Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/562,729

ULTRAHIGH TUNNELING ELECTRORESISTANCE IN FERROELECTRIC TUNNELING JUNCTION WITH GIANT BARRIER HEIGHT MODULATION BY MONOLAYER GRAPHENE CONTACT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Nov 20, 2023
Examiner
PUNCHBEDDELL, SEYON ALI-SIMAH
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
81%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
49 granted / 67 resolved
+5.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
106
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
54.4%
+14.4% vs TC avg
§102
28.4%
-11.6% vs TC avg
§112
15.0%
-25.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 67 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION 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, 9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JIANGBIN WU et al., "High tunnelling electroresistance in a ferroelectric van der Waals heterojunction via giant barrier height modulation" Nature Electronics volume 3, pages 466-472 (hereinafter; “Wu”). In regard to claim 1, Wu teaches a device (a ferroelectric tunnel junction (FTJ)) (Fig. 1a [pg. 1, col.1, ln. 1]), comprising: a first contact made of a semi-metallic material (a graphene contact) (Fig. 1a and [pg. 1, col.2, ln. 14]); a second contact made of a metal material (a chromium layer (CR)), the first contact and the second contact forming asymmetric electrodes (the two electrodes are asymmetrical as described in [pg. 1, col.2, ln. 14-15]) (Fig. 1a); and a ferroelectric insulating layer (a CuInP2S6 (CIPS) layer) disposed between the first contact and the second contact and electrically connected to the first contact and the second contact ( the layered CIPS is used as the ferroelectric tunnelling barrier layer, and graphene and Cr are used as the asymmetric electrodes) (Fig. 1a and [pg. 1, col.2, ln. 14-15]). In regard to claim 9, Wu teaches wherein the first ferroelectric insulating layer comprises CuInP2S6 (Wu teaches the use of two-dimensional (2D) van der Waals (vdW) materials such as CuInP2S6 (CIPS)). In regard to claim 11, Wu teaches wherein the ferroelectric insulating layer is a two-dimensional van der Waals material (CuInP2S6 is a known two-dimensional (2D) van der Waals (vdW) material). In regard to claim 12, Wu teaches wherein the first contact comprises graphene (the contact is a graphene contact) (Fig. 1a and [pg. 1, col.2, ln. 14]). In regard to claim 13, Wu teaches wherein the first contact comprises monolayer graphene (monolayer graphene (1LG) is used as asymmetric electrodes) (Fig. 1a and [pg. 1, col.2, ln. 14]). In regard to claim 14, Wu teaches wherein the second contact comprises chromium (a chromium layer (Cr) forms a second contact as described above). In regard to claim 15, Wu teaches wherein the asymmetric electrodes cause a large modulation of average barrier height (ABH) when ferroelectric polarization changes direction, exponentially influencing the tunneling current ([pg. 1, col.2, ln. 1-6]). Claims 1-2, 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu. This rejection of claim 1 relies on different elements mapped as the first contact from the claim 1 rejection above. This rejection of claim 1 will be referred to as claim 1A in dependent claim 35 U.S.C 103 rejections shown below. In regard to claim 1, Wu teaches a device (a ferroelectric tunnel junction (FTJ)) (Fig. 1a [pg. 1, col.1, ln. 1]), comprising: a first contact made of a semi-metallic material (a graphene contact formed from a graphene bilayer) (Fig. 1a, Fig. 4a, [pg. 1, col.2, ln. 14] and [pg. 5, col.2, ln. 14-15]); a second contact made of a metal material (a chromium layer (CR)), the first contact and the second contact forming asymmetric electrodes (the two electrodes are asymmetrical as described in [pg. 1, col.2, ln. 14-15]) (Fig. 1a); and a ferroelectric insulating layer (a CuInP2S6 (CIPS) layer and a top layer of a graphene bilayer) disposed between the first contact and the second contact and electrically connected to the first contact and the second contact (the layered CIPS is used as the ferroelectric tunnelling barrier layer, and graphene and Cr are used as the asymmetric electrodes) (Fig. 1a, Fig. 4a, [pg. 1, col.2, ln. 14] and [pg. 5, col.2, ln. 14-15]). In regard to claim 2, Wu teaches wherein the ferroelectric insulating layer comprises a first ferroelectric layer and a graphene layer sandwiched together (the top layer of the graphene bilayer layer and the CIPS layer would be sandwiched between the top chromium layer and the bottom graphene layer of the graphene bilayer) ([pg. 5, col.2, ln. 14-18]). In regard to claim 16, Wu teaches a device comprising: a first contact made of graphene material (a graphene contact formed from the graphene bilayer) (Fig. 1a, Fig. 4a, [pg. 1, col.2, ln. 14] and [pg. 5, col.2, ln. 14-15]); a second contact made of chromium (a chromium layer (CR)), the first contact and the second contact forming asymmetric electrodes (the two electrodes are asymmetrical as described in [pg. 1, col.2, ln. 14-15]) (Fig. 1a); a first ferroelectric layer comprising CuInP2S6 and a graphene layer comprising monolayer graphene disposed between the first contact and the second contact (the top layer of the graphene bilayer layer and the CIPS layer would be sandwiched between the top chromium layer and the bottom graphene layer of the graphene bilayer) ([pg. 5, col.2, ln. 14-18]). In regard to claim 18, Wu teaches a device comprising: a pair of asymmetric electrodes, each electrode of the pair of asymmetric electrodes being of a different material (a bottom layer of a graphene bilayer and chromium electrode are asymmetrical as described in [pg. 1, col.2, ln. 12-15]) (Fig. 1a, Fig. 4a, [pg. 1, col.2, ln. 14] and [pg. 5, col.2, ln. 14-15]); and a ferroelectric insulating layer disposed between the pair of asymmetric electrodes and providing a ferroelectric tunnel junction (the layered CIPS used as the ferroelectric tunnelling barrier layer and the top layer of the graphene bilayer function as the ferroelectric tunnel junction) (Fig. 1a and [pg. 1, col.2, ln. 12-15]); wherein a change of direction of ferroelectric polarization causes a large modulation of average barrier height of the ferroelectric insulating layer between the pair of asymmetric electrodes (an ultra-thin ferroelectric layer is used as the tunnelling barrier and its average barrier height (ABH) can be modified by switching the ferroelectric polarization as taught by Wu) ([pg. 1, col.2, ln. 4-6]). In regard to claim 19, Wu teaches wherein the pair of asymmetric electrodes includes a first electrode made of a semi-metallic material and a second electrode made of a metallic material (the two electrodes are made of chromium and graphene) ([pg. 1, col.2, ln. 12-15]). In regard to claim 20, Wu teaches wherein the ferroelectric insulating layer includes a first ferroelectric layer and a graphene layer (the layered CIPS used as the ferroelectric tunnelling barrier layer and the top layer of the graphene bilayer function as the ferroelectric tunnel junction). 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. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 1A above, and further in view of Ino et al. (US 2016/0365133 A1; hereinafter “Ino”) In regard to claim 3, Wu doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the ferroelectric insulating layer further comprises a first insulating buffer layer disposed between the first ferroelectric layer and the graphene layer. Ino teaches a device (memory cell 101 is a two-terminal FTJ) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 34), wherein a ferroelectric insulating layer (a first low oxygen concentration conductive layer 22, an insulating film 24, and a ferroelectric film 26 of hafnium oxide comprise the ferroelectric insulating layer) further comprises a first insulating buffer layer (an insulating film 24) disposed between a first ferroelectric layer and a graphene layer (the insulating film 24 is shown disposed between the first low oxygen concentration conductive layer formed of graphene and the ferroelectric film 26 of hafnium oxide in Fig. 1) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 42 and 45). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Wu with the teachings of Ino to have the ferroelectric insulating layer further comprises a first insulating buffer layer disposed between the first ferroelectric layer and the graphene layer since this layout reduces the polarization degradation at the ferroelectric layer, and therefore, the number of times data can be rewritten is increased as taught by Ino (paragraph 30). Claims 4 -7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Ino as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Geim, A. K. “Van Der Waals Heterostructures.” Nature. 499 (2013): 419–425. Web; hereinafter “Geim”. In regard to claim 4, Wu in view of Ino doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first ferroelectric layer comprises a bulk ferroelectric material and wherein the first ferroelectric insulating buffer layer comprises monolayer hexagonal boron nitride. Geim teaches a device (‘vertical’ devices) ([pg. 421, col.2, ln.26]), wherein the first ferroelectric layer comprises a bulk ferroelectric material and wherein the first ferroelectric insulating buffer layer comprises monolayer hexagonal boron nitride (Geim teaches mono- layers of hBN were used as tunnel barriers with graphene layers as taught by Geim) ([pg. 421, col.2, ln.45-47]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Wu in view of Ino with the teachings of Geim to have the first ferroelectric layer comprises a bulk ferroelectric material and wherein the first ferroelectric insulating buffer layer comprises monolayer hexagonal boron nitride 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. In regard to claim 5, Wu in view of Ino doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first ferroelectric layer comprises a bulk ferroelectric material and wherein the first ferroelectric insulating buffer layer comprises multilayer hexagonal boron nitride. Geim teaches a device (vertical devices) ([pg. 421, col.2, ln. 26]), wherein the first ferroelectric layer comprises a bulk ferroelectric material and wherein the first ferroelectric insulating buffer layer comprises multilayer hexagonal boron nitride (Geim teaches a few layers of hBN were used as tunnel barriers with graphene layers as taught by Geim) ([pg. 420, col.2, ln. 53]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Wu in view of Ino with the teachings of Geim to have the first ferroelectric layer comprises a bulk ferroelectric material and wherein the first ferroelectric insulating buffer layer comprises multilayer hexagonal boron nitride 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. In regard to claim 6, Wu in view of Ino and Geim teach wherein the bulk ferroelectric material comprises at least one of HfO2 and Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 (Ino teaches the ferroelectric film 26 can be HfO2 and Hf0.5Zr0.5O2) (paragraph 53). In regard to claim 7, Wu in view of Ino and Geim teach wherein the bulk ferroelectric material comprises at least one of HfO2 and Hf0.5Zr0.5O2 (Ino teaches the ferroelectric film 26 can be HfO2 and Hf0.5Zr0.5O2) (paragraph 53). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Ino as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2018/0269216 A1). In regard to claim 8, Wu in view of Ino don’t explicitly teach wherein the first ferroelectric layer comprises a perovskite-based ferroelectric material. Lee teaches a device (a ferroelectric memory device 10) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 22), wherein a first ferroelectric layer (a first tunnel barrier layer 120) comprises a perovskite-based ferroelectric material (the first tunnel barrier layer 120 may include a perovskite-based material). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Wu in view of Ino with the teachings of Lee to have the first ferroelectric layer comprises a perovskite-based ferroelectric material 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. In regard to claim 10, Wu teaches the first ferroelectric insulating layer comprises α-In2Se3. Wu teaches it is known that two-dimensional (2D) van der Waals (vdW) materials such as CuInP2S6 (CIPS) and α-In2Se3 are used in ferroelectric tunnel junction. Therefore, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use α-In2Se3 as a first ferroelectric insulating layer. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ino and Geim. In regard to claim 17, Wu doesn’t explicitly teach a first insulating buffer layer disposed between the first ferroelectric layer and the graphene layer, wherein the first insulating buffer layer comprises hexagonal boron nitride. Ino teaches a device (memory cell 101 is a two-terminal FTJ) (Fig. 1 and paragraph 34), further comprising a first insulating buffer layer (an insulating film 24) disposed between the first ferroelectric layer and the graphene layer (the insulating film 24 is shown disposed between the first low oxygen concentration conductive layer formed of graphene and the ferroelectric film 26 of hafnium oxide in Fig. 1) (Fig. 1 and paragraphs 42 and 45). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Wu with the teachings of Ino to have a first insulating buffer layer disposed between the first ferroelectric layer and the graphene layer since this layout reduces the polarization degradation at the ferroelectric layer, and therefore, the number of times when data can be rewritten is increased as taught by Ino (paragraph 30). Geim teaches a device (‘vertical’ devices) ([pg. 421, col.2, ln. 26]),wherein the first ferroelectric insulating buffer layer comprises hexagonal boron nitride (Geim teaches layers of hBN were used as tunnel barriers with graphene layers as taught by Geim). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Wu in view of Ino with the teachings of Geim to have the first ferroelectric insulating buffer layer comprises monolayer hexagonal boron nitride 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 7:30AM-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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (571) 272-1236. 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. /SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893 /SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 20, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604524
ARRAY SUBSTRATE WITH SECOND COMMON ELECTRODE LAYER AND PREPARATION METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604684
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR MITIGATING UNDERLAYER DAMAGE DURING FORMATION OF PATTERNED STRUCTURES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12593590
DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING COLOR FILTER HAVING LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE OF 80% OR LESS AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588363
LIGHT-EMITTING SUBSTRATE WITH FIRST FUNCTIONAL SUB-LAYER, DISPLAY PANEL WITH FIRST FUNCTIONAL SUB-LAYER, LIGHT-EMITTING EQUIPMENTINCLUDING LIGHT-EMITTING SUBSTRATE, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MANUFACTURING LIGHT-EMITTING SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12588262
SACRIFICIAL GATE CAPPING LAYER FOR GATE PROTECTION DURING SOURCE/DRAIN CONTACT OPENING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
81%
With Interview (+7.6%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 67 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month