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 Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 19 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 19 January 2026.
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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “excellent” in claim 1 as it relates to dielectric properties is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “excellent” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-14 are rejected for failing to correct the deficiencies of claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 does not appear to further limit claim 1 because all metal oxide films are amorphous, crystalline or a mixture of both (“or” does not preclude a mixture of amorphous and crystalline).
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 7, 9-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawakubo et al. (US 2001/0015448 A1)(Kawakubo).
Kawakubo discloses a semiconductor device. See the title. The device includes a Si(001) substrate (i.e., a semiconductor substrate) 31, an iridium layer 38 (i.e., metal layer), an SRO layer 35 (i.e., SrRuO3, a conductive metal oxide), a BTO ferroelectric layer 36 (i..e, BaTiO3 perovskite). See Figure 1, paragraphs [0007], [0009] and [0111]. The layers are epitaxially formed. See paragraph [0111].
PNG
media_image1.png
264
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kawakubo does not describe the device as a “hererojunction.” However, the device is deemed to be a “herterojunction” because the device has different (i.e., hetero) materials that are joined (i.e., form a junction).
As to claim 2, Kawakubo discloses the conductive metal oxide is SRO and the perovskite layer is BTO, which are the same as presently claimed. See paragraphs [0029] and [0069] of the specification as originally filed. Therefore, the SRO of Kawakubo is presumed to inherently possess the ability of forming a Schottky contact with the BTO.
As to claim 3, the SRO layer of Kawakubo is crystalline because it exhibits pseudo-cubic symmetry. See paragraph [0011].
As to claim 4, Kawakubo discloses the layer 38 is a single layer (i.e., monolayer) of iridium. See paragraph [0111].
As to claim 7, Kawakubo discloses the metal layer has a thickness of 10-50 nm (paragraph [0064]) which is sufficiently specific anticipate the range of claim 7. See MPEP 2131.03.
As to claims 9 and 10, Kawakubo disclose “BTO ferroelectric thin film 46 (tetragonal system: a-axis lattice constant 0.399 nm; c-axis lattice constant 0.403 nm).” See paragraph [0119].
As to claim 13, Kawakubo does not disclose the presence of porosity and further teaches the perovskite layer may comprise Zr. See paragraph [0062].
As to claim 14, Kawakubo discloses the substrate is a silicon substrate. See the abstract.
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.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakubo et al. (US 2001/0015448 A1)(Kawakubo) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Baek et al. (US 20230010061 A1) (Baek)
Baek qualifies as prior art under both 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
As to being prior art under 102(a)(1), applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
As to being prior art under 102(a)(2), the applied reference has common inventors and a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Kawakubo anticipates claim 1 for the reasons noted above. Kawakubo fails to disclose the conductive metal layer is “is formed of a laminated structure of an A layer/B layer/A' layer, the A layer and the A' layer are formed of a metal adhesion layer with a thickness of 5 to 20 nm, and the B layer is formed of a metal bonding layer with a thickness of 20 nm to 1 μm” as recited in claim 5, or “wherein the laminated structure is an A layer/B layer/A' layer structure, wherein the A layer and the A' layer are the same or different and one or more selected from the group consisting of Ti, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pt and Cr, and wherein the B layer is any one selected from the group consisting of Au, Mo, Ta, Nb, La, W and CuW” as recited in claim 6.
Baek teaches semiconductor substrates having heterostructures thereon. The heterostructures include a metal conducting layer 20. The metal conductor may have a laminated structure:
wherein the laminated structure is a structure (layer A/layer B/layer A′) that layer A, layer B, and layer A′ are laminated in order, the layer A and the layer A′ are able to be identical to or different from each other and are any one selected from a group consisting of Ti, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pt, and Cr, and the layer B is any one selected from a group consisting of Au, Mo, Ta, Nb, La, W, and CuW….
[and]
… wherein the metal layer has a laminated structure (layer A/layer B/layer A′) which shows that layer A, layer B, and layer A′ are laminated in order, the layer A and the layer A′ are metal adhesion layers having a thickness of 5 to 20 nm, and the layer B is a metal bonding layer having a thickness of 20 nm to 1 μm.
See claims 3 and 4 of Baek.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided the metallic conducting layer of Kawakubo with the three-layer laminate structure of Baek. The rationale for doing so is that it has been held to have been obvious to have selected a known material (i.e., a three-layer conducting laminate structure) based upon its suitability for its intended purpose (a conductor on a semiconducting substrate). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakubo et al. (US 2001/0015448 A1)(Kawakubo) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yoshida et al. (JP 2022072611 A)(Yoshida).
Kawakubo renders obvious claim 1 for the reasons recited above. Kawakubo fails to teach the FWHM of the perovskite film.
Yoshida discloses forming a perovskite oxide film having an FWHM of 0.25 or less. See paragraph [0029] of the translation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have provided the perovskite film of Kawakubo as suggested by Yoshida. The rationale for do so is achieving a perovskite with high conductivity. See the abstract of Yoshida.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakubo et al. (US 2001/0015448 A1)(Kawakubo) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kondo et al. (US 2003/0085426 A1).
Kawakubo anticipates claim 1 for the reasons recited above. Kawakubo teaches the layer contains crystalline BaTiO3. If the layer is crystalline, it will be formed of grains or domains formed of a single crystal of BaTiO2. Thus the layer “includes a single crystal.”
Kawakubo fails to disclose the BaTiO3 layer has a formula as recited in claim 11. However, substituting cations and doping in perovskite films is notoriously well known in the art.
For example, Kondo discloses semiconductor devices formed on Si. See the abstract. The devices include various perovskite layers including BaTiO3 layers doped with Ag, Al, Ba, Bi, Ca, Ce, Cd, Co, Cu, Dy, Eu, Fe, Ga, Gd, Hf, I, In, La, Li, Mn, Mo, Na, Nb, Ni, Os, Pa, Pb, Pr, Re, Rh, Sb, Sc, Sm, Sn, Sr, Ta, Te, Th, Tl, U, V, W, Y, Sm, Yb, or Zr. See paragraph [0116].
The formula in claim 11 can be simplified to a subgenus [Ba1-(a-1.5b)BaaCb]L0.5Ti0.5O3 when A is Ba, B is Ba, and x=0.5 and y=0.5. Further simplifying, one arrives at [Ba1+1.5b)Cb]L0.5 Ti0.5O3. Such a material is a niobium or zirconium (L) containing barium titanate doped with C atoms.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have doped the BaTiO3 of Kawakubo with zirconium and any of the doping elements of Kondo. The rationale for doing so is the simple substitutions of one known material (BaTiO3) for another known material (i.e., doped PZT) to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143.I.B.
The combination suggests the formula in claim 11 but for the value of “b”, i.e., the doping amount of the C ion. However, it was known by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to determine appropriate doping amounts in PZT perovskites.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David Sample whose telephone number is (571)272-1376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7AM to 3:30 PM.
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, Humera Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-0604. 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.
/David Sample/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1784
Prosecution Insights