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 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2004-207304.
With respect to claim 1, JP ‘304 discloses a ferroelectric capacitor (see abstract), comprising: an upper electrode (see FIG. 1, element 50 and paragraph [0071]); a lower electrode (see FIG. 1, element 30 and paragraph [0052]); and a ferroelectric layer arranged between the upper electrode and the lower electrode so as to be in close contact therewith (see FIG. 1, element 40 and paragraph [0067]), wherein at least one electrode selected from the group consisting of the upper electrode and the lower electrode includes a composite metal oxide electrode formed so as to contain a composite metal oxide in which a second oxide is added to a conductive first oxide containing at least one metal element selected from the group consisting of In, Ga, Zn, Sn, Ru, Ir and Sr (see paragraph [0052]) at a molar ratio smaller than that of the first oxide, the second oxide having oxygen dissociation energy, when considered as a metal oxide of one of the metal elements, which is larger by 200 kJ/mol or more, as compared to the metal oxide having a largest oxygen dissociation energy among the first oxides (see paragraph [0059]), noting the use of a constituent element such as Si or Ge oxides).
With respect to claim 2, JP ‘304 discloses that each of the upper electrode and the lower electrode includes the composite metal oxide electrode. See paragraph [0071].
With respect to claim 3, JP’ 304 discloses a contact electrode formed on a surface of a layer of the composite metal oxide electrode on an opposite side to a surface thereof in close contact with the ferroelectric layer. See FIG. 1, element 20.
With respect to claim 5, JP ‘304 discloses that the composite metal oxide is formed by adding the second oxide containing at least one element selected from the group consisting of Zr, Ce, La, Si, Hf, Ta and C to the first oxide selected from the group consisting of a Sn-O-based oxide, an In-Sn-O-based oxide, a Ga-Sn-O-based oxide, a Zn-Sn- O-based oxide, an In-Ga-Sn-O-based oxide, an In-Zn-Sn-O-based oxide, a Ga-Zn-Sn-O-based oxide and an In-Ga-Zn-Sn-O-based oxide. See paragraph [0058]-[0059].
With respect to claim 6, JP ‘304 discloses that the composite metal oxide is formed by adding the second oxide containing at least one element selected from the group consisting of Er, Dy, Ni, V, Ge, Ti, W, Nb, Zr, Ce, La, Si, Hf, Ta and C to the first oxide selected from the group consisting of an In-O-based oxide, a Ga-O-based oxide, a Zn- O-based oxide, an In-Ga-O-based oxide, an In-Zn-O-based oxide, a Ga-Zn-O-based oxide and an In-Ga-Zn-O-based oxide. See paragraph [0058]-[0059].
With respect to claim 9, JP ‘304 discloses that the composite metal oxide is formed by adding the second oxide containing at least one element selected from the group consisting of Zr, Ce, La, Si, Hf, Ta and C to the first oxide selected from the group consisting of a Ru-O-based oxide, an Ir-O-based oxide, a Sr-Ru-O-based oxide and an In-Sr- Ru-O-based oxide. See paragraphs [0052] and [0058-[0059].
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004-207304 in view of Nabatame et al. (US 6,198,119).
With respect to claim 7, JP ‘304 fails to explicitly teach that the composite metal oxide is formed by adding the second oxide containing at least one element selected from the group consisting of Ti, W, Nb, Zr, La, Si, Hf, Ta and C to the In-O-based oxide. See paragraph [0058]-[0059].
Nabatame, on the other hand, teaches that a composite metal oxide includes an In-O-based oxide. See col. 6, lines 44-56. Such an arrangement results in a conductive oxide having a reduced resistivity and a transmission factor over the visible region of over 80%.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify JP ‘304, as taught by Nabatame, in order to produce an electrode having an improved transmission factor and reduced resistivity.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004-207304 in view of Nabatame et al. (US 6,198,119), and further, in view of JP 2016-157297.
With respect to claim 8, the combined teachings of JP ‘304 and Nabatame fail to teach that the composite metal oxide contains an oxide selected from the group consisting of an In-W-O-based oxide and an In-Si- O-based oxide.
JP ‘297, on the other hand, teaches the use of an oxide selected from the group consisting of an In-W-O-based oxide and an In-Si- O-based oxide. See paragraph [0036]. Such an arrangement reduces peeling between the layers. See paragraph [0035].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the combined teachings of JP ‘304 and Nabatame, as taught by JP ‘297, in order to produce an electrode having an improved transmission factor and reduced resistivity.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004-207304 in view of Wang (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2013/014979).
With respect to claim 11, JP ‘304 fails to teach that the composite metal oxide electrode has a thickness of from 0.5 nm to 20 nm.
Wang, on the other hand, teaches an electrode thickness as small as 0.5 nm. See paragraph [0223]. Such an arrangement results in the miniaturization of the capacitor.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify JP ‘304, as taught by Wang, in order to produce an electrode that maintains miniaturization in the capacitor.
With respect to claim 12, JP ‘204 fails to teach that the composite metal oxide electrode has a thickness of from 0.5 nm to 2 nm.
Wang, on the other hand, teaches an electrode thickness as small as 0.5 nm. See paragraph [0223]. Such an arrangement results in the miniaturization of the capacitor.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify JP ‘304, as taught by Wang, in order to produce an electrode that maintains miniaturization in the capacitor.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2004-207304 in view of Abe et al. (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2011/0126899).
With respect to claim 4, JP ‘304 fails to teach that the composite metal oxide is formed by adding 0.02 part by mole to 0.5 part by mole of the second oxide to 1 part by mole of the first oxide.
Abe, on the other hand, teaches that for an oxide body, cerium oxide is added to an indium oxide in a ratio of .110 Ce/In. See paragraph [0141]. Such an arrangement results in crack prevention. See paragraph [0109] and Table 1c, Example 15.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing date of the invention, to modify JP ‘304, as taught by Abe, in order to produce an electrode that prevents cracking.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to claim 10, the prior art fails to teach, or fairly suggest, that the composite metal oxide contains an In-Sr-Ru-Si-O-based oxide, when taken in conjunction with the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fujiwara et al. (US 6,917,065) and Wang (US 2012/0032300) each disclose ferroelectric capacitors, but fail to teach the details of the composite oxide electrode recited in claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DION R FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 5:30 a.m. - 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, Timothy Dole, can be reached at 571-272-2229. 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.
/DION R. FERGUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights