Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/122,118

RESISTIVE MEMORY DEVICE AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Mar 15, 2023
Examiner
YEMELYANOV, DMITRIY
Art Unit
2891
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Db Hitek Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
393 granted / 538 resolved
+5.0% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+18.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
581
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
52.4%
+12.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.2%
-16.8% vs TC avg
§112
22.4%
-17.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 538 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 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. Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2019/0043795 A1). Regarding Claim 1, Chen (Fig. 1-3) discloses a resistive memory device comprising: a lower electrode (106) having a flat upper surface (top of 106); a resistance change layer (110) formed on the lower electrode (106); and an upper electrode (120) formed on the resistance change layer (110), wherein the upper surface of the lower electrode (top of 106) is wider than a lower surface of the lower electrode (bottom of 106), therein the lower electrode comprises an upper portion (portion of 106 in 204u) and a lower portion (portion of 106 in 104l), wherein the lower portion of the electrode (portion of 106 in 104l), which comprises the lower surface of the lower electrode (bottom of 106), has a width that does not increase towards an upper direction (See Fig. 1 and 2A), and the upper portion of the lower electrode (portion of 106 in 204u), which comprises the upper surface of the lower electrode (top of 106), has an inclined side surface so that a width of the upper portion of the lower electrode is increased upwardly (See Fig. 1 and 2A). Regarding Claim 3, Chen discloses the resistive memory device of claim 1, further comprising a conductive layer (112) formed on the resistance change layer (110), wherein the upper electrode (120) is formed on the conductive layer (112). Regarding Claim 4, Chen discloses the resistive memory device of claim 1, further comprising: a transistor (306) [0035] formed on a substrate (310); a first insulating layer (202) formed on the substrate (310) and the transistor (306); a first contact plug (114b) electrically connected to the transistor (306) through the first insulating layer (202); and a second insulating layer (BEVA dielectric layer 204,) formed on the first insulating layer (202) and the first contact plug (114b) and having an opening (opening for 106) exposing a portion of an upper surface of the first contact plug (114b), wherein the lower electrode (106) is formed in the opening (opening for 106). Regarding Claim 5, Chen discloses the resistive memory device of claim 4, wherein the opening (opening for 106) has an inclined inner side surface (see side surface of opening for 106 in 104u) so that a width is increased upwardly. (See Fig.1, 2B) 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) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0043795 A1) in view of Murase et al. (US 2015/0364681 A1) and as evidenced by Feustel et al. (US 2010/0164121 A1). Regarding Claim 6, Chen discloses the resistive memory device of claim 4, wherein the first insulating layer (202) has a first contact hole (contact hole for 114), a first diffusion barrier layer (114l) are formed on a bottom surface and an inner side surface of the first contact hole (contact hole for 114), and the first contact plug (114b) is formed on the first diffusion barrier layer (114l) to fill the first contact hole (contact hole for 114) (See Fig. 1, 2B). Chen does not explicitly disclose a first adhesive layer. However, Murase discloses a first insulating layer (101) has a first contact hole (contact hole for 3), a first adhesive layer (Ta) and a first diffusion barrier layer (TaN) (the first barrier metal layer 102 has a laminated structure composed of a tantalum nitride film (thickness: 5 to 40 nm) and a tantalum film (thickness: 5 to 40 nm” [0137]) are formed on a bottom surface and an inner side surface of the first contact hole (See Fig. 6 of Murase). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resistive memory device in Chen in view of Murase such that a first adhesive layer and a first diffusion barrier layer are formed on a bottom surface and an inner side surface of the first contact hole in order to meet the requirements in terms of diffusion suppressing and adhesion properties. The Examiner notes that adhesion layers as part of diffusion barrier multilayers in interconnect wirings are well known in the art and provides evidentiary reference of Feustel et al. (US 2010/0164121 A1) (“Currently, tantalum, titanium, tungsten and their compounds with nitrogen and silicon and the like are preferred candidates for a conductive barrier layer, wherein the barrier layer may comprise two or more sub-layers of different composition so as to meet the requirements in terms of diffusion suppressing and adhesion properties. [0005]. Regarding Claim 7, Chen in view of Murase discloses the resistive memory device of claim 6, wherein the resistance change layer (110) (a variable resistance layer 108; Murase) is electrically insulated (a first diffusion-preventing layer 104 in Murase is SiN-an insulator) from the first adhesive layer (Ta; Murase) by the second insulating layer (204). (a first diffusion-preventing layer 104, SiN; Murase) Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0043795 A1) in view of Tada et al. (US 2011/0272664 A1). Regarding Claim 8, Chen discloses the resistive memory device of claim 1, further comprising: a third insulating layer (214) formed on the upper electrode (120); a second contact plug (118b) electrically connected to the upper electrode (120) through the third insulating layer (214); and Chen does not explicitly disclose a metal wiring pattern formed on the third insulating layer and the second contact plug. Tada (Fig. 15, 16) discloses a metal wiring pattern (See 41,47 wiring layers above variable resistance element 22) formed on a third insulating layer (34) and a second contact plug (18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resistive memory device in Chen in view of Tada such that a metal wiring pattern formed on the third insulating layer and the second contact plug in order to have FPGA comprising a variable resistance element in a multilevel wiring layer structure on a semiconductor substrate [0075-0076, 0211] Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2019/0043795 A1) in view of Tada et al. (US 2011/0272664 A1) and as evidenced by Feustel et al. (US 2010/0164121 A1). Regarding Claim 9, Chen in view of Tada discloses the resistive memory device of claim 8, wherein the third insulating layer (214) has a second contact hole (hole for top 118 above 120), and a second diffusion barrier layer (118l above 120) are formed on a bottom surface and an inner side surface of the second contact hole (hole for top 118), and the second contact plug (118b) is formed on the second diffusion barrier layer (118l) to fill the second contact hole (hole for top 118) (See Fig. 2) As previously combined Chen in view of Tada does not explicitly disclose a second adhesive layer. However, Tada discloses a multilayer barrier layer having adhesive layer (Ta; Ti) and diffusion layer (TaN;TiN) (“Ta/TaN multilayer (laminate) body can be used for each of the barrier metals (6, 20, 36, 42, 48, 54, and 60). A Ti/TiN multilayer (laminate) body can be used for the barrier metals 65 and 66.”) [0207]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the resistive memory device in Chen in view of Tada such that a second adhesive layer is formed on a bottom surface and an inner side surface of the second contact hole in order to meet the requirements in terms of diffusion suppressing and adhesion properties. The Examiner notes that adhesion layers as part of diffusion barrier multilayers in interconnect wirings are well known in the art and provides evidentiary reference of Feustel et al. (US 2010/0164121 A1) (“Currently, tantalum, titanium, tungsten and their compounds with nitrogen and silicon and the like are preferred candidates for a conductive barrier layer, wherein the barrier layer may comprise two or more sub-layers of different composition so as to meet the requirements in terms of diffusion suppressing and adhesion properties. [0005] Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9 and 10, filed08/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(A1) as being anticipated by Narayanan et al. (US 2015/0318333 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. 102(A1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 2019/0043795 A1). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 DMITRIY YEMELYANOV whose telephone number is (571)270-7920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a.m.-6p.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, 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. /DMITRIY YEMELYANOV/Examiner, Art Unit 2891 /MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 15, 2023
Application Filed
Apr 19, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 21, 2025
Response Filed
Nov 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604565
MICRO LIGHT-EMITTING COMPONENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12581773
INDIUM GALLIUM NITRIDE LIGHT EMITTING DIODES WITH REDUCED STRAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12575096
THREE-DIMENSIONAL MEMORY DEVICES AND METHODS FOR FORMING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568724
DISPLAY DEVICE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12568716
WAFER-SCALE SEPARATION AND TRANSFER OF GAN MATERIAL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+18.7%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 538 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month