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 18/302,692 filed on April 21, 2026 in which claims 1 to 18 are pending. Claims 11-18 are canceled. Claims 19-22 are added claims.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on April 18, 2023 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed on April 23, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of paper submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) which has been placed of record in the file.
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 1-10 in the reply filed on November 25 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 11-18 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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, 5, 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bak et al, (US 2021/0005806 A1; hereinafter “Bak”) in view of Kim (US 2020/0098988 A1) and further in view of Han (US 2017/0062031 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bak teaches a semiconductor device (Fig.1-2C) and related text e.g.
a first electrode (HM; Fig.3C; ¶ 0019) including carbon (does not teach a carbon);
an anti-oxidation layer (130, Fig.3C; ¶ 0027) located on the first electrode (HM).
a barrier layer (TBP; ¶ 0035) located on the anti-oxidation layer (130) and including oxide (¶ 0035); a variable resistance layer (MP2; ¶ 0034) located on the barrier layer (TBP); and a second electrode (BL; 0038) located on the variable resistance layer (MP2), wherein the barrier layer is in contact with the anti-oxidation layer (barrier layer TBP and 130 are in electrical/thermal contact. If the applicant wants the officer to interpret the following limitation as physical contact the following limitation should be defined as follow).
Bak does not teach the first electrode include carbon, the anti-oxidation layer includes nitride.
However, Kim teaches a first electrode including carbon (11; Fig.2B; ¶ 0038).
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 first electrode including carbon as taught by Kim in the device of Bak 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, Han teaches the anti-oxidation layer includes nitride (820, Fig.10G; ¶0168).
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 anti-oxidation layer includes nitride in the device of Bak and Kim as taught by Han 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.
Regarding claim 2, Bak teaches wherein the anti-oxidation layer includes nitride (¶0027).
Regarding claim 5, Bak teaches a first conductive line (BEC) extending in a first direction (X-axis) and connected to the first electrode (HM); and a second conductive line (L1; ¶ 0016; Fig.1) extending in a second direction (Y-axis) intersecting the first direction (X-axis) and connected to the second electrode (BL).
Regarding claim 6, Bak teaches wherein one or both of the anti-oxidation layer and the barrier layer each have a thickness of 0.1 nm to 2 nm (130; has a thickness of 0.1 nm to 10 nm; ¶ 0028).
Regarding claim 10, Bak does not explicitly teach the dielectric constant of the anti-oxidation layer to that of the barrier layer is in a range from 1.4 to 2.4.
However, Bak teaches the thickness and the material of the layer (¶ 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have the dielectric constant of the ant-oxidation layer to that the barrier layer is in a range from 1.4 to 2.4 in the device of Bak since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bak et al, (US 2021/0005806 A1; hereinafter “Bak”) and further in view of Kim (US 2020/0098988 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yoo (US 2021/0202576 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Bak as modified by Kim does not teach and wherein the variable resistance layer maintains an amorphous state during a program operation.
However, Yoo teaches the variable resistance layer can be an MTJ structure or may include an amorphous chalcogenide layer (¶ 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, variable resistance layer maintains an amorphous state during a program operation instead of the MTJ in the device of Bak and Kim as taught by Yoo for the purpose of 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.
Regarding claim 4, Bak as modified by Kim does not teach wherein the variable resistance includes chalcogenide.
However, Yoo teaches the variable resistance layer can be an MTJ structure or may include an amorphous chalcogenide layer (¶ 0065).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have the variable resistance includes chalcogenide instead of the MTJ in the device of Bak and Kim as taught by Yoo for the purpose of 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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bak et al, (US 2021/0005806 A1; hereinafter “Bak”) and further in view of Kim (US 2020/0098988 A1) and Han (US 2017/0062031 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US 2012/0313063 A1; hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 7, Bak as modified by Kim does not teach wherein a multilayer structure including the anti-oxidation layer and the barrier layer has a thickness of 0.1 nm to 2 nm.
However, Wang teaches a multilayer structure including the anti-oxidation layer (208B, can be treated as an anti-oxidation layer; Fig.4C) and the barrier layer (208C; Fig.4C) has a thickness of 0.1nm to 2 nm (¶ 0073; about 208C 8A, and 208B about 5A; ¶ 0059 = total of 13A = 1.3nm). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have a multilayer structure including the anti-oxidation layer and the barrier layer has a thickness of 0.1 nm to 2nm as taught by Wang in the device of Bak and Kim since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bak et al, (US 2021/0005806 A1; hereinafter “Bak”) and in view of Wang et al. (US 2012/0313063 A1; hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claim 21, Bek teaches a semiconductor device (Fig.1-2C) and related text e.g. comprising:
a first electrode (HM; Fig.3C; ¶ 0019);
a variable resistance layer (MP2; ¶ 0034) located on the first electrode (HM);
a second electrode (BL; ¶ 0038) located on the variable resistance layer (MP2);
a first pair of a first anti-oxidation layer (130, Fig.3C; ¶ 0027) and a first barrier layer (TBP; ¶ 0035) located between the first electrode (HM) and the variable resistance layer (MP2);
Bak does not teach a second pair of a second anti-oxidation layer and a second barrier layer located between the variable resistance layer and the second electrode.
However, Wang teaches a second pair of a second anti-oxidation layer (204C, Fig.4A; ¶ 0049) and a second barrier layer (204B, Fig.4A; ¶ 0049) located between the variable resistance layer (206, Fig.4A; ¶ 0049) and the second electrode (102, Fig.4A; ¶ 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have the second pair of a second anti-oxidation layer and a second barrier layer located between the variable resistance layer and the second electrode of Bak as taught by Wang to improve the switching characteristics of the memory element (¶ 0055).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bak et al, (US 2021/0005806 A1; hereinafter “Bak”) and in view of Wang et al. (US 2012/0313063 A1; hereinafter “Wang”) as applied in claim 20, and further in view of Kim (US 2020/0098988 A1) and Han (US 2017/0062031 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Bak teaches wherein and wherein at least one of the first barrier layer or the second barrier layer includes oxide (TPB, ¶ 0035).
Bak does not teach at least one of the first electrode or the second electrode includes carbon, wherein at least one of the first anti-oxidation layer or the second anti-oxidation layer includes nitride.
However, Kim teaches a first electrode including carbon (11; Fig.2B; ¶ 0038).
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 first electrode including carbon as taught by Kim in the device of Bak and Wang 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, Han teaches the anti-oxidation layer includes nitride (820, Fig.10G; ¶0168).
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 anti-oxidation layer includes nitride in the device of Bak and Kim as taught by Han 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 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.
Claims 19-20 are allowed.
Claim 19 is allowed since the prior art reference does not teach the exact order of the layers as stated below :”… first electrode; a first anti-oxidation layer located on the first electrode; a first barrier layer located on the first anti-oxidation layer; a variable resistance layer located on the first barrier layer; a second anti-oxidation layer located on the variable resistance layer; a second barrier layer located on the second anti-oxidation layer; and second electrode located on the second barrier layer.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 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.
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
Prosecution Insights