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 18/228,736 filed on 19 December 2025 in which claims 20-28 are pending. Claims 1-19 are canceled.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on August 01 2-23 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed on August 01 2023 and December 16 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein has been considered 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 20-28 in the reply filed on December 19 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-19 are canceled.
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 20-25, 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthelon et al. (US 2021/0305502 A1; hereinafter “Berthelon”) in view of Camarota (US 10,673,440 B1; hereinafter “Camarota”).
Regarding claim 20, Berthelon teaches in Figures 1-18 and related text e.g. an in-memory computation (IMC) system (Fig.1), comprising:
an in-memory computation circuit including a first phase change memory (PCM) array configured to store the computational weights for an in-memory computation operation (100a and 100b; 1; Fig.1; ¶ 0054);
wherein the first PCM array (100b) comprises PCM cells made of a phase change material (10ba; Fig.1; ¶ 0055) comprising a first GST alloy (GeSbTe; ¶ 0055);
a data storage circuit including a second PCM array (100a, Fig.1; ¶ 0054-0055) configured to store data for in-memory computation operation (2a; ¶ 0003 and 0054);
and wherein the second PCM array (100a; ¶ 0054-0055) comprises PCM cells (102a; ¶ 0055) made of a phase change material comprising a second GST (GeSbTe; ¶ 0055) alloy different from the first GST alloy (the content of “Ge” in 102a is three times greater the content of “Ge’ in 102b; ¶ 0055).
Berthelon does not explicitly teach the second PCM array configured to store backup data for the computational weights for the in-memory computation operation.
However, Camarota teaches a PCM array can be configured to store backup data for the computational weights for the in-memory computation operation (Col. 3; Ln.60-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date, to recognize that the second PCM array can be configured to store backup data for the computational weights for the in-memory computation operation as taught by in the device of Berthelon as taught by Camarota since its very known in the art that a phase change memory device is a used for both for data storage and computation memory application.
Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date, to recognize that the second PCM array can be configured to store backup data for the computational weights for the in-memory computation operation in the device of Berthelon as taught by Camarota since the presence of process limitation on a product claims (in this case the configuration of the second PCM array), which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 21, Berthelon does not explicitly teach a control circuit configured to read the backup data from the second PCM array and write to the first PCM array to refresh the computational weights for the in-memory computation operation from said backup data.
However, Camarota teaches a PCM array can be configured to store backup data for the computational weights for the in-memory computation operation (Col. 3; Ln.60-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date, to control circuit configured to read the backup data from the second PCM array and write to the first PCM array to refresh the computational weights for the in-memory computation operation from said backup data in the device of Berthelon as taught by Camarota since the presence of process limitation on a product claims (in this case the configuration of the second PCM array), which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
and write to the first PCM array to refresh the computational weights for the in-memory computation operation from said backup data.
Regarding claim 22, Berthelon as modified by Camarota teaches wherein the computational weights comprise m-ary data stored in each PCM cell of the first PCM array, m being an integer greater than or equal to three, and wherein the backup data comprise binary data stored in each PCM cell of the second PCM array since the presence of process limitation on a product claims (the presence of process limitation on a product claims (in this case the configuration of the data stored in the PCM device), which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 23, Berthelon as modified by Camarota teaches wherein the control circuit is further configured to convert the binary data of the backup data to m-ary data for the computational weights. wherein the control circuit is further configured to convert the binary data of the backup data to m-ary data for the computational weights since the presence of process limitation on a product claims (in this case configuration of converting binary data of the backup data) which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 24, Berthelon as modified by Camarota teaches the first GST alloy is a stoichiometric GST alloy (102b; ¶ 0055) and the second GST alloy is a germanium rich GST alloy (102a; ¶ 0055).
Regarding claim 25, Berthelon teaches the stoichiometric GST alloy is selected from the group consisting of a GST 225 alloy (Ge2Sb2Tes) and a GST 447 alloy (Ge4Sb4Te7), and wherein the germanium rich GST alloy comprises a stoichiometric percentage of germanium that is greater than or equal to 50% (content of Ge can be greater than 60%; ¶ 0055).
Regarding claim 27, Berthelon as modified by Camarota teaches wherein the in-memory computation operation is a matrix vector multiplication operation since the presence of process limitation on a product claims (in this case configuration of converting binary data of the backup data) which product does not otherwise patentably distinguish over prior art, cannot impart patentability to the product. In re Stephens 145 USPQ 656 (CCPA 1965).
Regarding claim 28, Berthelon as modified by Camarota teaches wherein the in-memory computation circuit with the first PCM array (100a; Fig.1) and the data storage circuit including the second PCM array (100b, Fig.1) are all provided on a common semiconductor substrate (4l Fig.1).]
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berthelon et al. (US 2021/0305502 A1; hereinafter “Berthelon”) in view of Camarota (US 10,673,440 B1; hereinafter “Camarota”) as applied to claim 20 above and further in view of Ahn et al. (US 2018/0277601 A1; hereinafter “Ahn”).
Berthelon as modified by Camarota does not teach wherein the germanium rich GST alloy further comprises a stoichiometric percentage of nitrogen in a range of 5-25%.
However, Ahn teaches wherein the germanium rich GST alloy further comprises a stoichiometric percentage of nitrogen in a range of 5-25% (¶ 0005; Nitrogen between 20% and 40%).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date, to have the germanium rich GST alloy further comprises a stoichiometric percentage of nitrogen in a range of 5-25% as taught by Ahn in the device of Berthelon and Camarota 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.
Conclusion
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