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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Appropriate punctuation mark missed at lines 3, before the limitation of term “and”, and line 4, before the limitation of term “and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 11-14, 18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/ (a)(2) as being anticipated by Popovici et al. (U.S. 2022/0254795 A1, hereinafter refer to Popovici).
Regarding Claim 11: Popovici discloses a structural element (see Popovici, Fig.2 as shown below and ¶ [0002]), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
251
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
279
471
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a ferroelectric or antiferroelectric layer (11 and/or 21) formed on a substrate (12) (see Popovici, Fig.2 as shown above, ¶ [0059]- ¶ [0060], and ¶ [0063]),
wherein the ferroelectric or antiferroelectric layer (11 and/or 21) is doped with a first dopant and at least one second dopant (see Popovici, Fig.2 as shown above, ¶ [0059]- ¶ [0060], and ¶ [0063]).
Regarding Claim 12: Popovici discloses a structural element as set forth in claim 11 as above. Popovici further teaches wherein the ferroelectric or antiferroelectric layer (11 and/or 21) is made of HfO2 or ZrO2 (see Popovici, Fig.2 as shown above, ¶ [0059]- ¶ [0060], and ¶ [0063]).
Regarding Claim 13: Popovici discloses a structural element as set forth in claim 12 as above. Popovici further teaches wherein the first dopant in a ferroelectric or antiferroelectric ZrO2-layer comprises Hf (see Popovici, Fig.2 as shown above, ¶ [0059]- ¶ [0060], and ¶ [0063]).
Regarding Claim 14: Popovici discloses a structural element as set forth in claim 12 as above. Popovici further teaches wherein the first dopant in a ferroelectric or antiferroelectric HfO2-layer comprises Zr (see Popovici, Fig.2 as shown above, ¶ [0059]- ¶ [0060], and ¶ [0063]).
Regarding Claim 18: Popovici discloses a structural element as set forth in claim 11 as above. Popovici further teaches wherein the second dopant is Al, Si, La, Y, Gd or Sr (see Popovici, Fig.2 as shown above, ¶ [0059]- ¶ [0060], and ¶ [0063]).
Regarding Claim 21: Popovici discloses a structural element as set forth in claim 11 as above. Popovici further teaches wherein the ferroelectric or antiferroelectric layer (11 and/or 21) has a layer thickness of 1 nm to 20 nm (between 5 and 13 nm) (see Popovici, Fig.2 as shown above, ¶ [0021], and ¶ [0059]).
Regarding Claim 22: Popovici discloses a structural element as set forth in claim 21 as above. Popovici further teaches wherein the ferroelectric or antiferroelectric layer has a layer thickness of 5 nm to 15 nm (between 5 and 13 nm) (see Popovici, Fig.2 as shown above, ¶ [0021], and ¶ [0059]).
Regarding Claim 23: Popovici discloses a structural element as set forth in claim 11 as above. Popovici further teaches wherein the substrate (12 or 13) is in the form of an electrode (see Popovici, Fig.2 as shown above and ¶ [0059]).
Regarding Claim 24: Popovici discloses a method for producing a structural element according to claim 11, wherein the ferroelectric or antiferroelectric layer (11 and/or 21) is deposited onto the substrate (12 or 13) (see Popovici, Fig.2 as shown above, Fig.8, ¶ [0059]- ¶ [0060], and ¶ [0063]) and
the ferroelectric or antiferroelectric layer (11 and/or 21) is doped with the first dopant (see Popovici, Fig.2 as shown above, Fig.8, ¶ [0059]- ¶ [0060], and ¶ [0063]) and
the ferroelectric or antiferroelectric layer (11 and/or 21) doped with the first dopant is doped with the second dopant (see Popovici, Fig.2 as shown above, Fig.8, ¶ [0059]- ¶ [0060], and ¶ [0063]).
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) 15-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popovici et al. (U.S. 2022/0254795 A1, hereinafter refer to Popovici).
Regarding Claims 15-17 and 19-20: Popovici discloses a structural element as applied to claim 11 above. Popovici is silent upon explicitly disclosing wherein the dopant concentration of the first dopant is in a range of 0.1 - 50 at (as claim in claim 15);
wherein the dopant concentration of the first dopant is in a range of 25 - 50 at. % (as claim in claim 16);
wherein the dopant concentration of the first dopant is in a range of 40 - 50 at.% (as claim in claim 17);
wherein the dopant concentration of the second dopant is in a range of 0.1 - 10 at.% (as claim in claim 19);
wherein the dopant concentration of the second dopant is in a range of 1 - 5 at.% (as claim in claim 20).
However, Popovici teaches a method of determining the first dopant and the second dopant concentration in order to obtain the desired phase ratios of the different HZO layers.
For support see, Popovici teaches the dopant concentration of the first dopant less than the dopant concentration of the second dopant and/or the dopant concentration of the first dopant greater than the dopant concentration of the second dopant (Y> La and/or La >Y) (see Popovici, Fig.6B as shown below and ¶ [0079]- ¶ [0082]).
PNG
media_image3.png
275
673
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the dopant concentration of the first dopant and the second dopant through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired phase ratios of the different HZO layers because the dopant concentration of the first dopant and the second dopant is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BITEW A DINKE whose telephone number is (571)272-0534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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, Davienne Monbleau can be reached at (571)272-1945. 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.
/BITEW A DINKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812