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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
1. Applicant's election, without traverse, of claims 1-14, 17, and 20-23 in the “Response to Restriction Requirement” filed on 06/19/2026 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner. Addition of new claims 24-25, cancellation of claims 14-15, and amendments to claims 9 and 21 in “Claims” filed on 06/19/2026 is acknowledged and entered by the Examiner.
This office action considers claims 1-14, 17, and 20-25 pending for prosecution.
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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (100; Fig 3A; [0063]) = (element 100; Figure No. 3A; Paragraph No. [0063]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
2. Claims 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karpov et al. (US 20170288140 A1; hereinafter Karpov).
Regarding claim 1, Karpov teaches an integrated chip (see the entire document, specifically Fig. 1A+; [0007+], and as cited below), comprising:
a first metal layer (210; Fig. 3B; see [0036]) over a substrate (205; Fig. 3B; see [0034]);
a second metal layer (230; Fig. 3B; see [0036]) over the first metal layer (210; Fig. 3B; see [0036]);
an ionic crystal layer (215; Fig. 3B; see [0036]) between the first metal layer (210; Fig. 3B; see [0036]) and the second metal layer (230; Fig. 3B; see [0036]); and
a metal oxide layer (221; Fig. 3B; see [0040]) between the first metal layer (210; Fig. 3B; see [0036]) and the second metal layer (230; Fig. 3B; see [0036]),
wherein the first metal layer (210; Fig. 3B; see [0036]), the second metal layer (230; Fig. 3B; see [0036]), the ionic crystal layer (215; Fig. 3B; see [0036]), and the metal oxide layer (221; Fig. 3B; see [0040]) are over a transistor device (Fig. 3B in view of Fig 9; see [0058, 0079], Claim 32) that is arranged along the substrate (205; Fig. 3B; see [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Karpov teaches all the features of claim 1.
Karpov further teaches wherein the ionic crystal layer (215; Fig. 3B; see [0036]) is over the first metal layer (210; Fig. 3B; see [0036]), the metal oxide layer (221; Fig. 3B; see [0040]) is over the ionic crystal layer (215; Fig. 3B; see [0036]), and the second metal layer (230; Fig. 3B; see [0036]) is over the metal oxide layer (221; Fig. 3B; see [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Karpov teaches all the features of claim 1.
Karpov further teaches wherein the first metal layer (210; Fig. 3B; see [0047]; platinum) comprises a first metal, the metal oxide layer (221; Fig. 3B; see [0040]; platinum) comprises the first metal, and the second metal layer (230; Fig. 3B; see [0047]; tungsten) comprises a second metal different from the first metal.
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 of this title, 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.
Notes: when present, semicolon separated fields within the parenthesis (; ;) represent, for example, as (30A; Fig 2B; [0128]) = (element 30A; Figure No. 2B; Paragraph No. [0128]). For brevity, the texts “Element”, “Figure No.” and “Paragraph No.” shall be excluded, though; additional clarification notes may be added within each field. The number of fields may be fewer or more than three indicated above. These conventions are used throughout this document.
3. Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Karpov et al. (US 20170288140 A1; hereinafter Karpov), in view of the following statement.
Regarding claim 6, Karpov teaches all the features of claim 1.
Karpov further teaches wherein the metal oxide layer (221; Fig. 3B; see [0040]) is over the first metal layer (210; Fig. 3B; see [0036]), the ionic crystal layer (215; Fig. 3B; see [0036]) (see below for “is over”) the metal oxide layer (221; Fig. 3B; see [0040]), and the second metal layer (230; Fig. 3B; see [0036]) is over the ionic crystal layer (215; Fig. 3B; see [0036]).
As noted above, Karpov does not expressly disclose “wherein the metal oxide layer is over the first metal layer, the ionic crystal layer is over the metal oxide layer, and the second metal layer is over the ionic crystal layer”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the metal oxide layer is over the first metal layer, the ionic crystal layer is over the metal oxide layer, and the second metal layer is over the ionic crystal layer” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the metal oxide layer is over the first metal layer, the ionic crystal layer is over the metal oxide layer, and the second metal layer is over the ionic crystal layer). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the metal oxide layer is over the first metal layer, the ionic crystal layer is over the metal oxide layer, and the second metal layer is over the ionic crystal layer” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, Claim 7 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as “wherein the ionic crystal layer is over the first metal layer, the metal oxide layer is over the ionic crystal layer, and the second metal layer is over the metal oxide layer”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the metal oxide layer is over the first metal layer, the ionic crystal layer is over the metal oxide layer, and the second metal layer is over the ionic crystal layer”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the metal oxide layer is over the first metal layer, the ionic crystal layer is over the metal oxide layer, and the second metal layer is over the ionic crystal layer” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the metal oxide layer is over the first metal layer, the ionic crystal layer is over the metal oxide layer, and the second metal layer is over the ionic crystal layer” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the metal oxide layer is over the first metal layer, the ionic crystal layer is over the metal oxide layer, and the second metal layer is over the ionic crystal layer” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the metal oxide layer is over the first metal layer, the ionic crystal layer is over the metal oxide layer, and the second metal layer is over the ionic crystal layer” is not patentable over Karpov.
Regarding claim 9, Karpov teaches all the features of claim 1.
Karpov further teaches wherein the metal oxide layer (221; Fig. 3B; see [0040]) extends along (see below for “a plurality of surfaces”) of the first metal layer (210; Fig. 3B; see [0036]), wherein the ionic crystal layer (215; Fig. 3B; see [0036]) extends along (see below for “a plurality of surfaces”) of the second metal layer (230; Fig. 3B; see [0036])
As noted above, Karpov does not expressly disclose “wherein the metal oxide layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the first metal layer, wherein the ionic crystal layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the second metal layer”.
However, the Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence that the claimed “wherein the metal oxide layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the first metal layer, wherein the ionic crystal layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the second metal layer” is for a particular purpose that is critical to the overall claimed invention (i.e. the invention would not work without wherein the metal oxide layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the first metal layer, wherein the ionic crystal layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the second metal layer). Also, the Applicant has not shown that “wherein the metal oxide layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the first metal layer, wherein the ionic crystal layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the second metal layer” produces a result that was new or unexpected enough to patentably distinguish the claimed invention over the cited prior art. Instead, Figure 1 of the instant disclosure discloses other possible options such as detailed in Figure 1 and [0019-0026] where the metal oxide layer does not extend along a plurality of surfaces of the first metal layer, wherein the ionic crystal layer does not extend along a plurality of surfaces of the second metal layer”. Therefore, no rationale is given that the invention will not function without “wherein the metal oxide layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the first metal layer, wherein the ionic crystal layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the second metal layer”. Thus, the claimed “wherein the metal oxide layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the first metal layer, wherein the ionic crystal layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the second metal layer” is not critical to the invention.
Examiner would like to note that MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline, where change of shape is a Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In view of the above, as there is no persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of “wherein the metal oxide layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the first metal layer, wherein the ionic crystal layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the second metal layer” is significant. Thus, the claimed limitation of “wherein the metal oxide layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the first metal layer, wherein the ionic crystal layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the second metal layer” is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious as per MPEP §2144.04.IV(B) guideline. Therefore, the claimed limitation of “wherein the metal oxide layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the first metal layer, wherein the ionic crystal layer extends along a plurality of surfaces of the second metal layer” is not patentable over Karpov.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claim 2 (and claims dependent upon claim 2, namely claims 3-4) is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: A search of the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations “further comprising: a hydrous metal oxide layer between the metal oxide layer and the ionic crystal layer” of claim 2 (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination).
6. Claim 10 is allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
matter: A search of the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations
of claim 10 (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination).
Regarding Claim 10: this is allowable, because, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure, and the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding: “a transistor device arranged along a substrate; a dielectric structure over the substrate and extending along the substrate; a plurality of wires within the dielectric structure; a first metal layer over the plurality of wires; a second metal layer over the first metal layer; an ionic crystal layer between the first metal layer and the second metal layer; a metal oxide layer between the first metal layer and the second metal layer; and a hydrous metal oxide layer between the ionic crystal layer and the metal oxide layer, wherein the first metal layer, the second metal layer, the ionic crystal layer, the metal oxide layer, and the hydrous metal oxide layer are arranged within the dielectric structure”, as recited in Claim 10, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claims 11-14 and 17 are allowed as those inherit allowable subject matter from claim 10.
7. Claim 21 is allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject
matter: A search of the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations
of claim 21 (the individual limitations may be found just not in combination).
Regarding Claim 21: this is allowable, because, the references of the Prior Art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure, and the examiner’s knowledge does not teach or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding: “a transistor device arranged along a semiconductor substrate; a dielectric structure comprising a plurality of dielectric layers over the semiconductor substrate and extending along the semiconductor substrate; a plurality of conductive interconnects extending through the dielectric structure; a first metal layer over and coupled to the plurality of conductive interconnects and between a pair of sidewalls of the dielectric structure; a metal oxide layer on the first metal layer and between the pair of sidewalls of the dielectric structure; a hydrous metal oxide layer on the metal oxide layer and between the pair of sidewalls of the dielectric structure; an ionic crystal layer over the hydrous metal oxide layer and between the pair of sidewalls of the dielectric structure; and a second metal layer on the ionic crystal layer and between the pair of sidewalls of the dielectric structure”, as recited in Claim 21, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Claims 22-25 are allowed as those inherit the allowable subject matter from claim 21.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Omar Mojaddedi whose telephone number is 313-446-6582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 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, Julio J. Maldonado, can be reached on 571-272-1864. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMAR F MOJADDEDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights