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 .
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues,” Akinwande describes patterning a graphene channel 102 on a Si/Si02 substrate using electron beam lithography and etching it using a low-power reactive-ion-etch process in oxygen plasma". See Akinwande at [0031]. One skilled in the art would immediately distinguish the reactive chemical ion etching of Akinwande from the claimed ion beam etch process required by Claim 1. Specifically, Akinwande's reactive-ion-etch (RIE) is a chemically subtractive process where oxygen plasma reacts with and consumes carbon to define the boundaries of a channel (patterning). In contrast, the claimed ion beam etch is performed to "planarize and harden" the surface. Because Akinwande's RIE is a chemically subtractive process that consumes carbon, it cannot perform the hardening and planarization functions required by Claim 1”.
The Examiner has considered the Applicants arguments, but respectfully disagrees for the following reasons;
The use of an e-beam can be described as “Electron-beam (e-beam) irradiation on graphene induces structural and chemical modifications, including localized etching, functionalization, defect creation, and doping. High-energy beams can remove carbon atoms (knock-on damage), while low-energy beams, especially in environmental SEM, can interact with contaminants to induce etching or deposition. These effects are used to pattern graphene, modify its electronic transport properties, and create 3D structures, often reducing carrier mobility”. Thus, electron-beam (e-beam) irradiation can be used to modify, harden, and structurally change graphene.
Surface Modification: E-beam exposure in an SEM can cause organic contamination to deposit on the graphene, which can locally "harden" or change its conductivity.
Furthermore, the Examiner takes the position that the broad nature to the present claim language does not prohibit or eliminate the method of Akinwande. If the Applicant feels that the broad nature of the present claim language can be enhance by providing specific steps that separates the sort after claimed invention from Akinwande’s invention, the Examiner would ask that these adjustments be done.
Applicant argues, “Furthermore, the Office maps the claimed performing of the impurity doping process to Akinwande's para. [0033]. See Office Action at p.4. The Office's characterization ignores the specific nature of the molecular doping described in Akinwande”.
The Examiner has considered the Applicants arguments, but respectfully disagrees for the following reasons;
Please see detailed description, as shown above, for a description of the multiple uses of the e-beam process.
The Examiner takes the position that nowhere in the language of the presently presented claim #1 has there been shown or described a specific impurity doping method that can be shown by the definition of e-beam (as shown above) and the art shown by Akinwande.
Examiner takes the position that the broad nature to the present claim language does not prohibit or eliminate the method of Akinwande. If the Applicant feels that the broad nature of the present claim language can be enhance by providing specific steps that separates the sort after claimed invention from Akinwande’s invention, the Examiner would ask that these adjustments be done.
Applicant argue, “There is no teaching in para. [0019] of Akinwande of the claimed forming of the nitride layer and the oxide layer. Due to the lack of teaching of the claimed nitride layer and oxide layer, Akinwande cannot teach doping "the nitride layer and the oxide layer".
The Examiner has considered the Applicants arguments, but respectfully disagrees for the following reasons;
The Examiner notes, as shown in the previous rejection and repeated again in the present rejection, that Akinwande shows, “doping the nitride layer and the oxide layer with a dopant by an ion implantation process to form a selector layer (paragraph 0033)” and paragraph 0019 is used to show a conductive/electrode area.
The Examiner further notes that Akinwande shows a method or procedure of doping the chosen area with various concentrations.
For the reasons shown above, the Examiner takes the position that Akinwande indeed does show the claimed invention as shown in the previous Non-Final action and repeated here in this present action. For these reasons, this action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) #1, 2, 5, 8, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Akinwande et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2017/0315075), hereinafter referred to as "Akinwande".
Akinwande shows, with respect to claim #1, method for fabricating an electrode comprising: forming a carbon layer (fig. #1B, item 102) (paragraph 0031); performing an ion beam etch process on the carbon layer to planarize and harden a surface of the carbon layer (paragraph 0031); and performing an impurity doping process to dope an impurity into the carbon layer (paragraph 0033).
Akinwande shows, with respect to claim #2 a method wherein the impurity doping process is performed by a low energy ion implantation process or a plasma doping process (paragraph 0031).
Akinwande shows, with respect to claim #5 a method wherein the impurity includes at least one of nitrogen (N) or boron (B) (paragraph 0029, 0031, 0049).
Akinwande shows, with respect to claim #8, method for fabricating a semiconductor device comprising: forming a first electrode layer (paragraph 0019) over a substrate (paragraph 0031); forming a nitride layer and an oxide layer over the first electrode layer (paragraph 0019); doping the nitride layer and the oxide layer with a dopant by an ion implantation process to form a selector layer (paragraph 0033); and forming a second electrode layer over the selector layer (paragraph 0010, 0019), wherein at least one of the forming of the first electrode layer or the forming of the second electrode layer comprises: forming a carbon layer (fig. #1B, item 102) (paragraph 0031); performing an ion beam etch process to planarize and harden a surface of the carbon layer; and performing an impurity doping process to dope an impurity into the carbon layer (paragraph 0029, 0031, 0049).
Akinwande shows, with respect to claim #17 a method wherein the performing of the impurity doping process includes performing a low energy ion implantation process or a plasma doping process (paragraph 0031).
Akinwande shows, with respect to claim #20 a method wherein the impurity includes at least one of nitrogen (N) or boron (B) (paragraph 0029, 0031, 0049).
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.
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.
Claim #3, 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akinwande et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2017/0315075), hereinafter referred to as "Akinwande" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of LANDIS et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0372904), hereinafter referred to as "Landis".
Akinwande substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Akinwande fails to show, with respect to claim #3, a method wherein the low energy ion implantation process is performed at an energy of 1-5 KeV and a dose of 1.0×1013-1.0×1016 cm-2.
Landis teaches, with respect to claim #3, a method wherein the low energy ion implantation process is performed at an energy of 1-5 KeV and a dose of 1.0×1013-1.0×1016 cm-2 (paragraph 0129, 0171, 0175).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #3, to modified the invention of Akinwande as modified by the invention of Landis, which teaches, a method wherein the low energy ion implantation process is performed at an energy of 1-5 KeV and a dose of 1.0×1013-1.0×1016 cm-2, to incorporate a structural condition defined according to the desired profile and depth, as taught by Landis.
Akinwande fails to show, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein the plasma doping process is performed at an energy of 1-5 KV and a dose of 1.0×1013-1.0×1016 cm-2.
Landis teaches, with respect to claim #4, a method wherein the plasma doping process is performed at an energy of 1-5 KeV and a dose of 1.0×1013-1.0×1016 cm-2 (paragraph 0129, 0171, 0175).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #4, to modified the invention of Akinwande as modified by the invention of Landis, which teaches, a method wherein the plasma doping process is performed at an energy of 1-5 KV and a dose of 1.0×1013-1.0×1016 cm-2, to incorporate a structural condition defined according to the desired profile and depth, as taught by Landis.
//
Claim #6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akinwande et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2017/0315075), hereinafter referred to as "Akinwande" as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above and in view of Yun et al., (U.S. Pat. No. 8,900,465), hereinafter referred to as "Yun".
Akinwande substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Akinwande fails to show, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein the carbon layer after the performing of the impurity doping process has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the carbon layer prior to the performing of the impurity doping process.
Yun teaches, with respect to claim #6, a method wherein the carbon layer after the performing of the impurity doping process has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the carbon layer prior to the performing of the impurity doping process (fig. #2a-d, item 202, 202-2) (column #2, line 13-29; column #4, line 10-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #6, to modified the invention of Akinwande as modified by the invention of Yun, which teaches, wherein the carbon layer after the performing of the impurity doping process has a thickness smaller than a thickness of the carbon layer prior to the performing of the impurity doping process, to incorporate a structural condition wherein the etching has a smoothing effect on the carbon surface, as taught by Yun.
///
Claim(s) #7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious, as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above, over Akinwande et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2017/0315075), hereinafter referred to as "Akinwande".
Akinwande substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #1 above.
Akinwande shows, with respect to claim #7, a method wherein the carbon layer after the performing of the impurity doping process has a surface hardness greater than a surface hardness of the carbon layer prior to the performing of the impurity doping process (paragraph 0029, 0031, 0049).
The Examiner notes that Akinwande does not state explicitly that the carbon layer after impurity doping, has greater surface hardness than before the doping process. However, the Examiner notes the following;
The method of Akinwande utilizes the same doping material (nitrogen or boron) as the claimed method shown in the claimed invention.
It is well known in the art that the tensile strength, tensile modulus and elongation at break of the blends could be enhanced by the low concentration of nitrogen doped graphene.
Furthermore, it has been found that ripples, which are induced by the dopants, change the roughness of NG, which depends on the number of dopants and their local arrangement. For any doping ratio N/C, the NG becomes ferroelectric with a net dipole moment. The formation energy increases nonlinearly with N/C ratio, while the Young's modulus, tensile strength, and intrinsic strain decrease with the number of dopants.
Because of the well know characteristics of doping carbon with nitrogen (NG), as shown above, and the fact that Akinwande uses the same dopants as the claimed invention, the Examiner takes the position that the doped carbon layer, as shown in Akinwande, also experiences an increase in hardness. Furthermore, the Examiner notes that "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.
Akinwande discloses the claimed invention except for stating explicitly that the carbon layer after impurity doping, has greater surface hardness than before the doping process. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to utilizes the same doping material (nitrogen or boron), since it was known in the art that nitrogen and boron can be used as an impurity to enhance its intrinsic hardness and therefore potentially leading to ultrahard materials, as shown by Akinwande.
////
Claim #9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akinwande et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2017/0315075), hereinafter referred to as "Akinwande" as shown in the rejection of claim #8 above and in view of Or-Bach et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0020251), hereinafter referred to as "Or-Bach".
Akinwande substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #8 above.
Akinwande fails to shows, with respect to claim 9, forming of the nitride layer and the oxide layer includes forming the nitride layer to have a thickness of 1-2 nm.
Or-Bach teaches, with respect to claim 9, a method wherein the forming of the nitride layer and the oxide layer includes forming the nitride layer to have a thickness of 1-2 nm (paragraph 0175).
While the Examiner acknowledges that Akinwande fails to show, with respect claim #9, a specific thickness of the nitride layer, it should be further noted that Akinwande shows a method (paragraph 0049) that “NO2-doped graphene gas sensors was estimated to be about 200 ppb, which may be improved with extended exposure to NO2”; thus, showing that an increase/decrease in thickness of NO2 can be controlled, with the method exhibited by Akinwande. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #9, to modified the invention of Akinwande as modified by the invention of Or-Bach, which teaches, a method wherein the forming of the nitride layer and the oxide layer includes forming the nitride layer to have a thickness of 1-2 nm, to incorporate a structural condition that would enhance the material’s ability to accommodate small voltages, as taught by Or-Bach. Furthermore, the applicant has not established the critical nature of choosing a thickness of 1-2 nm, to the claimed method of producing a thickness. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges.
Akinwande fails to shows, with respect to claim 10, wherein the forming of the nitride layer and the oxide layer includes forming the oxide layer to have a thickness of 6-12 nm.
Or-Bach teaches, with respect to claim 10, a method wherein the forming of the nitride layer and the oxide layer includes forming the oxide layer to have a thickness of 6-12 nm (paragraph 0175).
While the Examiner acknowledges that Akinwande and Or-Back, fail to state explicitly, with respect claim #10, a specific thickness of 6-12 nm, the Examiner notes the following;
Akinwande shows a method (paragraph 0049) that “NO2-doped graphene gas sensors was estimated to be about 200 ppb, which may be improved with extended exposure to NO2”; thus, showing that an increase/decrease in thickness of NO2 can be controlled, with the method exhibited by Akinwande.
Or-Bach teaches, as shown above in the rejection of claim #10, a method of depositing an oxide layer. Further, Or-Back demonstrates a low voltage condition of the areas of interest.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #10, to modified the invention of Akinwande as modified by the invention of Or-Bach, which teaches, a method wherein the forming of the nitride layer and the oxide layer includes forming the oxide layer to have a thickness of 6-12 nm, to incorporate a structural condition that would enhance the material’s ability to accommodate small voltages, as taught by Or-Bach. Furthermore, the applicant has not established the critical nature of choosing a thickness of 6-12 nm, to the claimed method of producing said thickness; i.e. how the choice of thicknesses would alter the method of delivery. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Also, the Examiner notes that the presently presented claim language is directed to method of delivery and not a structural dynamic. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges.
/////
Claim #11, 12, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akinwande et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2017/0315075), hereinafter referred to as "Akinwande" as shown in the rejection of claim #8 above and in view of GOSSET et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0404833), hereinafter referred to as "Gosset".
Akinwande substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #8 above.
Akinwande fails to show, with respect to claim #11 a method wherein the nitride layer includes at least one of silicon nitride, titanium nitride, aluminum nitride, tungsten nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, niobium nitride, yttrium nitride, or zirconium nitride, wherein the oxide layer includes at least one of silicon oxide, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, tungsten oxide, hafnium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, yttrium oxide, or zirconium oxide, and wherein the dopant includes at least one of boron (B), nitrogen (N), carbon (C), phosphorous (P), arsenic (As), aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), gallium (Ga), tungsten (W), antimony (Sb), or a germanium (Ge).
Gosset teaches, with respect to claim #11, a method wherein the nitride layer includes at least one of silicon nitride, titanium nitride, aluminum nitride, tungsten nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, niobium nitride, yttrium nitride, or zirconium nitride (paragraph 0034, 0110), wherein the oxide layer includes at least one of silicon oxide, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, tungsten oxide, hafnium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, yttrium oxide, or zirconium oxide (paragraph 0034) and wherein the dopant includes at least one of boron (B), nitrogen (N), carbon (C), phosphorous (P), arsenic (As), aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), gallium (Ga), tungsten (W), antimony (Sb), or a germanium (Ge) (paragraph 0036).
The Examiner notes that the applicant has not established the critical nature of the different chosen materials to the claimed method. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable (such as chosen materials) within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range (or in this case, the chosen materials) is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range (or chosen materials) achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range or chosen materials.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range or chosen materials, to show criticality of the claimed range or chosen materials. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges or choose desired materials for the device perspective. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #11, to modified the invention of Akinwande as modified by the invention of Gosset, which teaches, a method wherein the nitride layer includes at least one of silicon nitride, titanium nitride, aluminum nitride, tungsten nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, niobium nitride, yttrium nitride, or zirconium nitride, wherein the oxide layer includes at least one of silicon oxide, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, tungsten oxide, hafnium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, yttrium oxide, or zirconium oxide, and wherein the dopant includes at least one of boron (B), nitrogen (N), carbon (C), phosphorous (P), arsenic (As), aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), gallium (Ga), tungsten (W), antimony (Sb), or a germanium (Ge) to incorporate a structural condition that would promote selective etching, as taught by Gosset.
Akinwande fails to show, with respect to claim #12 a method further comprising forming a memory layer between the substrate and the first electrode layer or over the second electrode layer.
Gosset teaches, with respect to claim #12, a method further comprising forming a memory layer between the substrate and the first electrode layer or over the second electrode layer (paragraph 0283, 0438, 0456, 0458).
The Examiner notes that the applicant has not established the critical nature of the position of the memory layer between the substrate and the first electrode layer or over the second electrode layer, to the presently claimed method of fabricating a semiconductor device; i.e. no evidence has been presented to show that the items chosen or the position of those items are germane/critical to the method shown in the claimed subject matter. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have various ranges. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #12, to modified the invention of Akinwande as modified by the invention of Gosset, which teaches, a method further comprising forming a memory layer between the substrate and the first electrode layer or over the second electrode layer, to incorporate a structural condition that would promote areas for etching applications for interconnecting memory to logic on a substrate and in MEMS applications, as taught by Gosset.
Akinwande fails to show, with respect to claim #13 a method wherein the forming the memory layer includes forming a selector pattern having different electrically conductive states based on an applied voltage to the memory layer.
Gosset teaches, with respect to claim #13, a method wherein the forming the memory layer includes forming a selector pattern (Lower and upper electrodes) having different electrically conductive states based on an applied voltage to the memory layer (paragraph 0283, 0438, 0456, 0458).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #13, to modified the invention of Akinwande as modified by the invention of Gosset, which teaches, a method wherein the forming the memory layer includes forming a selector pattern having different electrical conductive states based on an applied voltage to the memory layer, to incorporate a structural condition with the ability to provide structural combinations of electric fields that allows the application of power to the upper electrode within a range and to the lower electrode within the range, as taught by Gosset.
Akinwande fails to show, with respect to claim #15 a method further forming a third electrode layer between the substrate and the memory layer or over the memory layer.
Gosset teaches, with respect to claim #15, a method further forming a third electrode layer between the substrate and the memory layer or over the memory layer (paragraph 0283, 0438, 0456, 0458).
The Examiner notes that the applicant has not established the critical nature of a third electrode layer between the substrate and the memory layer or over the memory layer, to the presently claimed method of fabricating a semiconductor device; i.e. no evidence has been presented to show that the items chosen or the position of those items are germane/critical to the method shown in the claimed subject matter. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #15, to modified the invention of Akinwande as modified by the invention of Gosset, which teaches, a method further forming a third electrode layer between the substrate and the memory layer or over the memory layer, to incorporate a structural condition that would promote areas for etching applications for interconnecting memory to logic on a substrate and in MEMS applications, as taught by Gosset.
Akinwande fails to show, with respect to claim #16 a method wherein the third electrode layer includes at least one of a metal, a nitride, or a silicide, or a combination thereof.
Gosset teaches, with respect to claim #16, a method wherein the third electrode layer includes at least one of a metal, a nitride, or a silicide, or a combination thereof (paragraph 0283, 0438, 0456, 0458).
The Examiner notes that the applicant has not established the critical nature wherein the third electrode layer includes at least one of a metal, a nitride, or a silicide, or a combination thereof, to the presently claimed method of fabricating a semiconductor device; i.e. no evidence has been presented to show that the items chosen or the position of those items are germane/critical to the method shown in the claimed subject matter. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir.1990). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests inside and outside the claimed range to show criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197(CCPA 1960). Therefore It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #16, to modified the invention of Akinwande as modified by the invention of Gosset, which teaches, a method wherein the third electrode layer includes at least one of a metal, a nitride, or a silicide, or a combination thereof, to incorporate a structural condition that would promote areas for etching applications for interconnecting memory to logic on a substrate and in MEMS applications, as taught by Gosset.
//////
Claim #14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akinwande et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2017/0315075), hereinafter referred to as "Akinwande" as modified by GOSSET et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2024/0404833), hereinafter referred to as "Gosset", as shown in the rejection of claim #12 above and in further view of Lee et al., (U.S. Pat. No.10,594,322), hereinafter referred to as "Lee".
Akinwande as modified by Gosset, substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #12 above.
Akinwande as modified by Gosset, fail to show, with respect to claim #14, a method wherein the forming the memory layer includes forming a memory pattern having different resistance states according to an applied voltage to the memory layer
Lee teaches, with respect to claim #14 a method wherein the forming the memory layer includes forming a memory pattern having different resistance states according to an applied voltage to the memory layer (column #13, line 31-50, 63-67; column #14, line 1-2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #14, to modified the invention of Akinwande as modified by Gosset, as modified by the invention of Lee, which teaches, a method wherein the forming the memory layer includes forming a memory pattern having different resistance states according to an applied voltage to the memory layer, to incorporate a structural condition that would may be used to read the MIM RRAM cell, as taught by Lee.
////////
Claim #18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akinwande et al., (U.S. Pub. No, 2017/0315075), hereinafter referred to as "Akinwande" as shown in the rejection of claim #17 above and in view of LANDIS et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0372904), hereinafter referred to as "Landis".
Akinwande substantially shows the claimed invention as shown in the rejection of claim #17 above.
Akinwande fails to show, with respect to claim #18, a method wherein the low energy ion implantation process is performed at an energy of 1-5 KeV and a dose of 1.0×1013-1.0×1016 cm-2.
Landis teaches, with respect to claim #18, a method wherein the low energy ion implantation process is performed at an energy of 1-5 KeV and a dose of 1.0×1013-1.0×1016 cm-2 (paragraph 0129, 0171, 0175).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #18, to modified the invention of Akinwande as modified by the invention of Landis, which teaches, a method wherein the low energy ion implantation process is performed at an energy of 1-5 KeV and a dose of 1.0×1013-1.0×1016 cm-2, to incorporate a structural condition defined according to the desired profile and depth, as taught by Landis.
Akinwande fails to show, with respect to claim #19, a method wherein the plasma doping process is performed at an energy of 1-5 KV and a dose of 1.0×1013-1.0×1016 cm-2.
Landis teaches, with respect to claim #19, a method wherein the plasma doping process is performed at an energy of 1-5 KV and a dose of 1.0×1013-1.0×1016 cm-2 (paragraph 0129, 0171, 0175).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, with respect to claim #19, to modified the invention of Akinwande as modified by the invention of Landis, which teaches, a method wherein the plasma doping process is performed at an energy of 1-5 KV and a dose of 1.0×1013-1.0×1016 cm-2, to incorporate a structural condition defined according to the desired profile and depth, as taught by Landis.
EXAMINATION NOTE
The rejections above rely on the references for all the teachings expressed in the text of the references and/or one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood or implied from the texts of the references. To emphasize certain aspects of the prior art, only specific portions of the texts have been pointed out. Each reference as a whole should be reviewed in responding to the rejection, since other sections of the same reference and/or various combinations of the cited references may be relied on in future rejections in view of amendments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Andre’ Stevenson whose telephone number is (571) 272 1683 (Email Address, Andre.Stevenson@USPTO.GOV). The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Zandra Smith can be reached on 571-272 2429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Andre’ Stevenson Sr./
Art Unit 2899
04/02/2026
/ZANDRA V SMITH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899