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 with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-14 and 16-20) in the reply filed on 6/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination of the two groups can be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the two groups are classified in different classes. Rejoinder issues will be addressed upon indication of allowable subject matter.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lee et al (US 2024/0258366).
The applied reference has a common assignee/inventor 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. 103 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); 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 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. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
With respect to Claim 1, Lee et al discloses a capacitor (Figure 1) comprising: a first electrode (Figure 1, 110) ; a second electrode (Figure 1, 140) facing the first electrode; a dielectric layer (Figure 1, 130) between the first electrode and the second electrode, the dielectric layer including a rutile-phase dielectric material (paragraph 56) ; and a conductive interface layer (Figure 1, 120) between the first electrode (Figure 1, 110) and the dielectric layer (Figure 1, 130), the conductive interface layer comprising a first conductive interface layer (Figure 1, 121) between the first electrode and the dielectric layer and including a conductive metal oxide material having a stable crystal structure in a rutile phase (paragraphs 64-65), and a second conductive interface layer (Figure 1, 122) between the first conductive interface layer and the dielectric layer (paragraphs 66-67). See Figure 1 and corresponding text, especially paragraphs 54-70. Moreover, Lee et al discloses the conductive band offset is optimized by selection of the interface materials to reduced leakage. See paragraphs 63-64 and 141. Furthermore, Lee et al discloses the same second interface material. See paragraphs 66-67.
Lee et al does not explicitly disclose “wherein a conduction band offset between the second conductive interface layer and the dielectric layer is greater than a conduction band offset between the first conductive interface layer and the dielectric layer”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective date of the invention, to arrive at the limitation “wherein a conduction band offset between the second conductive interface layer and the dielectric layer is greater than a conduction band offset between the first conductive interface layer and the dielectric layer”, as the optimization of the interface materials and the resulting conduction band offset, and its reduction of leakage are disclosed. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See Allen et al v. Coe, 57 USPQ 136. Moreover, the discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art. See In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). The selection of the optimum conduction band offset in order to reduce the leakage would have been within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art in view of the disclosure of Lee et al.
With respect to Claim 5, and the limitation “wherein the first conductive interface layer has a thickness within a range of about 0.3 nm to about 4 nm”, changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 6, Lee et al discloses the limitation “wherein the second conductive interface layer includes a second conductive metal oxide material having a stable crystal structure in a rutile phase”. See paragraph 66 of Lee et al.
With respect to Claim 7, Lee et al discloses “wherein the second conductive interface layer includes tin oxide, germanium oxide or a mixture”. See paragraph 66 of Lee et al.
With respect to Claim 8, and the limitation “wherein the second conductive interface layer has a thickness within a range of about 0.3 nm to about 1 nm”, changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 9, Lee et al discloses wherein the dielectric layer includes rutile -phase titanium oxide. See paragraph 56 of Lee et al.
With respect to Claim 10, Lee et al discloses the same dopants. See paragraph 56 of Lee et al.
With respect to Claim 11, Lee et al discloses the limitation “wherein a concentration of the dopant in the dielectric layer is with a range of about 0at % to about 20 at %”. See paragraph 56 of Lee et al.
With respect to Claim 12, and the limitation “wherein the dielectric layer has a thickness within a range of about 3 nm to 7 nm, changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to Claim 13, Lee et al discloses the first electrode includes titanium nitride. See paragraph 59 of Lee et al.
With respect to Claim 14, and the limitation “ the first electrode has a thickness within a range of about 5 nm to about 10 n”, changes in size are prima facie obvious. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER G GHYKA whose telephone number is (571)272-1669. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571 272-8458. 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.
AGG
July 19, 2026
/ALEXANDER G GHYKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights