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 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)(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, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Roest et al, &S 2011/0198725 (corresponding to US 8,531,862.
In re Clam 1, Roest discloses a capacitive memory structure 100 (Figs. 1 and 2), comprising: a substrate 102; a first metallic layer 114 ([0091]) on the substrate 102; a ferroelectric material layer 116 ([0093]) on the first metallic layer 114, wherein the ferroelectric material layer is electrically excitable to two polarization states, each polarization state representing a memory state of the capacitive memory structure; and a second metallic layer 122 ([0095]) on the ferroelectric material layer 116; wherein the first metallic layer 114 (being Ti/Pt) and the second metallic layer 122 (being TiW) (Figs. 1-4 , [0090 – 0120]). It is inherently because different materials inherently possess different work functions.
In re Claim 2, Roest discloses the capacitive memory structure of claim 1, wherein the work functions of the first metallic layer 114 (Ti/Pt) ([0091]) and the second metallic layer 122 (Ti/W) ([0095]) differ by at least 0.3 eV. (see at B1: Workfunction Values (Reference Table) - Chemistry LibreTexts)
In re Claim 3, Roest discloses the capacitive memory structure of claim 1, wherein the first metallic layer 114 ([0091]) and the second metallic layer 122 ([0095]) comprise different materials or material compositions.
In re Claim 7, Roest discloses the capacitive memory structure of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first metallic layer 114 and the second metallic layer 122 comprise any one of the following materials or material compositions: - molybdenum; - a composition comprising molybdenum and a molybdenum oxide; - titanium nitride; - a composition comprising ruthenium and titanium nitride; or – tungsten (W, [0091]).
In re Claim 9, Roest discloses the capacitive memory structure of claim 1, wherein the ferroelectric material layer 116 has a dielectric constant of less than 100, or in a range of 20-100.
In re Claim 8, Roest discloses the capacitive memory structure of claim 1, wherein the ferroelectric material layer 116 comprises hafnium–zirconium oxide, HZO, or lanthanum doped HZO, La: HZO. ([0093])
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roest as applied to claim 1 above.
In re Claim 4, Roest discloses all limitations of Claim 4 including that t least one of the first metallic layer 114 and the second metallic layer 122 comprises two or more sub-layers (Fig. 1; [0093], [0095]), except that at least one of the two or more sub-layers is a metal layer and at least one of the two or more sub-layers is a metallic oxide layer or an oxide layer. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use and at least one of the two or more sub-layers is a metallic oxide layer or an oxide layer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
In re Claim 5, Roest discloses all limitations of Claim 5 except for that the metallic oxide layer is a molybdenum oxide layer, or a tungsten oxide layer, or a niobium oxide layer. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the metallic oxide layer is a molybdenum oxide layer, or a tungsten oxide layer, or a niobium oxide layer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
In re Claim 6, Roest discloses all limitations of Claim 6 except for that the metal layer is a molybdenum layer. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to use the molybdenum layer, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
In re Claim 8, Roest discloses all limitations of Claim 8 except for that the ferroelectric material layer 116 comprises hafnium–zirconium oxide, HZO, or lanthanum doped HZO, La: HZO. Due to high level of knowledge and skills of personal capable to operate very sophisticated and expensive equipment in semiconductor technology, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice of one of ordinary skill in the semiconductor art to substitute the ferroelectric material layer 116 made of PZT ([0093]) with hafnium–zirconium oxide, HZO, or lanthanum doped HZO, La: HZO, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (See MPEP2144.07).
In re Claim 9, Roest discloses capacitive memory structure of claim 1, wherein the ferroelectric material layer PZT of 116 being substituted with the hafnium–zirconium oxide, HZO, or lanthanum doped HZO, La: HZO inherently has a dielectric constant of less than 100, or in a range of 20-100. It is inherently because according to MPEP2112.01 [R-3] Composition, Product, and Apparatus Claims I. PRODUCT AND APPARATUS CLAIMS — WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roest as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jeon et al., US 1011/0352187(corresponding to US 11,1272,992).
In re Claim 10, Roes discloses all limitations of Claim 10, except for memory device, comprising: a plurality of capacitive memory structures of claim 1; wherein the capacitive memory structures are arranged in a crossbar array.
Jeon teaches a memory device 1000 (Fig. 6), comprising: a plurality of capacitive memory structures 100; wherein the capacitive memory structures 1000 are arranged in a crossbar array (Fig. 7) (Figs. 1- 10; [0010 -0119]). Jeon does not specify that the plurality of capacitive memory structures 100 of claim 1.
Roest discloses a capacitive memory structure 100 (Figs. 1 and 2), comprising: a substrate 102; a first metallic layer 114 ([0091]) on the substrate 102; a ferroelectric material layer 116 ([0093]) on the first metallic layer 114, wherein the ferroelectric material layer is electrically excitable to two polarization states, each polarization state representing a memory state of the capacitive memory structure; and a second metallic layer 122 ([0095]) on the ferroelectric material layer 116; wherein the first metallic layer 114 (being Ti/Pt) and the second metallic layer 122 (being TiW) (Figs. 1-4 , [0090 – 0120]). It is inherently because different materials inherently possess different work functions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the capacitive memory structures 100 of Jong with Roest’s capacitive memory structure 100, as having a particularly long lifetime ([0017).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-16 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
In re Claim 11, prior-art fails to disclose a method for reading-out a capacitive memory structure, comprising steps of “applying a DC bias voltage to the ferroelectric material layer by means of the first and the second metallic layer, wherein the DC bias voltage is lower than a voltage required to change a current polarization state of the ferroelectric material layer; detecting a capacitance of the ferroelectric material layer at the bias voltage; and correlating the detected capacitance to the current polarization state of the ferroelectric material layer.” Therefore, the claimed method differs from prior art methods on this point and there is no evidence it would have been obvious to make this change.
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 NIKOLAY K YUSHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-7885. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (7-7 PST).
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, Yara B. Green can be reached at 5712703075. 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.
/NIKOLAY K YUSHIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893