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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/15/2026 has been entered.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ok et al. (US 2023/0105007 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ok discloses a memory cell (Fig. 10), comprising:
a bottom electrode (combination of 203, 211, and 215 in Fig. 3), comprising a first electrode (203) and a second electrode (215) spatially separated from the first electrode;
a thermal preservation layer (213; 213 is understood as being a thermal preservation layer as it is composed of the same material as Applicant’s thermal preservation layer) only partially sandwiched between the first electrode and the second electrode; wherein the thermal preservation layer is in physical contact with the first electrode and the second electrode (see Fig. 10);
a first dielectric layer (combination of 201 and 205) laterally surrounding the bottom electrode and the thermal preservation layer;
a variable resistance layer (225 in Fig. 9) disposed on the second electrode, the thermal preservation layer, and the first dielectric layer; and
a top electrode (233) disposed on the variable resistance layer.
Regarding claim 2, Ok further discloses wherein the first electrode is in physical contact with the first dielectric layer (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 3, Ok further discloses wherein the thermal preservation layer is partially sandwiched between the second electrode and the first dielectric layer (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 4, Ok further discloses wherein a width of the first electrode is larger than a width of the second electrode (see Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 5, Ok further discloses wherein the first electrode and the second electrode are made of a same material (¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 6, Ok further discloses wherein the bottom electrode and the thermal preservation layer are made of different materials (¶ 0027).
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.
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ok et al. (US 2023/0105007 A1) as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Hsu et al. (US 2016/0225986 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Ok further discloses a hard mask layer (235 in Fig. 9) disposed on the top electrode;
a pair of spacers (255’ in Fig. 9) disposed aside the variable resistance layer, the top electrode, and the hard mask layer;
a second dielectric layer (263 in Fig. 10); and
a conductive contact (259) penetrating through the second dielectric layer and the hard mask layer to be in physical contact with the top electrode (see Fig. 10).
Ok does not disclose an etch stop layer as claimed.
Hsu, in the same field of endeavor, discloses forming an etch stop layer over a hard mask (¶ 0035). There was a benefit to forming an etch stop layer as such in that it provides added protection to the underlying components during later processing steps. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form an etch stop layer as taught by Hsu over the hard mask of Ok for this benefit.
In the resulting configuration, the etch stop layer covers the first dielectric layer, the pair of spacers, and the hard mask layer; the second dielectric layer is disposed on the etch stop layer; and the conductive contact will penetrate the etch stop layer.
Regarding claim 8, Ok does not disclose wherein a bottom surface of the conductive contact is located at a level height lower than that of a topmost surface of the top electrode.
Hsu discloses forming a top contact (1200 in Fig. 2Q) such that a bottom surface of the conductive contact is located at a level height lower than that of a topmost surface of a top electrode (600). There was a benefit to such a configuration in that it increases the contact area between the conductive contact and the top electrode which increases the electric conductivity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the Application's effective filing date to form the conductive contact of Ok such that a bottom surface of the conductive contact is located at a level height lower than that of a topmost surface of a top electrode for this benefit.
Regarding claim 9, Ok further discloses that the sidewalls of the hard mask layer, sidewalls of the top electrode, and sidewalls of the variable resistance layer (see Fig. 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the thermal preservation layer of Ok is not in physical contact with both the first electrode and the second electrode. This argument is not persuasive as claim 1 does not require direct contact and physical contact allows for intervening components.
Conclusion
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