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 .
This Office action is in response to Arguments filed 11/10/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maes et al. (US 2019/0006586 A1) in view of Collins et al. (US 2017/0331036 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Maes discloses a phase change material (“doped chalcogenide film may be used as the phase-change material”, Abstract), comprising elements tantalum, antimony and tellurium (“Sb-2Te3”, ¶ 0090, which “is doped with . . . Ta”, ¶ 0064). As such, the phase change material has a chemical formula of TaxSbyTez wherein x+y+z=100. Further, the antimony and tellurium components (Sb2Te3) result in a ratio of y:z of 0.66 which falls within the claimed range.
Maes does not disclose the specific amount of tantalum dopant used to determine if x falls within the claimed range.
Collins, in the same field of endeavor, discloses SbTe chalcogenide phase change materials (¶¶ 0022-0023) doped with tantalum (¶ 0017) and doped in an amount of “between about 0.1 atomic percent and about 10.0 atomic percent of the phase change material” (¶ 0047).
Collins further discloses a benefit to doping chalcogenide materials with this amount of dopant it allows the phase change material to form a protective in situ liner (¶ 0017). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to use an amount of tantalum dopant as taught by Collins in the Sb2Te3 chalcogenide material of Maes for this benefit. As a tantalum dopant concentration of about 0.1 to about 10 atomic percent overlaps the claimed range of 1≤x≤25, a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP § 2144.05(I)).
Neither Maes or Collins explicitly disclose wherein the phase change material has an average grain size of less than 30 nm after annealing treatment at 400° C for 30 minutes.
However, as the obvious combination of Maes and Collins results in a material identical to the material claimed by Applicant, the material should have the same properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112(V)).
Regarding claim 11, Maes in view of Collins discloses the phase change material according to claim 1, as discussed above. Collins discloses that the amount of tantalum dopant is “between about 0.1 atomic percent and about 10.0 atomic percent” (¶ 0047) which differs from claim 11 in that Collins does not set forth an expressly described species within that range and, therefore, does not explicitly disclose that the amount of tantalum dopant is 5.7 atomic percent (which, in the material of the combination, results in TaxSbyTez wherein x=5.7, y=37.7, and z = 56.6).
As the ratio of antimony to tellurium was already fixed by Maes (see rejection of claim 1, above), the only decision left to one having ordinary skill in the art would be how much tantalum dopant to include and Collins suggests that all tantalum concentrations within the range of 0.1 to 10 atomic percent still result in a functional phase change chalcogenide material (¶ 0047), there is not suggested limitations on the specific amount of tantalum used as long as it is within the range disclosed by Collins and one having ordinary skill in the art would understand it to yield a predictable result. Further, the utility of the compound of the combination of Maes and Collins is the same as that of Applicant: a phase change material for a memory device.
Further, it was within the skill level of one having ordinary skill in the art to make any specific value of tantalum dopant within the range of 0.1 to 10 atomic percent as Maes discloses that amount of dopant compared to the primary chalcogenide material can be fine-tuned during the atomic layer deposition process by control the number of cycles of dopant deposition to that of the primary chalcogenide (¶ 0031).
As such, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to select a tantalum dopant concentration of 5.7 atomic percent as claimed as varying the tantalum concentration is the only variable which needs to be selected (as the relative concentration of antimony and tellurium was already set forth by Maes); the size of range disclosed by Collins is small (less than 10% of the total composition); varying the specific concentration of tantalum within the range disclosed by the prior art results in a composition having the same utility as that of the claimed invention; tuning to the specific claimed concentration of tantalum would have been within the level of skill of one having ordinary skill in the art; and the results would have been predictable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that for the dopants “tantalum in particular is not disclosed” by Collins because Collins lists 9 elements (which Applicant incorrectly states as 10 elements) and combinations of those elements and tellurides thereof, which Applicant calculates (incorrectly) as being over a million possibilities, results in a genus of large size and that the size of a genus is evidence against the conclusion of obviousness. This argument is not persuasive as Collins is not relied upon for the selection of tantalum. As discussed in the rejection, Maes was relied upon for disclosing tantalum (“a chalcogenide film is doped with one or more of Ti, Ta, Mo, W and V”, ¶ 0064). Collins was, instead, relied upon for disclosing how much dopant to apply.
Applicant further argues that among dopants and base materials “Maes only addresses the latter”. This argument is not persuasive as Maes discloses the dopant material, as discussed above.
Applicant further argues that there is no overlap between the claimed range and the range of Collins because Collins discloses a range of up to about 10.0 atomic percent which is outside of the claimed ration because “[i]n claim 1, the ratio of x to y+z actually ranges from 1/99 (≈10.1%) to 25/75 (≈33.33%).” This argument is not persuasive as Applicant’s math is not correct as 1/99 is approximately 1.01%, not 10.1%. As such, there is overlap. Applicant further argues, again, the (incorrectly calculated) number of possible dopants of Collins. This argument is, again, not persuasive as Collins is not relied upon for disclosing the specific dopant and Applicant has not presented any evidence that one having ordinary skill in the art would choose a different amount of dopant than that disclosed by Collins if the dopant is tantalum.
Applicant further argues that the claimed range of tantalum is “equivalent to 10.1% to 33.33%, a same-order-of-magnitude range”. This argument is not persuasive as Applicant’s math is not correct, the claimed range is from 1.01% to 33.33%, which is a range spanning different orders of magnitude.
Applicant further alleges unexpected results. Applicant’s evidence for these allegedly unexpected results is newly presented data graphs which, even if legible, would not establish unexpected results. This newly presented data was not presented by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. “Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record . . . . Examples of statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration include statements regarding unexpected results . . . .” MPEP 716.01(c)(II).
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 CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT whose telephone number is (571)272-4893. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Joshua Benitez can be reached at (571) 270-1435. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A CULBERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2815
Prosecution Insights