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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 – 16 & 18 – 20 are pending. Claims 13 – 16 & 18 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention. The restriction requirement is maintained notwithstanding the amendments to Claims 13 & 18. Claims 1 – 12 are examined on the merits.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I—Claims 1 – 12—in the reply filed on 28 May 2026 is acknowledged. On pages 7 – 8 of said reply, Applicant states the traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Applicant should be entitled to pursue different types of claims in the present application, particularly, apparatus claims and method claims, for the invention to fully protect the invention, because there is a different body of law pertaining to each of these different types of claims. The restriction requirement is therefore unfair to the Applicant, because it will require the applicant to file and bear the additional cost and time delay associated with filing one or more divisional or continuing applications in order to cover each type of claim set.
This argument is not found persuasive because this argument is immaterial regarding the requirements set forth in the MPEP 803 for restriction practice.
On page 8 of said reply, Applicant also states:
Applicants respectfully submit that all features recited in claims 13 and 18 are similar and corresponding to the features recited in claim 1. It appears that the Office Action may have advanced the election requirement merely because the claim set includes apparatus claims and method claims. In this regard, no discussion was provided in the Office Action as to the purported "mutually exclusive" characteristics. More importantly, no discussion was provided as why examination of all groups would impose a serious burden on the Examiner. The MPEP requires that these threshold questions be adequately explained (not merely alleged) in the Office Action that advances the election requirement. Accordingly, the Office Action is believed to be deficient as failing to satisfy this requirement.
This argument is not found persuasive because the Examiner has provided the required analyses for the inventions in question being independent and distinct as well as for the associated burden of search on pages 2 – 3 of the Office Action filed 23 December 2023.
As such, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL with regard to the original set of claims.
Regarding the amendments to Claim 13 in the reply filed 28 May 2026, the restriction requirement between Invention I/III—Claims 1 – 12 & 18 – 20, drawn to a product—and Invention II—Claims 13 – 16, drawn to a process of making—as set forth in the Restriction Requirement filed 23 December 2025, has been reconsidered but is hereby maintained despite amended Claim 13 now being dependent upon amended Claim 1. As per MPEP 821.04 and form paragraph 8.21.04:
Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained.
Accordingly, the Examiner hereby withdraws Claims 13 – 16 from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to the nonelected invention.
Regarding the amendments to Claim 18 in the reply filed 28 May 2026, the restriction requirement between Invention I—Claims 1 – 12, drawn to a subcombination—and Invention III—Claims 18 – 20, drawn to a combination—as set forth in the Restriction Requirement filed 23 December 2025, has been reconsidered but is hereby maintained despite amended Claim 18 now being dependent upon amended Claim 1. As per MPEP form paragraph 8.15:
Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104.
Therefore, at such a time that Claims 1 – 12 are found allowable, the propriety of this restriction requirement will be reconsidered, as per MPEP 821.04:
The propriety of a restriction requirement should be reconsidered when all the claims directed to the elected invention are in condition for allowance.
Accordingly, in the interim, the Examiner hereby withdraws Claims 18 – 20 from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Regarding the election of species requirement set forth in the Office Action filed 23 December 2023, upon reconsideration, the Examiner has determined that the examination of the species set forth therein would not present a serious burden of search. Accordingly, the election of species requirement is hereby withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Reference character 332 for the “dielectric layer” is missing from Fig. 11 & Fig. 12. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 8, & 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1,
Lin. 9 recites the limitation “ a material of the amorphous layer is same as a material of the bottom electrode” wherein “same” is missing the indefinite article. For the sake of clarity of the record and for the purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “a material of the amorphous layer is the same as a material of the bottom electrode”.
Regarding Claim 5,
Lin. 5 recites the phrase “wherein the capacitor further comprising”, which is grammatically incorrect. For the sake of clarity of the record and for the purposes of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as “wherein the capacitor further comprises”.
Regarding Claim 8,
Lin. 1 – 2 recite the phrase “wherein the bottom electrode is protruded”, which is grammatically incorrect. For the sake of clarity of the record and for the purposes of examination, this phrase will be interpreted as “wherein the bottom electrode protrudes”.
Regarding Claim 10,
Lin. 1 – 4 recite a list of limitations “the bottom electrode comprises a plurality of protrusions, the amorphous layer, the ferroelectric layer, and the top electrode are disposed on sidewalls and top surfaces of the protrusions, and a space between the protrusions is filled by the top electrode” wherein the use of commas alone for this list results in ambiguity. For the sake of clarity of the record and for the purposes of examination, this list of limitations will be interpreted as “the bottom electrode comprises a plurality of protrusions[[,]]; the amorphous layer, the ferroelectric layer, and the top electrode are disposed on sidewalls and top surfaces of the protrusions[[,]]; and a space between the protrusions is filled by the top electrode”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 & 8 – 10—as well as their respective dependent claims—are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) 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.
Regarding Claim 1,
Lin. 4 – 5 recite the limitation “a surface roughness of a top surface of the bottom electrode is 0.5 nm”. However, this limitation is not present in the original claims, and the closest teaching present for this limitation in the instant specification is found in Par. 46, which states “the surface roughness of the top surface of the bottom electrode material layer 240 is about 0.5 nm after the planarization process is performed” (emphasis added). That is, the claimed limitation appears to indicate an exact value of 0.5 nm, and the specification appears to only support an unspecified range of values near 0.5 nm, which does not necessarily include 0.5 nm. For instance, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the range 0.41 nm to 0.44 nm consists of values that are about 0.5 nm; however, this range does not comprise 0.5 nm.
Regarding Claim 8,
Lin. 1 – 3 recite the limitation “the bottom electrode is protruded from the interlayer dielectric layer, and a bottom of the bottom electrode is surrounded by a dielectric layer”. However, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of an invention that simultaneously satisfies the limitations of Claim 1, upon which this claim depends, and the limitations of this claim. Specifically, while it is clear how Applicant’s invention may comprise either “a surface roughness of a top surface of the bottom electrode is [about] 0.5 nm”—as recited in Claim 1, illustrated in the embodiment of Fig. 9, and disclosed in Par. 47—or “the bottom electrode is protruded from the interlayer dielectric layer, and a bottom of the bottom electrode is surrounded by a dielectric layer”—as recited in Claim 8, and illustrated in Fig. 11 and 12—it is not at all clear that this surface roughness is preserved through the patterning process that is necessary to form the protruding geometries of the bottom electrodes of the embodiments of Fig. 11 or Fig. 12 as opposed to the planar geometry of the bottom electrode of the embodiment of Fig. 9.
Regarding Claim 9,
Lin. 1 – 3 recite the limitation “the amorphous layer, the ferroelectric layer, and the top electrode are disposed on sidewalls and a top surface of the bottom electrode”. However, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of an invention that simultaneously satisfies the limitations of Claim 1, upon which this claim depends, and the limitations of this claim. Specifically, while it is clear how Applicant’s invention may comprise either “a surface roughness of a top surface of the bottom electrode is [about] 0.5 nm”—as recited in Claim 1, illustrated in the embodiment of Fig. 9, and disclosed in Par. 47—or “the amorphous layer, the ferroelectric layer, and the top electrode are disposed on sidewalls and a top surface of the bottom electrode”—as recited in Claim 9, and illustrated in Fig. 11 and 12—it is not at all clear that this surface roughness is preserved through the patterning process that is necessary to form the protruding geometries of the bottom electrodes of the embodiments of Fig. 11 or Fig. 12 as opposed to the planar geometry of the bottom electrode of the embodiment of Fig. 9.
Regarding Claim 10,
Lin. 1 – 4 recite the limitation “the bottom electrode comprises a plurality of protrusions; the amorphous layer, the ferroelectric layer, and the top electrode are disposed on sidewalls and top surfaces of the protrusions; and a space between the protrusions is filled by the top electrode”. However, it does not appear that Applicant had possession of an invention that simultaneously satisfies the limitations of Claim 1, upon which this claim depends, and the limitations of this claim. Specifically, while it is clear how Applicant’s invention may comprise either “a surface roughness of a top surface of the bottom electrode is [about] 0.5 nm”—as recited in Claim 1, illustrated in the embodiment of Fig. 9, and disclosed in Par. 47—or “the bottom electrode comprises a plurality of protrusions; the amorphous layer, the ferroelectric layer, and the top electrode are disposed on sidewalls and top surfaces of the protrusions; and a space between the protrusions is filled by the top electrode”—as recited in Claim 10, and illustrated in Fig. 12—it is not at all clear that this surface roughness is preserved through the patterning process that is necessary to form the protruding geometry of the bottom electrode of the embodiment of Fig. 12 as opposed to the planar geometry of the bottom electrode of the embodiment of Fig. 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office Action.
Claims 2 – 7 & 11 – 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the base claim were rewritten or amended to overcome its rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office Action.
Claims 8 – 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome their rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office Action, the base claim was rewritten or amended to overcome its rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) set forth in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art to the present invention is WANG (US 20120032300 A1).
WANG discloses:
A lower electrode film is formed above a substrate. A ferroelectric film is formed above the lower electrode film. An amorphous intermediate film of a perovskite-type conductive oxide is formed above the ferroelectric film. A first upper electrode film comprising oxide of at least one metal selected from a group of Pt, Pd, Rh, Ir, Ru, and Os is formed on the intermediate film. The intermediate film is crystallized by carrying out a first heat treatment in an atmosphere containing an oxidizing gas after the formation of the first upper electrode film. After the first heat treatment, a second upper electrode film comprising oxide of at least one metal selected from a group of Pt, Pd, Rh, Ir, Ru, and Os is formed on the first upper electrode film, at a temperature lower than the growth temperature for the first upper electrode film.
Regarding Claim 1 and its dependent claims,
There is no teaching or prior art to provide:
a bottom electrode, wherein a surface roughness of a top surface of the bottom electrode is 0.5 nm. Or similarly, a bottom electrode, wherein a surface roughness of a top surface of the bottom electrode is [about] 0.5 nm.
Missing elements in the closest art gives rise to the innovation in the current invention.
Any comments considered necessary by Applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kenneth S. Stephenson whose telephone number is (571)272-6686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. (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, Julio Maldonado can be reached at (571) 272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/K.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2898
/JULIO J MALDONADO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights