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 .
1. Claims 1-20 are present for examination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
2. Claims 1 & 6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 , 20 & 22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,726,899 (same assignee).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the following comparisons:
Claim 1 (this application) obviously recites a similar ferroelectric memory device as the claims 13 & 22 (of patent ‘899), which includes a ferroelectric material sandwiched between two electrodes, and the claimed “one or more portions of bismuth oxide” and “one or more hafnium-containing oxide, zirconium, or combination thereof” also obviously read on the recited “ferroelectric material comprising at least the hafnium oxide, or a combination, and including bismuth and zirconium material in the oxide” from the patent’s claims.
Claim 6 (application) recites similar language, “0.1 to 10.0 atomic percent”, as seen from claim 20 (patent ‘899).
3. Claims 1, 2 & 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 13 , 20 & 22 of U.S. Patent No. 10,319,426 (same assignee).
Claim 1 (this application) obviously recites a similar ferroelectric memory device as the claims 1, 13 & 22 (of patent ‘426), which includes a ferroelectric material sandwiched between two electrodes, and the claimed “one or more portions of bismuth oxide” and “one or more hafnium-containing oxide, zirconium, or combination thereof” also obviously read on the recited “ferroelectric material comprising at least the hafnium and zirconium oxide, and doped with bismuth material in the oxide” from the patent claims.
Claim 2 (application) recited similar language, “orthorhombic crystal”, from claim 7 (patent ‘426).
Claim 7 (application) recited similar language, “uniform concentration”, from claim 6 (patent ‘426).
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)(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.
4. Claims 1 & 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Watanabe et al (US 5,439,845).
Regarding independent claim 1, Watanabe (Fig. 3) clearly shows a ferroelectric device comprising at least an electrode 28, another electrode 32, and a ferroelectric structure 30 sandwiched between two electrodes, and the structure 30 including at least one or more portions of a bismuth oxide, and/or one or more of its portions having hafnium oxide or zirconium oxide, or combination thereof.
For example, col. 7, lines 40-60 below stated that the middle layer 30 is a “super lattice material” type, and it could be made of ferroelectric material, and at least one or more portions of bismuth oxide, zirconium, and/or other combinations could be included in the oxide material, etc. See below:
PNG
media_image1.png
314
1142
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Two electrodes = 28 & 32
Ferroelectric structure/layer = 30
At least one or more portions of Bismuth oxide, Zirconium, Hafnium,
and other portions also included in layer 30, see col. 7.)]
PNG
media_image2.png
328
258
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-4, col. 7, lines 40-60 also mentions that at least one or more of other dopant materials could be chosen or included such as, i.e., yttrium, strontium, calcium, barium, bismuth, cadmium, lead, titanium, tantalum, hafnium, tungsten, niobium zirconium, bismuth, scandium, yttrium, lanthanum, antimony, chromium, and thallium that spontaneously form layered/ferroelectric superlattices, etc.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. The following recite novel limitations, which are not clearly suggested by the prior arts above nor seen elsewhere at this time:
- Claim 5 is objected as being dependent upon the rejected claim 1, but add other novel limitations, such as the atomic percentage of the dopant material used in such ferroelectric material is in the range of 0.1 atm% to 25 atm%, which are not specifically disclosed by the prior arts above.
- Independent clams 8 & 14, together with their respective dependent claims (9-13 & 15-20) are all allowable over the prior arts of record for reciting other novel limitations (i.e., atomic percentages, gradient distribution, thickness, and/or specific features, etc.) for other/specific dopant types formed in the ferroelectric structure above, which are also not suggested elsewhere at this time, either taken alone or in combination with the cited teachings above.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3PM EST.
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, Amir Zarabian can be reached at 571-272-1852. 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.
/VIET Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2827