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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species B, represented by Figures 3A-3I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on August 5, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-16 are hereby withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3,
Claim 3 is indefinite as it has no lower bounds. This is because the radial dimension can be zero. Which means the device of claim 1 does not require the doped portion. This is indefinite because claim 1 requires the doped portion. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the metes and bounds of the claimed invention as they would not know whether there needs to be a doped portion or not.
Regarding claim 4,
Claim 4 is indefinite as it has no upper bounds. As it does not have an upper bounds this means that non-doped portion can be completely removed by having the doped portion include both the non-doped portion and doped portion. This is indefinite because claim 1 requires the non-doped portion. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know the metes and bounds of the claimed invention as they would not know whether there needs to be a non-doped portion or not.
Examiner recommendation for claims 3-4,
Examiner recommends Applicant combine claims 3 and 4 together. This would create both a definite floor and a definite ceiling to the doped portion thickness/width.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yamakawa (US 2020/0052039 A1) (“Yamakawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Yamakawa teaches at least in figure 10:
a memory point (hereinafter “Y”), the memory point comprising (Y is detailed below),
stacked in a so-called vertical direction (Z) (detailed below):
a lower electrode (231) formed in a lower layer (where 231 is formed; hereinafter “A”),
ii. at least one so-called chalcogenide section (241; ¶ 0056) formed in at least one chalcogenide layer (241), disposed on the lower electrode (231),
iii. an upper electrode (251) formed in an upper layer (where 251 is formed; hereinafter “B”) and disposed on the at least one chalcogenide section (241),
wherein the memory point (structure defined above) has a side surface (side of Y; hereinafter “C”) and an upper face (top of Y defined above; hereinafter “D”), and
further comprising (detailed below):
an encapsulation layer (301/302) encapsulating the memory point (Y) and disposed in contact with the side surface (Y is in contact with C) and with the upper face (Y in contact with D); and
at least one doped portion (261), extending from the side surface (C) and inside the chalcogenide section (241; ¶ 0046),
wherein the doped portion has a doping with a basis of at least one doping species, selected from the group consisting of: carbon, fluorine, nitrogen, indium, arsenic, aluminum, germanium, silicon, chlorine and boron (¶ 0046, where 261 is 241 doped with C, N, B, etc.),
wherein the doped portion (261) extending, in the vertical direction (Z), along the entire height of the chalcogenide section (241),
wherein the chalcogenide section (241) has a non-doped portion having a zero doping, or doping less than the doping of the doped portion (261) in the doping species (body of 241 has no doping as the doping section is 261, or has less doping than 261, otherwise, it would be the doping section 261), and
wherein the non-doped portion (241) extends from the doped portion (261) and up to a center of the chalcogenide section (center of 241; hereinafter “E”).
Regarding claim 5, Yamakawa teaches at least in figure 10:
As shown in the figures the height of 261 is over at least 50% the height of Y.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa, in view of Haibo et al. (CN 112786784 A) (“Haibo”) by means of machine translation.
Regarding claim 2, Yamakawa does not teach:
Wherein the doping species of the at least one doped portion has an atomic percentage greater than 0.5%.
This is because Yamakawa does not teach what the doping percentage of 261 is. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to other references to teach this missing instruction.
Haibo teaches:
A device similar to the device of Yamakawa. Haibo teaches that the doping concentration on the high side, Yamakawa’s 261, can range from 2% to 5% by weight, and the doping concentration on the low side, Yamakawa’s 241, can range from 0% to 1% by weight.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to translate the weight percentages to atomic percentages as this requires routine skill in the art. Further, the disclosed weight percentages would be within the claimed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the aforementioned references for the reason stated above. In addition, it would have been obvious to use the taught doping ranges as the said doping ranges would reduce the resistance deviation in the memory devices. Pg. 6 at ¶ 6-7.
Claim(s) 3-4, and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa, in view of Haibo, in view of G. Bourgeois et al., “Carbon ion implantation as healing strategy for improved reliability in phase-change memory arrays”, https://hal-cea.archives-ouvertes.fr/cea-03373794, pgs. 1-7, Oct. 12, 2021 (“Bourgeois”).
Regarding claim 3, Yamakawa does not teach:
wherein the doped portion (261) has, in all the directions of a transverse plane (XY) perpendicular to the vertical direction (Z), a radial dimension l125 (width of 261) with 1125s ≤ 20nm.
This is because Yamakawa does not teach the doping distance.
Bourgeois teaches:
That the doping depth is a matter of optimization. This is because one wants to dope the chalcogenide material deep enough to improve its physical properties while not deteriorating the device performance. Pg. 3 at col. 1. Further, the depth of the doping can be controlled by by changing the variables of doping such as the percentage of dopant being implanted and the energy in which the dopant is implanted. See at least figures 2-3.
Therefore, because the general conditions are disclosed in the prior art is it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Where the optimum or workable ranges are the depth of the doping implantation that will improve the properties of the chalcogenide without destroying the performance of the device. Thus optimization of the claim would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4,
Claim 4 is rejected for the same reason as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 7, the prior art teaches:
wherein the doped portion (Yamakawa 261) has a gradient of doping species from its side surface (Yamakawa C) up to the non-doped portion (Yamakawa 241) (as taught in at least figure 3 of Bourgeois).
Regarding claim 8, the prior art teaches:
qherein the atomic percentage of the doping species within the doped portion (Yamakawa 261) is substantially constant in the stack direction (Z) (this would have been obvious in view of Bourgeois as the doping profile is shown being horizontal, and it would have been obvious that the vertical would be constant.).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamakawa, in view of Magistretti et al. (US 2012/0001145 A1) (“Magistretti”).
Regarding claim 6, Yamakawa does not teach:
This thickness of the encapsulation layer is between 10 and 30nm
Magistretti teaches at least in figure 9:
That encapsulation layers in a chalcogenide device can have a thickness between 200 and 1000 angstroms (20-100nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill it the art to combine the aforementioned references as Yamakawa is silent with respect to the thickness of the encapsulation layer, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have obviously searched for other references in the art that teach this missing part. This search would have obviously led to Magistretti as this reference is directed to the same type of structure as Yamakawa.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/VINCENT WALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights