This Office Action is in response to the response filed on December 23, 2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wu (United States Patent 12,477,963) together with Yang (United States Patent 11,387,412). The applied Wu reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the Wu reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
As to independent claim 1, Wu discloses an apparatus (see the entire patent, including the Fig. 4M disclosure), comprising: a first interconnect layer fabricated on a substrate 410, wherein the first interconnect layer comprises a plurality of metallic interconnects 411a and 411b; a first resistive random-access memory (RRAM) device 440a, comprising: a first bottom electrode 421a fabricated on a first metallic interconnect 411a of the first interconnect layer; a first top electrode 445a; and a first filament-forming layer 443a fabricated between the first bottom electrode and the first top electrode, wherein the first filament-forming layer 443a comprises a first switching oxide (column 12, lines 29-49); and a second RRAM device 440b, comprising: a second bottom electrode 443b fabricated on a second metallic interconnect 421b of the first interconnect layer; a second top electrode 445b; and a second filament-forming layer 443b fabricated between the second bottom electrode and the second top electrode.
The difference between claim 1 and Wu is claim 1’s first and second filament-forming layers comprise different switching oxides (Wu’s first and second filament-forming layers comprise the same switching oxide).
Yang teaches that a RRAM’s two metal oxide switching layers may have identical or different compositions, depending on design considerations (see the sentence bridging columns 5 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to form Wu’s switching oxide
layers 443a and 443b of different compositions instead of the same composition, because
Yang teaches that a RRAM’s two metal oxide switching layers may have identical or different compositions, depending on design considerations.
Claim 1 is thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Wu together with Yang.
As to dependent claim 2, Wu’s device further comprises a first etch stop layer 430a fabricated on the first interconnect layer, wherein a first filament-forming region of the first filament-forming layer 443a and at least a portion of the first top electrode 425a are fabricated in a first via in the first etch stop layer, and wherein a second filament-forming region of the second filament-forming layer 443b and at least a portion of the second top electrode 425b are fabricated in a second via in the first etch stop layer.
As to dependent claim 3, Wu’s first etch stop layer 430 comprises at least one of silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride (column 12, lines 5-7).
As to dependent claim 4, Wu’s first metallic interconnect is connected to a first transistor, and wherein the second metallic interconnect of the first interconnect layer is
connected to a second transistor (see the Fig. 2 disclosure).
As to dependent claim 5, Wu’s first switching oxide comprises at least one of HfOx, TaOₓ, TiOx, NbOx, ZrOₓ, or SiO2 (column 12, lines 29-39).
As to dependent claim 6, Wu’s first RRAM device further comprises an interface layer fabricated between the first top electrode and the first filament-forming layer, wherein the interface layer comprises at least one of Al2O3, MgO, Y2O₃, or La2O₃ (column 18, lines 15-20 and 53-55).
As to dependent claim 7, the obvious Wu/Yang device’s first filament-forming layer does not include the second switching oxide (see the above rejection of claim 1).
As to dependent claim 8, Wu’s device further comprises a second interconnect layer 413 (Fig. 5D), wherein a first metallic interconnect 413a of the second interconnect layer is fabricated on the first top electrode 445a, and wherein a second metallic interconnect 413b of the second interconnect layer is fabricated on the second top electrode 445b.
As to dependent claim 9, Wu’s first top electrode is connected to a first bitline of a first crossbar circuit, and wherein the second top electrode is connected to a second bitline of a second crossbar circuit (see the Fig. 2 disclosure).
As to dependent claim 10, the obvious Wu/Yang device’s first switching oxide comprises TaOx, and its second (different) switching oxide (as per Yang’s teaching) comprises HfOx (Wu at column 12, lines 29-39).
As to dependent claim 11, Wu’s first bottom electrode 421a and second bottom electrode 421b comprise the same metallic materials (column 11, lines 50-54).
The above rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02.
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Registered practitioners can telephone the examiner at (571) 272-1843. Any voicemail message left for the examiner should include the registration number of the registered practitioner calling. The examiner’s supervisor is Wael Fahmy, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1705.
/MARK V PRENTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2814