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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s application 18/152,770 filed on August December 31 2025 in which claims 1 to 20 are pending. Claim 20 is withdrawn. Claims 1, 9, 16 and 17 are amended.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 11 January 2023 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Notation
References to patents will be in the form of (C: L) where C is the column number and L is the line number. References to pre-grant patent publications will be to the paragraph number in the form of (¶ XXXX).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 19 August 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 2, 3 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2018/0277601 A1; “Ahn”) in view of Gotti et al. (US 2013/0048935 A1; hereinafter “Gotti”) and further in view of Gealy et al. (US 2015/0123066 A1; “Gealy”).
Regarding claim 1, Ahn teaches a memory device (100, Figs1-19 ¶ 0028) comprising:
s a substrate (101, Fig.3; ¶ 0037);
a bottom electrode (141, ¶ 0043) disposed over the substrate (101);
a memory layer (149, ¶ 0044) disposed over the bottom electrode (141);
a selector layer (143, ¶ 0061) disposed over the memory layer (149, Fig.3; different than the claimed invention);
and a top electrode (148, Fig.3; ¶0043) disposed over the selector layer (143), wherein the selector layer (143) is an oxygen-doped chalcogenide-based film (143, ¶ 0061), and an oxygen content of the selector layer is about 10 at% or less (O has a concentration of between 0 and 20%, ¶0060).
Ahn does not teach the selector layer disposed over the memory layer and wherein in a cross-section of the memory device along a stacking direction of the bottom electrode and the top electrode, sidewalls of the top electrode, sidewalls of the memory layer and sidewalls of the selector layer are substantially aligned, and the sidewalls of the top electrode are laterally offset from sidewalls of the bottom electrode.
However, Gotti teaches in the similar field of endeavor a memory device (Fig.1) a selector layer (110, Fig.1; ¶ 0020) over the memory layer (106, Fig.1; ¶ 0020).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention, to have the switching layer formed on top of the memory layer in the device of Ahn as taught by Gotti since it is very well known in the art to form a memory device above the switching device or vice versa.
However, Gealy teaches wherein in a cross-section of the memory device (Fig.3B) along a stacking direction of the bottom electrode (302; Fig.3B; ¶ 0022; any electrode layer can be a bottom electrode; as in this case the word line is a bottom electrode) and the top electrode (312;¶ 0027) , sidewalls of the top electrode (312), sidewalls of the memory layer (310; Fig.3B; ¶ 0026) and sidewalls of the selector layer (306; Fig.3B; ¶ 0024) are substantially aligned, and the sidewalls of the top electrode (312) are laterally offset from sidewalls of the bottom electrode (side walls of 312 are lateral offset with the side walls of the top electrode; Fig.3B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Ahn and Gotti to have a cross-section of the memory device along a stacking direction of the bottom electrode and the top electrode, sidewalls of the top electrode, sidewalls of the memory layer and sidewalls of the selector layer are substantially aligned, and the sidewalls of the top electrode are laterally offset from sidewalls of the bottom electrode as taught by Gealy since such modification would have involved a mere change in size/shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being with the level of ordinary skill in the art MPEP § 2144.04 IV B.
Further, prior art reference Terai (US 2017/0117328 A1; hereinafter “Terai”) teaches in Figures 1 and 3: the selection device (SW1; Fig.3; ¶ 0085) is formed above the memory layer (142; Fig.1-3; ¶ 0087) or the memory layer (152; Fig.1-3; ¶ 0087) is formed above the selection layer (SW2; Fig.1-3; ¶ 0098).
Regarding claim 2, Ahn teaches the selector layer comprises oxygen-doped GeCTe, oxygen-doped NGeCTe, oxygen-doped SiGeCTe, oxygen-doped NSiGeCTe, or a combination thereof (¶ 0061).
Regarding claim 3, Ahn teaches in Figure 3 and related text e.g. wherein the oxygen content of the selector layer is substantially constant (¶ 0061).
Regarding claim 5, Ahn teaches in Figure 3 and related text e.g. wherein the memory layer is an oxygen-doped chalcogenide-based film, and an oxygen content of the memory layer is about 10 at% or less (Ahn teaches the percentage of oxygen is greater than zero and less than 20%; hence the range of 0 to 10% included; ¶ 0060).
Regarding claim 6, Ahn teaches in Figure 3 and related text e.g. wherein the memory layer is a phase change layer of a PCRAMV cell (memory layer 149 is phase change material layer; ¶ 0032).
Regarding claim 7, Ahn teaches in Figure 3 and related text e.g. wherein the memory layer is a resistive-switching layer (¶ 0010) or a RRAM cell.
Regarding claim 8, Ahn teaches in Figure 3 and related text e.g. a barrier layer (147, ¶ 0043) between the selector layer (143) and the memory layer (149).
Claims 9, 11-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ahn et al. (US 2018/0277601 A1; “Ahn”) in view of Ohba et al. (US 2018/0047784 A1; hereinafter “Ohba”) and further in view of Xie et al. (US 2023/0060906 A1; hereinafter “Xie”).
Regarding claim 9, Ahn teaches a memory device (100, Figs1-19 ¶ 0028) comprising:
a substrate (101, Fig.3; ¶ 0037);
a bottom electrode (141, ¶ 0043) disposed over the substrate (101);
and a top electrode (148, Fig.3; ¶0043) disposed over the bottom electrode (141),
and a selector layer (143) and a phase change (149, ¶ 0044) provided between the bottom electrode (141) and the top electrode (141);
and a top electrode (148, Fig.3; ¶0043) disposed over the selector layer (143); and wherein the selector layer (143) is an oxygen-doped chalcogenide based film (143, ¶ 0061), and an oxygen content of the selector layer is about 10 at% or less (O has a concentration of between 0 and 20%, ¶0060).
Ahn doesn’t teach a conductive line disposed over the top electrode and a dielectric layer disposed along sidewalls of the conductive line and further extended onto a surface of the top electrode facing away from the bottom electrode, wherein the selector layer comprises at least one first layer and at least one second layer in direct contact with each other, and an oxygen content of the at least one first layer is less than an oxygen content of the at least one second layer
However, Ohba teaches wherein the selector layer comprises at least one first layer and at least one second layer is direct contact with each other (22A and 22B; Fig.4; ¶0072) and the types of one or more of chalcogen elements and the other component elements are different between 22A and 22B (¶ 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to have the selector layer comprising a first layer and at least one second layer in direct contact with each other having different component elements in the device of Ahn as taught by Ohba and resulting in an oxygen content of the at least one first layer is less than an oxygen content of the at least one second layer since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice MPEP § 2144.07.
However, Xie teaches a conductive line (62, Fig.1A; ¶ 0047) disposed over the top electrode (44, Fig.1A) and a dielectric layer (63; Fig.1A; ¶ 0047) disposed along sidewalls of the conductive line (62) and further extended onto a surface of the top electrode facing away from the bottom electrode (63 extends onto a surface of the top electrode facing away from the bottom electrode; Fig.1A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention, to have a conductive line disposed over the top electrode and a dielectric layer disposed along sidewalls of the conductive line and further extended onto a surface of the top electrode facing away from the bottom electrode in the device of the Ahn and Ohba as taught by Xie for the purpose of encapsulating the memory device with reduced height and improve the memory device performance (¶ 0026).
Regarding claim 11, Ahn teaches wherein the oxygen content of the least one second layer ranges from about .1% to 10% (¶ 0061, can be equal to 10%).
Regarding claim 12, Ahn teaches wherein the at least one first layer comprises GeCTe (¶ 0061; can be doped with (O) and (C)), NGeCTe, SiGeCTe, NSiGeCTe, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 13, Ahn teaches wherein the at least one second layer comprises oxygen-doped GeCTe (¶ 0061; can be doped with (O) and (C)), oxygen-doped NGeCTe, oxygen-doped SiGeCTe, oxygen-doped NSiGeCTe, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 15, Ahn as modified by Ohba teaches wherein the selector layer (Ohba; 20, Fig.2A) has a laminated structure comprising a plurality of the first layers (21 and 22B, Fig.2A) and a plurality of the second layers (23 and 22A), alternately stacked (20; Fig.1; 20 is alternately stacked in the memory device).
Regarding claim 16, Ahn as modified by Ohba teaches wherein one of the pluralities of the first layers is the uppermost layer of the laminate structure (Ohba, 21, Fig.5).
Regarding claim 17, Ahn as modified by Ohba teaches wherein one of the plurality of the first layer is the lowermost layer of the laminated structure (Ohba, 21, Fig.4).
Regarding claim 18, Ahn as modified by Ohba teaches the selector layer (22, Fig.5) is disposed between the bottom electrode (21, Fig.5) and the memory layer (32).
Regarding claim 19, Ahn as modified by Ohba teaches the selector layer (22) is disposed between the top electrode (21) and the memory layer (32).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 10 and 14 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 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.
Applicant’s amendment to claims 9, 16 and 17 further define the claim and the claims rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is withdrawn.
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 Mounir S Amer whose telephone number is (571)270-3683. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/Mounir S Amer/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818