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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18 March 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Amendment filed 24 February 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11, 13, and 22 have been canceled. Claims 7-10, 12, 14, 16, 21, and 23 have been amended. Claims 7-10, 12, 14-16, 20, 21, and 23 are pending.
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.
Claims 7-10, 12, 15, 16, 20, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0044065, hereinafter Tseng ‘065) of record in view of Glassman et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0203603, hereinafter Glassman ‘603) and Kang et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0049457, hereinafter Kang ‘457) of record.
With respect to claim 7, Tseng ‘065 teaches (FIGs. 1 and 2B) a resistive memory device substantially as claimed, comprising:
a first electrode (104) based on a first material ([0017]);
a second electrode (108 and 224) based on a second material different from the first material (the group of available materials for the second electrode 108 and 224 is different from the group of available materials for the first electrode 104; [0017, 0020]), the second electrode including (1) an electrode layer (108), and (2) a Ti-based oxygen trapping layer (224) ([0020, 0030]), and
a metal-oxide layer (106) disposed between said first (104) and second (108 and 224) electrodes in a vertical direction ([0018]), wherein
said second electrode has a width L (W1) greater than or equal to 30 nm in a horizontal direction of a plane perpendicular to the vertical direction ([0018]),
the second material material being transition metal-based ([0020]), and
the first electrode (104) has a lateral recess (D) strictly greater than 5 nm with respect to the horizontal direction, said lateral recess being less than or equal to (1/6)*L ([0018]).
Thus, Tseng ‘065 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of:
wherein the first electrode has a thickness between 5 nm and 15 nm;
wherein the electrode layer has a thickness between 20 nm and 100 nm;
wherein the Ti-based oxygen trapping layer has a thickness between 5 nm and 15 nm; and
wherein the first material has a selectivity to etching greater than or equal to 2:1 with respect to the second material, and the first material being aluminium alloy-based and of said transition metal or of another transition metal.
However, Glassman ‘603 teaches (FIG. 1A) a first electrode (104) having a thickness between 10 nm and 15 nm, an electrode layer (112) having a thickness between 20 nm and 70 nm, and a Ti-based oxygen trapping layer (110) having a thickness between 5 nm and 15 nm ([0036-0037]) as art-recognized dimensions for use in a tuned RRAM having architecture to reduce forming voltage ([0031]). In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); and In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05 I. Further, such a modification would have involved a mere change in size or proportion of a component. A change in size or proportion is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.04 IV. A.
Further, Kang ‘457 teaches (FIG. 3) a first electrode (140) based on a first material (e.g. TiAl alloy) ([0047]), and a second electrode (170) based on a different second material based on a transition metal (e.g. TiN or TaN) ([0051]), wherein the first material has a selectivity to etching greater than or equal to 2:1 with respect to the second material, and the first material being aluminum alloy-based and of said transition metal or of another transition metal as art-recognized materials suitable for the intended use as first and second electrodes of an RRAM ([0038]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Still further, it is noted that 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, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USQP2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the first material of Kang ‘457 would inherently have the property of a selectivity to etching greater than or equal to 2:1 with respect to the second material because the first material and the second material are made of TiAl and one of TiN or TaN respectively, which are the same as the first material and the second material as disclosed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first electrode, the electrode layer, and the Ti-based oxygen trapping layer of Tseng ‘065 having a thickness between 5 nm and 15 nm, having a thickness between 20 nm and 100 nm, and having a thickness between 5 nm and 15 nm respectively as taught by Glassman ‘603 as art-recognized dimensions for use in a tuned RRAM having architecture to reduce forming voltage and because such a modification would have involved a mere change in size or proportion of a component; and to have formed the first material of Tseng ‘065 having a selectivity to etching greater than or equal to 2:1 with respect to the second material, and the first material being aluminium alloy-based and of said transition metal or of another transition metal as taught by Kang ‘457 by relying on art-recognized materials suitable for the intended use as first and second electrodes of an RRAM.
Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed first electrode, electrode layer, and Ti-based oxygen trapping layer thicknesses or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon a particular chosen distance or upon another variable recited in the claim, Applicant must show that the chosen variable is critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With respect to claim 8, Tseng ‘065 teaches wherein the lateral recess (D) extends over a whole perimeter of the first electrode (104), such that said first electrode is substantially centered with respect to the device, projecting into the plane ([0018]).
With respect to claim 9, Tseng ‘065 teaches wherein the first electrode (104) is directly in contact with the metal-oxide layer (106) ([0017-0018]).
With respect to claim 10, Tseng ‘065 teaches wherein the metal-oxide layer (106) extends projecting with respect to the first electrode (104) in a direction of the plane ([0017-0018]).
With respect to claim 12, Tseng ‘065, Glassman ‘603, and Kang ‘457 teach the device as described in claim 7 above, with primary reference Tseng ‘065 teaching the additional limitation wherein the second material is TiN-based ([0020]), and the metal-oxide layer (106) is HfO2-based ([0018]).
Thus, Tseng ‘065 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of wherein the first material is TixAly-based, with x, y>0.
However, Kang ‘457 teaches (FIG. 3) an first material that is TixAly-based, with x, y>0 ([0047]) as an art-recognized material suitable for the intended use as a first electrode (140) of an RRAM ([0038]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first material of Tseng ‘065, Glassman ‘603, and Kang ‘457 TixAly-based, with x, y>0 as taught by Kang ‘457 by relying on an art-recognized material suitable for the intended use as a first electrode of an RRAM.
With respect to claim 15, Tseng ‘065, Glassman ‘603, and Kang ‘457 teach the device as described in claim 7 above, but primary reference Tseng ‘065 does not explicitly teach the additional limitation wherein the selectivity to etching is greater than or equal to 3:1.
However, Kang ‘457 teaches (FIG. 3) a first electrode (140) based on a first material (e.g. TiAl alloy) ([0047]), and a second electrode (170) based on a different second material based on a transition metal (e.g. TiN or TaN) ([0051]), wherein the first material has a selectivity to etching greater than or equal to 3:1 with respect to the second material, and the first material being aluminum alloy-based and of said transition metal or of another transition metal as art-recognized materials suitable for the intended use as first and second electrodes of an RRAM ([0038]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Further, it is noted that 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, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). It has also been held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 15 USQP2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, the first material of Kang ‘457 would inherently have the property of a selectivity to etching greater than or equal to 3:1 with respect to the second material because the first material and the second material are made of TiAl and one of TiN or TaN respectively, which are the same as the first material and the second material as disclosed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the selectivity to etching of Tseng ‘065, Glassman ‘603, and Kang ‘457 greater than or equal to 3:1 as taught by Kang ‘457 by relying on art-recognized materials suitable for the intended use as first and second electrodes of an RRAM and because this is an inherent property of said materials.
With respect to claim 16, Tseng ‘065 teaches wherein the first electrode (104) has a lateral recess (D) strictly greater than 10 nm ([0018]).
With respect to claim 20, Tseng ‘065 teaches wherein the metal oxide layer (106) is interleaved between said first (104) and second (108 and 224) electrodes in a vertical direction ([0017-0018, 0020]).
With respect to claim 21, Tseng ‘065 teaches wherein the first electrode (104), the metal oxide layer (106), and the second electrode (108 and 224) are stacked in a vertical direction in that order ([0017-0018, 0020]).
With respect to claim 23, Tseng ‘065 teaches wherein the first electrode (104) is directly connected to one side of the metal oxide layer (106), and the second electrode (108 and 224) is directly connected to another side of the metal oxide layer opposing the one side ([0017-0018, 0020]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tseng ‘065, Glassman ‘603, and Kang ‘457 as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Nakatsuka et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2004/0016929, hereinafter Nakatsuka ‘929) of record.
With respect to claim 14, Tseng ‘065, Glassman ‘603, and Kang ‘457 teach the device as described in claim 7 above with the exception of the additional limitation wherein the first material has an aluminium percentage greater than or equal to 25 at.%.
However, Nakatsuka ‘929 teaches a TiAl contact with an aluminum percentage greater than or equal to 25 at.% to decrease contact resistivity ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the first material of Tseng ‘065, Glassman ‘603, and Kang ‘457 having an aluminium percentage greater than or equal to 25 at.% as taught by Nakatsuka ‘929 to decrease contact resistivity.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 11 and 22 and amendments to claims 21 and 23 are sufficient to overcome the objections to the drawings and the specification made in the final rejection filed 28 November 2025. The objections to the drawings and the specification have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s cancelation of claims 11 and 22 and amendments to claims 21 and 23 are sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a)&(b) rejections of claims 11 and 21-23 made in the final rejection filed 28 November 2025. The 35 U.S.C. 112(a)&(b) rejections of claims 11 and 21-23 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) 7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Christopher M. Roland whose telephone number is (571)270-1271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00AM-7:00PM Eastern.
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, Yara Green can be reached at (571)270-3035. 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.
/C.M.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893