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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated 03/30/2026, in which claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 16, 17 were amended, claims 4, 7, 15, 18 were cancelled, has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chua et al. (US Pub. 20070212895) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 20110151658) as evidenced by Han et al. (US Pub. 20060105524).
Regarding claim 1, Chua et al. discloses in Fig. 2A, Fig. 3A-3F a method for fabricating a selector, comprising:
forming an insulating layer [402];
doping the insulating layer [402] with dopants [hafnium (Hf)] by performing an ion implantation process [step 257][paragraph [0049]]; and
performing a subsequent process [260, 264 and 266] to the insulating layer [402] doped with the dopants [hafnium (Hf)] for restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process [paragraphs [0055]-[0059]];
wherein the performing of the subsequent process [260, 264 and 266] for restoring damage includes performing a plasma treatment process [264] using a reaction gas containing no oxygen [nitrogen (N2)] at a RF power level of 10-1000 W [10-3000W][paragraph [0058] “peak RF power…in the ranges between about 10 and about 3000 W][“In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)… "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”. MPEP 2144.05.];
Chua et al. discloses the claimed subsequent process including performing a plasma treatment process using a reaction gas containing no oxygen at a RF power level of 10-1000W as claimed.
Chua et al. further discloses in paragraph [0059] that step 266 can help to reduce the number of defects in the layers formed on the substrate 401.
Therefore, the performing of the subsequent process disclosed by Chua et al. would result to the claimed function of “performing a subsequent process for restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process” and “the subsequent process is performed such that the dopants maintain a metallic state within the insulating layer.” “Where the claimed and prior art products …are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01.
Chua et al. fails to disclose
wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels.
Lee et al. discloses in paragraph [0031]
wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the method of Chua et al. to include wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chua et al. in the above manner for the purpose of allowing for the uniform distribution of dopants and lattice defects from the upper surface of the insulating layer to the lower surface of the insulating layer [paragraph [0031] of Lee et al.].
Regarding claim 2, the performing of the subsequent process including an anneal process disclosed by Chua et al. would redistributing the dopants in the insulating layer such that redistributed dopants are more evenly dispersed in the insulating layer as compared to the dopants in the insulating layer before performing the subsequent process as evidenced in paragraph [0049]-[0050] of Han et al.
In addition, similar to the claimed invention, Chua et al. discloses in Fig. 2A, paragraph [0055]-[0059], the performing of the subsequent process includes performing a plasma treatment process [264] using a reaction gas containing no oxygen at a RF power level of 10-3000 W which includes the claimed range of 10-1000W. Therefore, the performing of the subsequent process disclosed by Chua et al. would have the claimed function of “redistributing the dopants in the insulating layer such that redistributed dopants are more evenly dispersed in the insulating layer as compared to the dopants in the insulating layer before performing the subsequent process.”
“Where the claimed and prior art products …are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01.
Regarding claim 3, Chua et al. discloses in Fig. 2A, paragraph [0055]-[0059]
wherein the performing of the subsequent process [264 and 266] for restoring damage includes performing the plasma treatment process [264] using an inert gas [nitrogen (N2)] as the reaction gas.
Regarding claim 9, Chua et al. also discloses in Fig. 4, paragraph [0049]
wherein the forming of the insulating layer forms the insulating layer [402] to include at least one of silicon oxide, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, tungsten oxide, hafnium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, yttrium oxide, zirconium oxide, silicon nitride, titanium nitride, aluminum nitride, tungsten nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, niobium nitride, yttrium nitride, zirconium nitride, silicon oxynitride, titanium oxynitride, aluminum oxynitride, tungsten oxynitride, hafnium oxynitride, tantalum oxynitride, niobium oxynitride, yttrium oxynitride, or zirconium oxynitride [silicon dioxide], and wherein at least one of the dopants [metal ions] 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), or a combination thereof [aluminum].
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chua et al. (US Pub. 20070212895) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 20110151658) and Olsen et al. (US Pub. 20100248435).
Regarding claim 5, Chua et al. discloses in Fig. 2A, Fig. 3A-3F a method for fabricating a selector, comprising:
forming an insulating layer [402];
doping the insulating layer [402] with dopants [hafnium (Hf)] by performing an ion implantation process [step 257][paragraph [0049]]; and
performing a subsequent process [260, 264 and 266] to the insulating layer [402] doped with the dopants [hafnium (Hf)] for restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process [paragraphs [0055]-[0059]];
wherein the performing of the subsequent process [260, 264 and 266] for restoring damage includes performing a plasma treatment process [260] using a reaction gas containing oxygen at a RF power level.
Chua et al. fails to disclose
the RF power level of 100-500 W.
Olsen discloses in paragraph [0032]
the RF power level of 100-500 W [“oxidizing plasma may be formed by applying an RF source power between about 50 W to about 2500 W at a suitable frequency to form a plasma”][“In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)… "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”. MPEP 2144.05.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Olsen et al. into the method of Chua et al. to include the RF power level of 100-500 W. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chua et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable RF power level to form a plasma [paragraph [0032] of Olsen et al.].
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Chua et al. to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Chua et al. discloses the performing of the subsequent process [260, 264 and 266] for restoring damage includes performing a plasma treatment process [260] using a reaction gas containing oxygen at a RF power level. Olsen discloses in paragraph [0032] a plasma treatment process using a reaction gas containing oxygen [oxidizing plasma] at a RF power level of 100-500 W. Chua et al. further discloses in paragraph [0059] that step 266 can help to reduce the number of defects in the layers formed on the substrate 401.
Therefore, Chua et al. and Olsen disclosed the performing of the subsequent process at a RF power level of 100-500W as claimed. Thus, the performing of the subsequent process disclosed by Chua et al. and Olsen would result to the claimed function of “performing a subsequent process for restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process” and “the subsequent process is performed such that the dopants maintain a metallic state within the insulating layer.” “Where the claimed and prior art products …are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01.
Chua et al. fails to disclose
wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels.
Lee et al. discloses in paragraph [0031]
wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the method of Chua et al. to include wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chua et al. in the above manner for the purpose of allowing for the uniform distribution of dopants and lattice defects from the upper surface of the insulating layer to the lower surface of the insulating layer [paragraph [0031] of Lee et al.].
Regarding claim 16, Chua et al. discloses in Fig. 2A, Fig. 3A-3F a method for fabricating a selector, comprising:
forming an insulating layer [402];
doping the insulating layer [402] with dopants [hafnium (Hf)] by performing an ion implantation process [step 257][paragraph [0049]]; and
performing a subsequent process [260, 264 and 266] to the insulating layer [402] doped with the dopants [hafnium (Hf)] for restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process [paragraphs [0055]-[0059]];
wherein the performing of the subsequent process [260, 264 and 266] for restoring damage includes performing a plasma treatment process [260] using a reaction gas containing oxygen at a RF power level.
Chua et al. fails to disclose
the RF power level of 100-500 W.
Olsen discloses in paragraph [0032]
the RF power level of 100-500 W [“oxidizing plasma may be formed by applying an RF source power between about 50 W to about 2500 W at a suitable frequency to form a plasma”][“In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)… "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”. MPEP 2144.05.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Olsen et al. into the method of Chua et al. to include the RF power level of 100-500 W. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chua et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable RF power level to form a plasma [paragraph [0032] of Olsen et al.].
In addition, Applicant has not provided any criticality of the claimed range. Thus, it would have been obvious to modify Chua et al. to provide the claimed range for at least the purpose of optimization and routine experimentation. The claimed ranges are merely optimizations, and as such are not patentable over the prior art. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). "The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages." Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382.
Chua et al. discloses the performing of the subsequent process [260, 264 and 266] for restoring damage includes performing a plasma treatment process [260] using a reaction gas containing oxygen at a RF power level. Olsen discloses in paragraph [0032] a plasma treatment process using a reaction gas containing oxygen [oxidizing plasma] at a RF power level of 100-500 W. Chua et al. further discloses in paragraph [0059] that step 266 can help to reduce the number of defects in the layers formed on the substrate 401.
Therefore, Chua et al. and Olsen disclosed the performing of the subsequent process at a RF power level of 100-500W as claimed. Thus, the performing of the subsequent process disclosed by Chua et al. and Olsen would result to the claimed function of “performing a subsequent process for restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process” and “the subsequent process is performed such that the dopants maintain a metallic state within the insulating layer.” “Where the claimed and prior art products …are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01.
Chua et al. fails to disclose
wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels.
Lee et al. discloses in paragraph [0031]
wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the method of Chua et al. to include wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Chua et al. in the above manner for the purpose of allowing for the uniform distribution of dopants and lattice defects from the upper surface of the insulating layer to the lower surface of the insulating layer [paragraph [0031] of Lee et al.].
The limitation “wherein the insulating layer is formed as a selector layer after the ion implantation process and the subsequent process” directs to intended function of the insulating layer. The insulating formed by Chua et al., Lee et al. and Olsen et al. is substantially identical in structure to the claimed insulating layer and is produced by identical or substantially identical process as the claimed insulating layer. Thus, the insulating formed by Chua et al., Lee et al. and Olsen et al. can be formed as a selector layer. WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 6, 8, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma et al. (US Pat. 6348373) in view of Lee et al. (US Pub. 20110151658).
Regarding claim 6, Ma et al. discloses in Fig. 1-Fig. 2, column 3 a method for fabricating a selector, comprising:
forming an insulating layer [20];
doping the insulating layer [20] with dopants [55] by performing an ion implantation process; and
performing a subsequent process [anneal] to the insulating layer [20] doped with the dopants [55] for restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process [“The anneal removes implant damage caused by the implanted ions”],
wherein the performing of the subsequent process [anneal] for restoring damage includes performing a thermal treatment process [“The anneal removes implant damage caused by the implanted ions”] at a temperature in a range of 100-400°C [a temperature of less than 800 degrees Celsius, preferably between approximately 300 and 800 degrees Celsius][“In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)… "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”. MPEP 2144.05].
As stated above, Ma et al. discloses the performing of the subsequent process including performing a thermal treatment process at a temperature in a range of 100-400°C as claimed.
Therefore, the performing of the subsequent process disclosed by Ma et al. would result to the claimed function of “performing a subsequent process for restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process” and “the subsequent process is performed such that the dopants maintain a metallic state within the insulating layer.” “Where the claimed and prior art products …are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01.
Ma et al. fails to disclose
wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels.
Lee et al. discloses in paragraph [0031]
wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the method of Ma et al. to include wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ma et al. in the above manner for the purpose of allowing for the uniform distribution of dopants and lattice defects from the upper surface of the insulating layer to the lower surface of the insulating layer [paragraph [0031] of Lee et al.].
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Ma et al. discloses in Fig. 1-Fig. 2, column 3
wherein the thermal treatment process is performed by using at least one of oxygen or an inert gas [“The anneal is preferably accomplished using a rapid thermal anneal (RTA) process in an atmosphere of oxygen, inert gas, or both”].
Regarding claim 17, Ma et al. discloses in Fig. 1-Fig. 2, column 3 a method for fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising:
forming an insulating layer [20];
doping the insulating layer [20] with dopants [55] by performing an ion implantation process; and
performing a subsequent process [anneal] to the insulating layer [20] doped with the dopants [55] for restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process [“The anneal removes implant damage caused by the implanted ions”],
wherein the performing of the subsequent process [anneal] for restoring damage includes performing a thermal treatment process [“The anneal removes implant damage caused by the implanted ions”] at a temperature in a range of 100-400°C [a temperature of less than 800 degrees Celsius, preferably between approximately 300 and 800 degrees Celsius][“In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)…"[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”. MPEP 2144.05].
As stated above, Ma et al. discloses the performing of the subsequent process including performing a thermal treatment process at a temperature in a range of 100-400°C as claimed.
Therefore, the performing of the subsequent process disclosed by Ma et al. would result to the claimed function of “performing a subsequent process for restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process” and “the subsequent process is performed such that the dopants maintain a metallic state within the insulating layer.” “Where the claimed and prior art products …are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01.
Ma et al. fails to disclose
wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels.
Lee et al. discloses in paragraph [0031]
wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the method of Ma et al. to include wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Ma et al. in the above manner for the purpose of allowing for the uniform distribution of dopants and lattice defects from the upper surface of the insulating layer to the lower surface of the insulating layer [paragraph [0031] of Lee et al.].
The limitation “wherein the insulating layer is formed as a selector layer after the ion implantation process and the subsequent process” directs to intended function of the insulating layer. The insulating disclosed by Ma et al. and Lee et al. is substantially identical in structure to the claimed insulating layer and is produced by identical or substantially identical process as the claimed insulating layer. Thus, the insulating disclosed by Ma et al. can be formed as a selector layer. WHEN THE STRUCTURE RECITED IN THE REFERENCE IS SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE CLAIMS, CLAIMED PROPERTIES OR FUNCTIONS ARE PRESUMED TO BE INHERENT. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US Pub. 20180342672) in view of Song (US Pub. 20210249472), Chua et al. (US Pub. 20070212895) and Lee et al. (US Pub. 20110151658).
Regarding claim 10, Sim et al. discloses in Fig. 4-Fig. 5, paragraph [0076]-[0088] a method for fabricating a semiconductor device, comprising:
forming a selector layer [130];
forming a memory layer [150] over or under the selector layer [130]; and
etching the memory layer [150] and the selector layer [130] by using a mask pattern [162] to form a memory cell including a memory pattern and a selector pattern.
Sim et al. fails to disclose
forming the selector comprising:
forming an insulating layer;
doping the insulating layer with dopants by performing an ion implantation process; and
performing a subsequent process for restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process,
wherein the insulating layer is formed as the selector layer after the ion implantation process and the subsequent process;
wherein the performing of the subsequent process for restoring damage includes performing a plasma treatment process using a reaction gas containing no oxygen at a RF power level of 100-1000 W;
wherein the subsequent process is performed such that the dopants maintain a metallic state within the insulating layer.
Song discloses in Fig. 1, Fig. 4A-4B, Fig. 7A-7E, paragraph [0028]-[0031], [0068]-[0070] forming the selector [120 or 320] comprising:
forming an insulating layer [122 or 322];
doping the insulating layer [122 or 322] with dopants [125 or 325] by performing an ion implantation process;
wherein the insulating layer [122 or 322] is formed as the selector layer [120 or 320] after the ion implantation process and a subsequent process.
Chua et al. discloses in Fig. 2A, Fig. 3A-3F
forming an insulating layer [402];
doping the insulating layer [402] with dopants [hafnium (Hf)] by performing an ion implantation process [step 257][paragraph [0049]]; and
performing a subsequent process [260, 264 and 266] to the insulating layer [402] doped with the dopants [hafnium (Hf)] for restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process [paragraphs [0055]-[0059]];
wherein the performing of the subsequent process [260, 264 and 266] for restoring damage includes performing a plasma treatment process [264] using a reaction gas containing no oxygen [nitrogen (N2)] at a RF power level of 100-1000 W [paragraph [0058] “peak RF power…in the ranges between about 10 and about 3000 W…In one example, N2 is provided at about 1000 W of peak RF power][“If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim." UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023)”. MPEP 2131.03 I. “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)… "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005)”. MPEP 2144.05.].
Chua et al. discloses the performing of the subsequent process includes performing a plasma treatment process using a reaction gas containing no oxygen at a RF power level of 10-3000 W or at 1000W which includes the claimed range of 100-1000W. Therefore, the performing of the subsequent process disclosed by Chua et al. would result to the claimed function of “restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process” and “wherein the subsequent process is performed such that the dopants maintain a metallic state within the insulating layer”. “Where the claimed and prior art products …are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Song and Chua et al. into the method of Sim et al. to include forming the selector comprising: forming an insulating layer; doping the insulating layer with dopants by performing an ion implantation process; and performing a subsequent process for restoring damage caused by the ion implantation process, wherein the insulating layer is formed as the selector layer after the ion implantation process and a subsequent process; wherein the performing of the subsequent process for restoring damage includes performing a plasma treatment process using a reaction gas containing no oxygen at a RF power level of 100-1000 W; wherein the subsequent process is performed such that the dopants maintain a metallic state within the insulating layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sim et al. in the above manner for the purpose of providing suitable alternative method for forming selector layer to improve operating characteristics of the device; providing suitable subsequent processes after ion implantation to obtain a doped insulating layer having desired characteristics [paragraph [0123], [0147] of Song et al., paragraph [0049]-[0059] of Chua et al.].
Sim et al., Song and Chua et al. fails to disclose
wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels.
Lee et al. discloses in paragraph [0031]
wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee et al. into the method of Sim et al., Song and Chua et al. to include wherein the ion implantation process includes performing ion implantation at different energy levels. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Sim et al., Song and Chua et al. in the above manner for the purpose of allowing for the uniform distribution of dopants and lattice defects from the upper surface of the insulating layer to the lower surface of the insulating layer [paragraph [0031] of Lee et al.].
Regarding claim 11, Sim et al. discloses in Fig. 4 the method further comprising at least one of:
forming a first electrode layer [120] between a substrate [100] and the selector layer [130] or between the substrate [100] and the memory layer [150];
forming a second electrode layer [140] between the selector layer [130] and the memory layer [150]; or
forming a third electrode layer [160] over the memory layer [150] or the selector layer [130].
Regarding claim 12, Song discloses in paragraph [0029]-[0031], [0065], [0070] wherein the forming of the insulating layer forms the insulating layer [122] to include at least one of silicon oxide, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, tungsten oxide, hafnium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, yttrium oxide, zirconium oxide, silicon nitride, titanium nitride, aluminum nitride, tungsten nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, niobium nitride, yttrium nitride, zirconium nitride, silicon oxynitride, titanium oxynitride, aluminum oxynitride, tungsten oxynitride, hafnium oxynitride, tantalum oxynitride, niobium oxynitride, yttrium oxynitride, or zirconium oxynitride, and wherein at least one of the dopants [125] 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), or a combination thereof.
Chua et al. also discloses in Fig. 4, paragraph [0049] wherein the forming of the insulating layer forms the insulating layer [402] to include at least one of silicon oxide, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide, tungsten oxide, hafnium oxide, tantalum oxide, niobium oxide, yttrium oxide, zirconium oxide, silicon nitride, titanium nitride, aluminum nitride, tungsten nitride, hafnium nitride, tantalum nitride, niobium nitride, yttrium nitride, zirconium nitride, silicon oxynitride, titanium oxynitride, aluminum oxynitride, tungsten oxynitride, hafnium oxynitride, tantalum oxynitride, niobium oxynitride, yttrium oxynitride, or zirconium oxynitride [silicon dioxide], and wherein at least one of the dopants [metal ions] 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), or a combination thereof [aluminum].
Regarding claim 13, Sim et al. discloses in Fig. 4, paragraph [0076], [0082] wherein the forming of the memory layer [150] includes forming a material having a variable resistance characteristic that is switched between different resistance states, the material including at least one of a transition metal oxide, a phase change material, a ferroelectric material, or a ferromagnetic material.
Regarding claim 14, similar to the claimed invention, Chua et al. discloses in Fig. 2A, paragraph [0055]-[0059], Chua et al. discloses the performing of the subsequent process includes performing a plasma treatment process using a reaction gas containing no oxygen at a RF power level of 10-3000 W or at 1000W which includes the claimed range of 100-1000W. Therefore, the performing of the subsequent process disclosed by Chua et al. would have the claimed function of “redistributing the dopants in the insulating layer such that redistributed dopants are more evenly dispersed in the insulating layer as compared to the dopants in the insulating layer before performing the subsequent process.” “Where the claimed and prior art products …are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP 2112.01.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-14, 16-17, 19 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.
Overall, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claims stand rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited art discloses similar materials, devices and methods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOPHIA T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1686. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am -5:00 pm, Monday-Friday.
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, BRITT D HANLEY can be reached at (571)270-3042. 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.
/SOPHIA T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights