claim differs from Vaartstra in view of Kim et al as applied above because Vaartstra does not teach that the first electrode comprises a porous portion. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Vaartstra in further view of Arakawa et al in order to use the inventive dielectric in a capacitor configuration taught therein. Arakawa et al teaches a capacitor comprising a conductive porous base material as first electrode (see Abstract and Fig 1a). Arakawa et al teaches that the inventive configuration leads to a capacitor having a higher electrostatic capacitance (see paragraph 0007). As the Vaartstra document is drawn to a composition of the dielectric layer component, one of ordinary skill would have recognized that it would be useable as placed in a capacitor having the improved configuration and porous electrode taught by Arakawa et al. This would have provided motivation for the aforementioned modification, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because both Vaartstra and Arakawa et al are drawn to capacitors with dielectric layers. The further limitations of claim 6 are therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record, and the claim 6 is obvious and not patentably distinct. Regarding claims 7-8 , Arakawa et al teaches that the porous electrode comprises a valve metal (see paragraph 0003) that can be aluminum, tantalum, or niobium (see paragraph 0041). Regarding claim 10 , Arakawa et al teaches that the inventive capacitor configuration can further comprise an upper electrode component (see Fig. 1a and paragraphs 0039 and 0085). This upper electrode component fills the porous portion of the base electrode (see paragraph 0085), and constitutes an electrolyte according to the instant claim 10 because it is configurationally equivalent and formed of the same material. Arakawa et al teaches that said upper electrode (electrolyte) can be composed of an electrically conductive polymer (see paragraph 0083). The further limitations of claim 10 are therefore met by the teachings of the prior art of record. Regarding claims 11-12 , Vaartstra and Arakawa et al teaches that the inventive capacitors are used in electronic devices. Such use necessitates the placement of the capacitors within electrical circuits on circuit boards. As such, the further limitations of claims 11 and 12 are met by the teachings of the prior art of record. Regarding claim 13 , the electronic devices comprising the capacitors taught by Vaartstra and Arakawa et al as discussed above constitute apparatuses. Additionally, each aforementioned prior art document teaches testing of the inventive capacitors using apparatuses, and thus further teaches an apparatus comprising said inventive capacitor. Conclusion 1 1 . No claim is allowed. 1 2 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1 3 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is (571)270-3596 . The exam iner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 571-270-3149 . 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. /NOAH S WIESE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731 NSW 20 March 2026