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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants argue, in pages 6-9 of their Response and with respect to independent claims 1, 14 and 21, that the combined teachings of Song, Park, and Song ‘102 do not teach the subject matter recited in claim 1 (and similarly recited in claims 14 and 21) whereby “the bottom electrode, the top electrode, and the first dielectric material are aligned and have a same width and depth, the depth corresponding to a dimension extending into and out of a plane of the two-terminal device.” In particular, Applicants submit three specific reasons why the applied art does not teach this subject matter, each of which is separately addressed below. Claims 1, 14, and 21 are rejected over the three references identified in this paragraph.
Applicants argue, in the first full paragraph of page 8 of their Remarks, that Park cannot teach the above-identified subject matter of claim 1 because Park teaches in paragraph [0095] a gradual narrowing of a bottom electrode (145-1) toward its lower (e.g., bottom) surface. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. MPEP §2145(VI). As this principle applies to the present circumstance, claim 1 does not preclude a narrowing of the bottom electrode in a thickness direction (vertical direction of Park’s Fig. 6D). And the putative fact that Park’s bottom electrode (145-1) may taper in width ([X-X’]/[Y-Y’] direction; see Park’s Fig. 6D) and/or depth ([Y-Y’]/[X-X’] direction) does not eliminate the potential for a width and depth along some portion of the bottom electrode (145-1) from being the same as the width and depth of each of Park’s top electrode (149-1) and spacer material (155-14) {e.g., first dielectric material}. Moreover, Park’s Fig. 6D unequivocally illustrates each of the bottom electrode (145-1), top electrode (149-1), and spacer material (155-14) {e.g., first dielectric material} being aligned and having the same width ([X-X’]/[Y-Y’] direction) and depth ([Y-Y’]/[X-X’] direction). “The Examiner is authorized to make a finding of relative dimensions that are, as here, clearly depicted in a drawing.” Ex parte Wright, 091818 USPTAB, 2017-001093 (Patent Trial and Appeal Board Decisions, 2018).
Applicants argue, in the second full paragraph of page 8 of their Remarks, that Park’s teaching of using a mask pattern aligned to memory cells to etch a spacer (e.g., first dielectric material) is not equivalent to the claimed configuration in which a first dielectric material is aligned with, and has the same width and depth as, a bottom electrode and a top electrode. And based on this argument, Applicants conclude (in the third full paragraph of page 8 of their Remarks) that Park does not teach the above-identified subject matter of claim 1. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. MPEP 2145(I). As this principle applies to the present circumstance, Applicants’ argument both: (1) irrelevant to and (2) circumvents the issue of whether Park’s bottom electrode (145-1), top electrode (149-1), and spacer material (155-14) {e.g., first dielectric material} are aligned and have the same width and depth. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, Park’s Fig. 6D unequivocally illustrates each of the bottom electrode (145-1), top electrode (149-1), and spacer material (155-14) {e.g., first dielectric material} are aligned and have the same width ([X-X’]/[Y-Y’] direction) and depth ([Y-Y’]/[X-X’] direction).
Applicants argue, in the last paragraph of page 8 of their Remarks, that Song ‘102: (1) merely discloses a spacer that includes a silicon nitride or a silicon oxide which is arranged between a second conductive line and a second electrode and (2) provides no mention of a first dielectric material that is aligned with a bottom electrode and a top electrode having same width and depth. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. MPEP 2145(IV). As this principle applies to the present circumstance, the Office cites: (A) Song ‘102 for teaching a spacer material made of silicon nitride or silicon oxide, both of which the instant application identifies as dielectric materials, and (B) Park for teaching each of the bottom electrode (145-1), top electrode (149-1), and a spacer material (155-14) {e.g., the claimed first dielectric material, when modified by Song ‘102’s teaching} being aligned and having the same width ([X-X’]/[Y-Y’] direction) and depth ([Y-Y’]/[X-X’] direction).
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(s) 1, 2, 5, 6, 14-19, 21, 22, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (US20230130346A1) in view of Park et al. (US20190013466A1) and Song et al. (US20190123102A1).
Regarding claim 1, Song teaches in Fig. 4B a two-terminal device comprising:
a bottom electrode (430) {¶0065};
a device element (442) formed on the bottom electrode (430) {¶0065}; and
a top electrode (450) formed on the device element (442) {¶0065};
a second material (460) directly upon respective sidewalls of the top electrode (450) and the bottom electrode (430) and wherein a bottommost surface of the second material (460) is below a bottommost surface of the bottom electrode (430) {Fig. 4B; ¶0067}.
Song does not teach:
a first dielectric material laterally surrounding the device element and in direct contact with the bottom electrode and in direct contact with the top electrode,
wherein the bottom electrode, top electrode, and the first dielectric material are aligned and have a same width and depth, the depth corresponding to a dimension extending into and out of a plane of the two-terminal device, and
the second material is a dielectric and directly upon sidewalls of the first dielectric material.
Song teaches: (1) the second material (460) is a spacer and (2) in Fig. 2B and paragraph [0044] a spacer layer (240) is a dielectric material of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, or a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device based on the further teachings of Song – such that the second material is a dielectric – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
In an analogous art, Park teaches in Fig. 6D and paragraphs [0095], [0104], and [0108] a first spacer material (155-14) laterally surrounding a device element (147-14) and in direct contact with a bottom electrode (145-1) and in direct contact with a top electrode (149-1), wherein the bottom electrode (145-1), top electrode (149-1), and the first spacer material (155-14) are aligned and have a same width and depth, the depth corresponding to a dimension extending into and out of a plane of a two-terminal device (140-14) {Park’s Fig. 6D illustrates both width and depth dimensions}. And in an analogous art, Song ‘102 teaches in Fig. 14 and paragraph [0134] a first spacer material surrounding a device element is silicon nitride or silicon oxide, both of which the instant application identifies as dielectric materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device based on the teachings of Park and Song ‘102 – such that a first dielectric material is laterally surrounding the device element and in direct contact with the bottom electrode and in direct contact with the top electrode, wherein the bottom electrode, top electrode, and the first dielectric material are aligned and have a same width and depth, the depth corresponding to a dimension extending into and out of a plane of the two-terminal device – to uniformly electrically insulate the device element with the first dielectric material from external environmental electrical signals, provide a uniform structure for subsequent protective packaging (e.g., such as with Song’s second dielectric material), and/or reduce resources for protecting the two-terminal device. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., bottom and top electrodes, device element, first dielectric material) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (as taught by Park and Song ‘102) with no change in their respective functions (e.g., as an MRAM device) to yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [material/structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a change of shape (e.g., width, depth) is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). A consequence of these modifications is that Song’s second material (460) is disposed directly upon a sidewall of Park’s modified first dielectric material.
Regarding claim 2, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the two-terminal device of claim 1, and Song further teaches the bottom electrode (430) is formed upon underlying circuitry (410, 422, 424) for the two-terminal device {¶0065, 0070}.
Regarding claim 5, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the two-terminal device of claim 1, and Song further teaches wherein the two-terminal device is a magnetoresistive RAM cell {¶0067}.
To the extent one of ordinary skill in the art would not immediately recognize a the device element of a magnetoresistive RAM cell implicitly comprises a magnetic tunnel junction, Song ‘102 teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0070] the first memory layer 120 has a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) structure including two electrodes [and] … may be a magnetic RAM (MRAM). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device as modified by Park and Song ‘102 based on the further teachings of Song ‘102 – such that Song’s device element of the magnetoresistive RAM cell comprises a magnetic tunnel junction – because [t]he selection of a known [device] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 6, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the two-terminal device of claim 1, but Song does not teach wherein the two-terminal device is a resistor device, and wherein the device element comprises a resistive material.
Song ‘102 teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0032] the plurality of memory cells MC may include a variable resistance element R and … the variable resistance element R may be referred to as a variable resistor (alternatively, variable resistance material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device as modified by Park and Song ‘102 based on the further teachings of Song ‘102 – such that Song’s two-terminal device is a resistor device, and wherein the device element comprises a resistive material – because [t]he selection of a known [device] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions to yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 14, Song teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0025] a pattern of two-terminal devices (MCs) comprising:
a first two-terminal device (1st instance of MC) comprising a first top electrode (170), a first bottom electrode (150) and a first switching element (160);
a second two-terminal device (2nd instance of MC) comprising a second top electrode (170), a second bottom electrode (150), and a second switching element (160).
Song does not expressly teach in the embodiment illustrated by Fig. 1:
a first instance of a first dielectric material laterally surrounding the first switching element and in direct contact with the first bottom electrode and in direct contact with the first top electrode, wherein the first top electrode, the first instance of the first dielectric material, and the first bottom electrode have a same width and depth, the depth corresponding to a dimension extending into and out of a plane of the first two-terminal device;
a second instance of the first dielectric material laterally surrounding the second switching element and in direct contact with the second bottom electrode and in direct contact with the second top electrode, wherein and the second top electrode, the second instance of the first dielectric material, and the second bottom electrode have a same width and depth, the depth corresponding to a dimension extending into and out of a plane of the second two-terminal device; and
a second dielectric material directly upon respective sidewalls of the first two-terminal device and the second two-terminal device, wherein a bottommost surface of the second dielectric material is below respective bottommost surfaces of the first bottom electrode and the second bottom electrode.
Park teaches in Fig. 6D and paragraphs [0095], [0104], and [0108] a first spacer material (155-14) laterally surrounding a switching element (147-14) and in direct contact with a bottom electrode (145-1) and in direct contact with a top electrode (149-1), wherein top electrode (149-1), the first spacer material (155-14), and the bottom electrode (145-1) have a same width and depth, the depth corresponding to a dimension extending into and out of a plane of a two-terminal device (140-14) {Park’s Fig. 6D illustrates both width and depth dimensions}. Song ‘102 teaches in Fig. 14 and paragraph [0134] a first spacer material surrounding a switching element is silicon nitride or silicon oxide, both of which the instant application identifies as dielectric materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device based on the teachings of Park and Song ‘102 – such that each of Song’s first and second two-terminal devices comprises a first dielectric material laterally surrounding the switching element and in direct contact with the bottom electrode and in direct contact with the top electrode, wherein the top electrode, the first dielectric material, and the bottom electrode have a same width and depth, the depth corresponding to a dimension extending into and out of a plane of the two-terminal device – to uniformly electrically insulate the switching element with the first dielectric material from external environmental electrical signals, provide a uniform structure for subsequent protective packaging (e.g., such as with Song’s second dielectric material), and/or reduce resources for protecting each two-terminal device. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., bottom and top electrodes, switching element, first dielectric material) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (as taught by Park and Song ‘102) with no change in their respective functions (e.g., as an MRAM device) to yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [material/structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a change of shape (e.g., width, depth) is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B).
Song teaches in paragraph [0109] that features that are described in this patent document in the context of separate embodiments can also be implemented in combination in a single embodiment. And Song teaches in an embodiment illustrated by Fig. 4B and described in paragraphs [0065] and [0067] a second material (460) directly upon respective sidewalls of each instance of the first two-terminal device (1st instance of MC as modified by Park and Song ‘102) and the second two-terminal device (2nd instance of MC as modified by Park and Song ‘102), wherein a bottommost surface of the second material (460) is below respective bottommost surfaces of the first bottom electrode (150) and the second bottom electrode (150). Accordingly, Song’s embodiments of Figs. 1 and 4B may be combined such that each of the two-terminal devices (MC) illustrated in Song’s Fig. 1 as modified by Park and Song ‘102 may be further modified in accordance with the two-terminal device illustrated by Song’s Fig. 4B. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s pattern of two-terminal devices as modified by Park and Song ‘102 based on the further teachings of Song – such that a second material is disposed directly upon respective sidewalls of the first two-terminal device and the second two-terminal device, wherein a bottommost surface of the second material is below respective bottommost surfaces of the first bottom electrode and the second bottom electrode – because Song teaches such modification in paragraph [0109]. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions (e.g. two-terminal memory devices) to yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Still further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s pattern of two-terminal devices as modified by Park and Song ‘102 based on the further teachings of Song – such that Song’s memory cell of Fig. 4B is substituted for each instance of Song’s memory cell in Fig. 1 – because such substitution would yield the predictable result of substituting one memory cell for another. MPEP §2143(I)(B). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. A consequence of the above-identified modifications is that Song’s second material (460) is directly upon sidewalls of Park’s modified first dielectric material.
Song further teaches: (1) the second material (460) is a spacer and (2) in Fig. 2B and paragraph [0044] a spacer layer (240) is a dielectric material of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, or a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device as modified by Park and Song ‘102 based on the further teachings of Song – such that the second material is a dielectric – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 15, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the pattern of two-terminal devices of claim 14, and Song further teaches wherein the first switching element (160/442) is between the first top electrode (170/450) and the first bottom electrode (150/430), wherein the second switching element (160/442) is between the first top electrode (170/450) and the first bottom electrode (150/430) {¶0003, 0031}, and wherein the first switching element is etched to a same height as the second switching element {“is etched” is a product by process limitation that does not further limit the scope of the claim; “the first switching element has … the same height as the second switching element” is implicit because each is an instance of the memory cell of Song’s Fig. 4B}.
Regarding claim 16, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the pattern of two-terminal devices of claim 14, and Song further teaches wherein the first bottom electrode (150/430) connects the first two-terminal device (1st instance of Fig. 4B) to a first underlying circuitry (410, 422, 424), and wherein the second bottom electrode (150/430) connects the second two-terminal device (2nd instance of Fig. 4B) to a second underlying circuitry (422).
Regarding claim 17, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the pattern of two-terminal devices of claim 16, and Song further teaches wherein the first underlying circuitry (410, 422, 424) contains a first mass of conductive material (e.g., Pt in 410 and arsenic doping in 422), wherein the second underlying circuitry (422) contains a second mass of conductive material (arsenic doping in 422), and wherein the first mass is larger than the second mass {¶0026, 0066; Song’s Fig. 4B illustrates that the mass of 410 is larger in two dimension area than the mass of 422}.
Regarding claim 18, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the pattern of two-terminal devices of claim 14, and Song further teaches wherein the first two-terminal device (1st instance of Fig. 4B) is a non-volatile RAM cell {¶0067}.
Regarding claim 19, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the pattern of two-terminal devices of claim 14, but Song does not teach wherein the first two-terminal device is a resistor device.
Song ‘102 teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0032] the plurality of memory cells MC may include a variable resistance element R and … the variable resistance element R may be referred to as a variable resistor (alternatively, variable resistance material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device as modified by Park and Song ‘102 based on the further teachings of Song ‘102 – such that Song’s first two-terminal device is a resistor device – because [t]he selection of a known [device] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Additionally, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions to yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 21, in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Song teaches in Fig. 4B a two-terminal device comprising:
a bottom electrode (430) {¶0065};
a device element (442) formed on the bottom electrode (430) {¶0065};
a top electrode (450) formed on the device element (442) {¶0065};
a second material (460) in direct contact with each sidewall of the top electrode (450) and each sidewall of the bottom electrode (430),
wherein a bottommost surface of the second material (460) is below a bottommost surface of the bottom electrode (430).
Song does not expressly teach in the embodiment illustrated by Fig. 4B:
a first dielectric material laterally surrounding the device element, the first dielectric material in direct contact with a bottom surface of the top electrode and in direct contact with a top surface of the bottom electrode;
wherein the bottom electrode, the first dielectric material, and top electrode are aligned and have a same width and depth, the depth corresponding to a dimension extending into and out of a plane of the two-terminal device, and
the second material is a dielectric that is in direct contact with each sidewall of the first dielectric material.
Song teaches: (1) second material (460) is a spacer and (2) in Fig. 2B and paragraph [0044] a spacer layer (240) is a dielectric material of silicon nitride, silicon oxide, or a combination thereof. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device based on the further teachings of Song – such that the second material is a dielectric – because [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Park teaches in Fig. 6D and paragraphs [0095], [0104], and [0108] a first spacer material (155-14) laterally surrounding a device element (147-14), the first spacer material (155-14) in direct contact with a bottom surface of a top electrode (149-1) and in direct contact with a top surface of a bottom electrode (145-1), wherein the bottom electrode (145-1), the first spacer material (155-14), and the top electrode (149-1) are aligned and have a same width and depth, the depth corresponding to a dimension extending into and out of a plane of a two-terminal device (140-14) {Park’s Fig. 6D illustrates both width and depth dimensions}. Song ‘102 teaches in Fig. 14 and paragraph [0134] a first spacer material surrounding a device element is silicon nitride or silicon oxide, both of which the instant application identifies as dielectric materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device based on the teachings of Park and Song ‘102 – such that a first dielectric material is laterally surrounding the device element, the first dielectric material in direct contact with a bottom surface of the top electrode and in direct contact with a top surface of the bottom electrode; wherein the bottom electrode, the first dielectric material, and top electrode are aligned and have a same width and depth, the depth corresponding to a dimension extending into and out of a plane of the two-terminal device – to uniformly electrically insulate the device element with the first dielectric material from external environmental electrical signals, provide a uniform structure for subsequent protective packaging (e.g., such as with Song’s second dielectric material), and/or reduce resources for protecting the two-terminal device. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., bottom and top electrodes, device element, first dielectric material) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (as taught by Park and Song ‘102) with no change in their respective functions (e.g., as an MRAM device) to yield nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [material/ structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. Still further, a change of shape (e.g., width, depth) is a matter of design choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). A consequence of these modifications is that Song’s second material (460) is disposed directly upon a sidewall of Park’s modified first dielectric material.
Regarding claim 22, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the two-terminal device of claim 21, and Song further teaches wherein the bottom electrode (430) is formed upon underlying circuitry (410, 422, 424) for the two-terminal device.
Regarding claim 25, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the two-terminal device of claim 21, and Song further teaches wherein the two-terminal device is a magnetoresistive RAM cell {¶0067}.
To the extent one of ordinary skill in the art would not immediately recognize a the device element of a magnetoresistive RAM cell implicitly comprises a magnetic tunnel junction, Song ‘102 teaches in Fig. 3 and paragraph [0070] the first memory layer 120 has a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) structure including two electrodes [and] … may be a magnetic RAM (MRAM). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device as modified by Park and Song ‘102 based on the further teachings of Song ‘102 – such that Song’s device element of the magnetoresistive RAM cell comprises a magnetic tunnel junction – because [t]he selection of a known [device] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 3 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Park and Song ‘102 as applied to claim 1 (for claim 3) and claim 21 (for claim 23) above, and further in view of Tortorelli et al. (US20160293842A1).
Regarding claim 3, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the two-terminal device of claim 1, and Song further teaches wherein the two-terminal device is a phase-change memory cell {¶0031}, and the device element (442) comprises and a phase-change material {¶0031}.
Song does not expressly teach the device element comprises a heating element, though such is implicit in a phase-change memory cell.
In an analogous art, Tortorelli teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0014] a device element (phase-change memory) comprises a heating element (14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device as modified by Park and Song ‘102 based on the teachings of Tortorelli – such that the device element comprises a heating element – for providing Joule heat for phase transition of the device. Tortorelli ¶0014.
Regarding claim 23, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the two-terminal device of claim 21, and Song further teaches wherein the two-terminal device is a phase-change memory cell {¶0031}, and the device element (442) comprises a phase-change material {¶0031}.
Song does not expressly teach the device element comprises a heating element, though such is implicit in a phase-change memory cell.
In an analogous art, Tortorelli teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0014] a device element (phase-change memory) comprises a heating element (14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device as modified by Park and Song ‘102 based on the teachings of Tortorelli – such that the device element comprises a heating element – for providing Joule heat for phase transition of the device. Tortorelli ¶0014.
Claim(s) 4 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Park and Song ‘102 as applied to claim 1 (for claim 4) and claim 21 (for claim 24) above, and further in view of Li et al. (US20200287136A1).
Regarding claim 4, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the two-terminal device of claim 1, and Song further teaches wherein the two-terminal device is a resistive RAM cell (RRAM), and the device element (442) comprises a memristor (implicit) {¶0067}.
To the extent one of ordinary skill in the art would not immediately recognize the device element of a resistive RAM cell implicitly comprises a memristor, Li teaches in an analogous art that [r]esistive random-access memory (RRAM) … works by changing the resistance across a dielectric solid-state material, often referred to as a memristor. Li ¶0002. See also paragraph [0029] of the instant application that discloses “ReRAM cells (e.g., the memristors).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device as modified by Park and Song ‘102 based on the teachings of Li – such that Song’s device element of the resistive RAM cell comprises a memristor – because [t]he selection of a known [device] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 24, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the two-terminal device of claim 21, and Song further teaches wherein the two-terminal device is a resistive RAM cell (RRAM), and the device element (442) comprises a memristor (implicit) {¶0067}.
To the extent one of ordinary skill in the art would not immediately recognize the device element of a resistive RAM cell implicitly comprises a memristor, Li teaches in an analogous art that [r]esistive random-access memory (RRAM) … works by changing the resistance across a dielectric solid-state material, often referred to as a memristor. Li ¶0002. See also paragraph [0029] of the instant application that discloses “ReRAM cells (e.g., the memristors).” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device as modified by Park and Song ‘102 based on the teachings of Li – such that Song’s device element of the resistive RAM cell comprises a memristor – because [t]he selection of a known [device] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Claim(s) 7 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song in view of Park and Song ‘102 as applied to claim 1 (for claim 7) and claim 14 (for claim 20) above, and further in view of Schultz (US20180286942A1).
Regarding claim 7, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the two-terminal device of claim 1, but Song does not teach wherein the two-terminal device is a metal-insulator-metal capacitor device, and wherein the device element comprises an insulative material.
In an analogous art, Schultz teaches in paragraph [0002] MIM capacitors may also be used as memory cells in a dynamic RAM. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device as modified by Park and Song ‘102 based on the teachings of Schultz – such that Song’s two-terminal device is a metal-insulator-metal capacitor device, and wherein the device element comprises an insulative material – because [t]he selection of a known [device] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 20, Song as modified by Park and Song ‘102 teaches the pattern of two-terminal devices of claim 14, but Song does not teach wherein the first two-terminal device is a capacitor device.
In an analogous art, Schultz teaches in paragraph [0002] MIM capacitors may also be used as memory cells in a dynamic RAM. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song’s two-terminal device as modified by Park and Song ‘102 based on the teachings of Schultz – such that Song’s first two-terminal device is a capacitor device – because [t]he selection of a known [device] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891