DETAILED ACTION
This application, 18/232686, attorney docket AD9667-US, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This application is assigned to GlobalFoundries Singapore Pte. Ltd., and has an effective filing date of 8/11/2023 based on application filing date. Claims 1, 5 and 8-25 are pending and are considered below. Note that examiner will use numbers in parentheses to indicate numbered elements in prior art figures, and brackets to point to paragraph numbers where quoted material or specific teachings can be found.
Response to Arguments
In his response filed 4/14/2026, applicant correctly argues that the amendment to claim5 overcomes the §112a, and the cancelation of claim 6 renders the §112a moot, so both rejections are withdrawn.
Applicant correctly argues that cancelation of claim 7 renders the §112a moot, so that rejection is moot.
Applicant has amended claims 1 and 5 and argues that the claims are allowable because art of record Trinh does not teach the specific materials claimed. Examiner disagrees, because Trinh teaches a genus of materials for the inner and outer portions of the lower electrode, and a method of identifying or selecting them. Trinh teaches that table 1 is a non-limiting example of possible materials, and not a closed set. In paragraph 0016.The MPEP states “The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol.)” MPEP §2144.07. Here, Trinh teaches the characteristics of materials that make it suitable as inner and outer electrodes in a device analogous to the applicant in paragraph [0016]. The recited outer and inner materials of claim 1 (TiN/Ta) and claim 5 (TaN/Ta) both conform to the selection criterion of Trinh, i.e., the inner material has higher conductivity and/or higher work function than the outer material. In addition, all the claimed materials are commonly used electrode materials in the semiconductor industry so one skilled would consider the materials when selecting from the materials available in their factories for deposition. See the alternative rejections presented below as examples of uses of the specific materials as electrodes. So although the applicant is correct that Trinh does not disclose the material combination explicitly, a §103 rejection based on Trinh is proper.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 5, 8-12, 16-19 and claim s20-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinh.
As for claim 1 and claim 20
Trinh teaches in figure 3 a structure for a random-access resistive memory device [0001] and in figures 1 and 3, the method of claim 20, comprising:
a resistive memory element including a first electrode (28E), a second electrode (26), and a switching layer (22) between the first electrode and the second electrode,
the first electrode including a first metal feature (28) and a second metal feature (20) inside the first metal feature,
the first metal feature adjoining a first portion of the switching layer,
and the second metal feature adjoining a second portion of the switching layer. (both top surfaces contact the switching layer).
Trinh does not explicitly teach the first metal feature comprising a Tantalum Nitride, the second metal feature comprising a Titanium , but makes obvious that the first metal feature may comprise a Tantalum Nitride, the second metal feature may comprise a Titanium. ([0016-0017], TaN has a lower conductivity and lower work function than Ti).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to use the claimed materials because the materials are suitable for the intended purpose as taught by Trinh. See discussion above. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 5,
Trinh teaches in figures 1 and 3, structure for a random-access resistive memory device, (RRAM [0001]) the structure comprising:
a resistive memory element including a first electrode (28E) , a second electrode (26), and a switching layer (22) between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0023]),
the first electrode including a first metal feature (28) and a second metal feature (20) inside the first metal feature,
the first metal feature adjoining a first portion of the switching layer, and the second metal feature adjoining a second portion of the switching layer. (adjacent to the outer and inner portions of 22 respectively, Shown in figure 3).
Trinh does not explicitly teach the first metal comprises tantalum nitride, the second metal comprises tantalum, but Trinh makes obvious that the first metal feature may comprise a Tantalum Nitride, the second metal feature may comprise a tantalum ([0016-0017], TaN has a lower conductivity and lower work function than Ta).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to use the claimed materials because the materials are suitable for the intended purpose as taught by Trinh. See discussion above. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 8,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 3 that the second metal feature is centered in the first metal feature.
As for claim 9.
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 3 that the second metal feature extends partially through the first metal feature.
As for claim 10,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 3 that the first metal feature includes a first portion having a first width that increases with decreasing distance from the switching layer, and the second metal feature has a second width that is less than the first width.
As for claim 11,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 10 and teaches in figure 3 that the first metal feature includes a second portion that is coterminous with the switching layer.
As for claim 12,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 11 and teaches in figure 3 that the second portion of the first metal feature has a top surface, and the second metal feature has a top surface that is coplanar with the top surface of the first metal feature.
As for claim 16,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 3, the first metal feature has a top surface, and the second metal feature has a top surface that is coplanar with the top surface of the first metal feature.
As for claim 17,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 16 and teaches in figure 3, the top surface of the first metal feature adjoins the first portion of the switching layer, and the top surface of the second metal feature adjoins the second portion of the switching layer.
As for claim 18,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 17 and teaches in figure 3, the top surface of the first metal feature borders the top surface of the second metal feature.
As for claim 19,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 3, the second metal feature has a top surface, a bottom surface, and a side surface, the top surface adjoins the switching layer, the side surface adjoins the first metal feature, and the bottom surface adjoins the first metal feature.
As for claim 21,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 1 wherein the switching layer comprises a metal oxide. [0022]
As for claim 22,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 1 wherein the switching layer comprises hafnium oxide. [0022].
As for claim 23,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 1 and Trinh teaches in figure 3 the first metal feature includes a top surface, a first portion that adjoins the first portion of the switching layer, and a second portion that adjoins a third portion of the switching layer (the first portion on the right side, the second portion on the left), the first portion of the first metal feature has a width that increases with decreasing distance from the switching layer, and the second portion of the first metal feature is planar. Shown in figure 3.
As for claim 24,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 5 wherein the switching layer comprises a metal oxide. [0022].
As for claim 25,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 5 wherein the switching layer comprises hafnium oxide. [0022].
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinh in view of Teng et al. (U.S. 2020/0006653).
As for claim 13,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 10 and teaches in figure 3 the first portion of the first metal feature is a first via (it acts as a via to the lower metal, 121), and
a second via, (121) wherein the first via is disposed over the second via.
Trinh does not teach that the second via comprises the first metal.
However, Tseng teaches in figure 3 using TaN for a lower via (202) .
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application use TaN as the lower via material because it reduces the complexity of manufacture by limiting the number of deposition metals. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 14,
Trinh in view of Tseng makes obvious the structure of claim 13 and in the combination, Trinh teaches that a portion of the first via is disposed between the second metal feature and the second via.(fig. 3).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trinh in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2016/0035975).
As for claim 15,
Trinh teaches the structure of claim 1 but does not teach a field-effect transistor including a drain coupled to the first electrode.
However, Chen teaches a field-effect transistor (333) including a drain (339) coupled to the first electrode (307d).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application connect the memory storage cell to a transistor to create a functional memory cell. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
In the alternative the claims are rejected below,
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and 102a2 as being anticipated by Sung et al. (U.S. 9,178,144).
As for claim 1,
Sung teaches in figures 2 and 8, a structure and method for a random-access resistive memory device [co3 ln1], comprising:
a resistive memory element including a first electrode (206a/206b), a second electrode (214), and a switching layer (210) between the first electrode and the second electrode,
the first electrode including a first metal feature (206a) and a second metal feature (206b) inside the first metal feature,
the first metal feature adjoining a first portion of the switching layer,
and the second metal feature adjoining a second portion of the switching layer. (both top surfaces contact the switching layer).
the first metal feature comprising a Tantalum Nitride (formed as 802, the second metal feature comprising a Titanium, [co7 ln49-61].
As for claim 8,
Sung teaches the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 2 that the second metal feature is centered in the first metal feature.
As for claim 9.
Sung teaches the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 2 that the second metal feature extends partially through the first metal feature.
As for claim 10,
Sung teaches the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 2 that the first metal feature includes a first portion having a first width that increases with decreasing distance from the switching layer (total width across the bowl), and the second metal feature has a second width that is less than the first width.
As for claim 11,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 10 and teaches in figure 3 that the first metal feature includes a second portion that is coterminous with the switching layer.
As for claim 12,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 11 and teaches in figure 3 that the second portion of the first metal feature has a top surface, and the second metal feature has a top surface that is coplanar with the top surface of the first metal feature.
As for claim 16,
Sung teaches the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 2, the first metal feature has a top surface, and the second metal feature has a top surface that is coplanar with the top surface of the first metal feature.
As for claim 17,
Sung teaches the structure of claim 16 and teaches in figure 2, the top surface of the first metal feature adjoins the first portion of the switching layer, and the top surface of the second metal feature adjoins the second portion of the switching layer.
As for claim 18,
Sung teaches the structure of claim 17 and teaches in figure 2, the top surface of the first metal feature borders the top surface of the second metal feature.
As for claim 19,
Sung teaches the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 3, the second metal feature has a top surface, a bottom surface, and a side surface, the top surface adjoins the switching layer, the side surface (curved surface inside the bowl) adjoins the first metal feature, and the bottom surface adjoins the first metal feature.
As for claim 21,
Sung teaches the structure of claim 1 wherein the switching layer comprises a metal oxide. [co8, ln22-45]
As for claim 22,
Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 1 wherein the switching layer comprises hafnium oxide. [co8, ln22-45].
As for claim 23,
Sung teaches the structure of claim 1 and teaches in figure 2 the first metal feature includes a top surface, a first portion that adjoins the first portion of the switching layer, and a second portion that adjoins a third portion of the switching layer (the first portion on the right side, the second portion on the left), the first portion of the first metal feature has a width that increases with decreasing distance from the switching layer, and the second portion of the first metal feature is planar. Shown in figure 2.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Teng et al. (U.S. 2020/0006653).
As for claim 13,
SUng teaches the structure of claim 10 and teaches in figure 2 the first portion of the first metal feature is a first via (it acts as a via to the lower metal, 202), and
a second via, (202) wherein the first via is disposed over the second via.
Sung does not teach that the second via comprises the first metal.
However, Tseng teaches in figure 3 using TaN for a lower via (202) .
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application use TaN as the lower via material because it reduces the complexity of manufacture by limiting the number of deposition metals. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 14,
Sung in view of Tseng makes obvious the structure of claim 13 and in the combination, Sung teaches that a portion of the first via is disposed between the second metal feature and the second via.(fig. 2).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sung in view of Chen et al. (U.S. 2016/0035975) here called Chen2.
As for claim 15,
Sung teaches the structure of claim 1 but does not teach a field-effect transistor including a drain coupled to the first electrode.
However, Chen teaches a field-effect transistor (333) including a drain (339) coupled to the first electrode (307d).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application connect the memory storage cell to a transistor to create a functional memory cell. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 5, 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 and 102a2 as being anticipated by Chen et al. U.S. 2020/0106011).
As for claim 5,
Chen teaches in teaches in figure 9B, structure for a random-access resistive memory device, (RRAM [0019]) the structure comprising:
a resistive memory element including a first electrode (306/114) , a second electrode (118), and a switching layer (116) between the first electrode and the second electrode ([0020]),
the first electrode including a first metal feature (306) and a second metal feature (114) inside the first metal feature,
the first metal comprises tantalum nitride [0036], the second metal comprises tantalum [0027],
Chen does not teach that the first metal feature adjoining a first portion of the switching layer, and the second metal feature adjoining a second portion of the switching layer.
However, Trinh teaches he first metal feature adjoining a first portion of the switching layer, and the second metal feature adjoining a second portion of the switching layer. (adjacent to the outer and inner portions of 22 respectively, Shown in figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the effective filing date of this application to form the barrier and metal of Chen in the shape of Trinh so that the entire sidewall of the inner metal is protected by the barrier. One skilled in the art would have combined these elements with a reasonable expectation of success.
As for claim 24,
Chen in view of Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 5 and Chen teaches that the switching layer comprises a metal oxide. [0026].
As for claim 25,
Chen in view of Trinh makes obvious the structure of claim 5 and Chen teaches that the switching layer comprises hafnium oxide. [0026].
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 JOHN A BODNAR whose telephone number is (571)272-4660. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th and every other Friday 7:30-5:30 Central time.
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.
/JOHN A BODNAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights