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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-5 and 16-18) in the reply filed on February 23, 2026 acknowledged. Claims 6-15, 19 and 20 drawn to non-elected invention have been withdrawn from examination for patentability.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on October 22, 2023 and IDS filed on November 30, 2023 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs are considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for the following informality:
In Fig. 1D, the reference character “135” should be corrected to be as --145--. Support can be found at least in the paragraph [145] of the original specification.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schröder et al. US 2017/0256552.
Regarding claim 1, Schröder teaches a structure (e.g., Fig. 9A) comprising
a proximal material layer (e.g., 101A, Fig. 9A, [72], [61]; and/or 901A, Fig. 9A, [72]);
a proximal dipole layer (e.g., 102, Fig. 9A, [59]: The material layer 102 of Schröder includes magnesium that pertains to the materials of proximal/distal n-type dipole layers disclosed in Applicant’s original disclosure (e.g., [65]), thus it is considered as a proximal dipole layer: Regarding the term “proximal”, please refer to the paragraph [0057] of Applicant’s original disclosure) adjacent to the proximal material layer;
a high-k dielectric (e.g., 902A, Fig. 9A, [73]: The layer 902A of Schröder includes aluminum oxide (having a dielectric constant in the range of 8 to 10) that pertains to high-k dielectric materials that have a dielectric constant higher than that of silicon dioxide (about 3.9), thus it is considered as a high-k dielectric.) adjacent to the proximal dipole layer;
a distal dipole layer (e.g., 102, Fig. 9A, [59]: The material layer 102 of Schröder includes magnesium that pertains to the materials of proximal/distal n-type dipole layers disclosed in Applicant’s original disclosure (e.g., [65]), thus it is considered as a distal dipole layer: Regarding the term “distal”, please refer to the paragraph [0057] of Applicant’s original disclosure) adjacent to the high-k dielectric; and,
a distal material layer (e.g., 103A, Fig. 9A, [72], [61]; and/or 901A, Fig. 9A, [72]) adjacent to the distal dipole layer.
Regarding claim 2, Schröder teaches the structure according to claim 1 wherein electric potential decreases towards the high-k dielectric (According to Applicant’s original disclosure ([64], [153]), electric potential decreases towards the high-k dielectric in the structure (having n-type dipole layers) shown in Fig. 2C (also see Fig. 1C). Thus, the structure of Fig. 9A of Schröder including the claimed configurations/materials is considered as having the claimed property.).
Regarding claim 4, Schröder teaches the structure according to claim 1 wherein the proximal dipole layer and the distal dipole layer comprise an element selected from a list consisting of element selected from the list consisting of magnesium (Mg), erbium (Er), strontium (Sr), scandium (Sc), yttrium (Y), lanthanum (La), and cerium (Ce) (e.g., [59]).
Regarding claim 18, Schröder teaches the structure according to claim 1 wherein at least one of the distal material layer and the proximal material layer comprises a transition metal nitride (e.g., [61]).
Claims 1, 3, 5, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. KR 2023-0077515 (Park et al. US 2023/0165013, equivalent to the KR reference as an English translation, is used in rejection).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a structure (e.g., Fig. 1, [22]-[36]) comprising
a proximal material layer (e.g., 140, Fig. 1, [26]; and/or DL2, Fig. 1, [33]);
a proximal dipole layer (e.g., IS, Fig. 1, [32]: The layer IS of Park includes aluminum oxide that pertains to the materials of proximal/distal p-type dipole layers disclosed in Applicant’s original disclosure (e.g., [29], [66]), thus it is considered as a proximal dipole layer.) adjacent to the proximal material layer;
a high-k dielectric (e.g., DL1, Fig. 1, [31]: The layer DL1 of Park includes hafnium zirconium oxide that pertains to the materials of high-k dielectric layers disclosed in Applicant’s original disclosure (e.g., [158], [159]), thus it is considered as a high-k dielectric.) adjacent to the proximal dipole layer;
a distal dipole layer (e.g., IF, Fig. 1, [28]: The layer IF of Park includes aluminum oxide that pertains to the materials of proximal/distal p-type dipole layers disclosed in Applicant’s original disclosure (e.g., [29], [66]), thus it is considered as a distal dipole layer.) adjacent to the high-k dielectric; and,
a distal material layer (e.g., 120, Fig. 1, [26]) adjacent to the distal dipole layer.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches the structure according to claim 1 wherein electric potential increases towards the high-k dielectric (According to Applicant’s original disclosure ([67], [156]), electric potential increases towards the high-k dielectric in the structure ((having p-type dipole layers) shown in Fig. 2D (see Fig. 1D). Thus, the structure of Fig. 1 including the claimed configurations/materials is considered as having the claimed property.).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches the structure according to claim 1 wherein the proximal dipole layer and the distal dipole layer comprise an element selected from a list consisting of vanadium (V), aluminum (Al), nickel (Ni), and tin (Sn) (e.g., [32], [28]).
Regarding claim 17, Park teaches the structure according to claim 1 wherein at least one of the distal dipole layer and the proximal dipole layer comprises a material selected from a list consisting of aluminum oxide, vanadium oxide, tin oxide, and nickel oxide (e.g., [32], [28]).
Regarding claim 18, Park teaches the structure according to claim 1 wherein at least one of the distal material layer and the proximal material layer comprises a transition metal nitride (e.g., [26]).
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 16 is rejected are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schröder et al. US 2017/0256552 in view of Yang US 10,026,731.
Regarding claim 16, Schröder teaches the structure according to claim 1 as discussed above.
Schröder does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the distal dipole layer and the proximal dipole layer comprises a material selected from a list consisting of scandium oxide, strontium oxide, lanthanum oxide, cerium oxide, and yttrium oxide.
Schröder, however, recognizes that the dipole layer 102 includes lead magnesium niobium oxide (e.g., [59]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have known that lanthanum oxide, yttrium oxide, lead magnesium niobium oxide and the like have been commonly used in the semiconductor industry as dielectric materials for MIM capacitors as suggested by Yang (e.g., col. 11, line 18 to col. 12, line 12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schröder to include wherein at least one of the distal dipole layer and the proximal dipole layer comprises a material selected from a list consisting of scandium oxide, strontium oxide, lanthanum oxide, cerium oxide, and yttrium oxide as suggested by Yang because such a modification for its conventional use would have been a common sense choice by one skilled in the semiconductor art. MPEP §2143.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bo Bin Jang whose telephone number is (571) 270-0271. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM 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, 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 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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. 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.
/BO B JANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818 March 21, 2026