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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s remarks/amendments of claims 1 and 6-11 in the reply filed on March 03rd, 2026 are acknowledged. Claims 1 and 7-11 have been amended. Claims 2-5 and 12 have been cancelled. Claims 1 and 6-11 are pending.
Action on merits of claims 1 and 6-11 as follows.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation as recited in amended claim 1: “a fifth encapsulation layer coating the fourth layer and being a material having a density higher than that of the material of the fourth layer” is not disclosed in specification. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnaud (US 2019/0140176, hereinafter as Arna ‘176) in view of Redaelli (US 2015/0028283, hereinafter as Reda ‘283).
Regarding Claim 1, Arna ‘176 teaches a phase change memory cell comprising:
a first layer in a phase change material (Fig. 3M, (134A); [0060]);
a heating element (Fig. 3M, (132); [0027]) located under the first layer;
a second insulating layer (Fig. 3M, (330); [0051]) coating a side of the heating element; and
a first stack comprising a third encapsulation layer (silicon nitride (340); [0052]) coating the side faces of the second layer and
a fourth encapsulation layer (silicon oxide (342); [0053]) coating the third layer and being in a material (e.g. silicon oxide material) having a lower density than that of the material of the third layer (e.g. silicon nitride material).
Arna ‘176 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a fifth encapsulation layer coating the fourth layer and being a material having a density higher than that of the material of the fourth layer”.
Reda ‘283 teaches a fifth encapsulation layer (Fig. 23, (74); [0053]) coating the fourth layer (76; [0054]) and being a material having a density higher than that of the material of the fourth layer. It would obviously appear that material of the fifth encapsulation layer (74) (aluminum oxide; [0053]) having a density higher than that of the material of the fourth layer (76) (silicon dioxide; [0054]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Arna ‘176 by having a fifth encapsulation layer coating the fourth layer and being a material having a density higher than that of the material of the fourth layer in order to reduce programming current by reducing the thermal dispersion out of memory cell active material and improve reliability of memory cells (see para. [0104]) as suggested by Reda ‘283.
PNG
media_image1.png
272
330
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3M (Arna ‘176)
Regarding Claim 6, Arna ‘176 teaches a first conduction electrode (120A; [0027]) located under and in contact with one face of the heating element (132) opposite to the first layer (134A) and a second conduction electrode (380; [0060]) located on and in contact with one face of the first layer (134A) opposite to the heating element.
Regarding Claim 7, Arna ‘176 teaches a six encapsulation layer (silicon nitride (392); [0062]) coating the side faces of the first layer (134A) and of the second conduction electrode (380) and a seventh encapsulation layer (silicon oxide (400); [0063]) coating the six layer (392) and having a lower density than that of the six layer (392).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arna ‘176 and Reda ‘283 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cappelletti (US 2020/0381618, here in after as Capp ‘618).
Regarding Claim 8, Arna ‘176 teaches the second layer being in silicon carbonitride (see para. [0018]).
Arna ‘176 and Reda ‘283 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “a eighth layer interposed between the first and second layers and having a density higher than that of the second layer”.
Capp ‘618 teaches a eighth layer (Fig. 2A, (210); [0070]) interposed between the first (206; [0067]) and second layers (204; [0066])
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Arna ‘176 and Reda ‘283 by having a eighth layer interposed between the first and second layers for the purpose of improving the phase-change memory cells in order to reliably achieve a number of memory states higher than two (see para. [0004]) as suggested by Capp ‘618.
Arna ‘176, Reda ‘283 and Capp ‘618 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the eighth layer having a density higher than that of the second layer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select the eighth layer having a density higher than that of the second layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the eighth layer having a density higher than that of the second layer when this improves the performance of the memory device.
Regarding Claim 9, Arna ‘176, Reda ‘283 and Capp ‘618 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the eighth layer is in silicon carbide, in silicon nitride or in silicon carbonitride and has a density higher than that of the second layer”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select silicon carbide, in silicon nitride or in silicon carbonitride material for the eighth layer and a density of the ninth layer higher than that of the second layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select the eighth layer is in silicon carbide, in silicon nitride or in silicon carbonitride and has a density higher than that of the second layer when this improves the performance of the memory device.
Regarding Claim 10, Capp ‘618 teaches the ninth layer (210; [0071]) is refractory metal nitride.
Arna ‘176, Reda ‘283 and Capp ‘618 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the features: “the eighth layer is in germanium nitride, in carbon nitride or in carbon”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select germanium nitride, in carbon nitride or in carbon material for the eighth layer on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select germanium nitride, in carbon nitride or in carbon material for the eighth layer when this improves the performance of the memory device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 11 is allowed.
Regarding claim 11, Arna ‘176 teaches a phase change memory cell comprising: a first layer in a phase change material (Fig. 3M, (134A); [0060]); a heating element (Fig. 3M, (132); [0027]) located under the first layer; a second insulating layer (Fig. 3M, (330); [0051]) coating a side of the heating element, but is silent with respect to the above method in combination with specifying that the following successive steps: a) depositing, on a substrate, at least one first thermally insulating layer; b) forming, in a trench extending through said at least one first layer, a heating element having a side coated with said at least one first layer; and c) forming a first stack comprising a second encapsulation layer coating the side faces of said at least one first layer and a third encapsulation layer coating the second layer. These features in combination with the other features of the claim are not taught or made obvious by the prior art made of record and considered pertinent to the applicants’ disclosure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 6-11, filed on March 03rd, 2026, have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Interviews After Final
Applicants note that an interview after a final rejection is permitted in order to place the application in condition for allowance or to resolve issues prior to appeal. However, prior to the interview, the intended purpose and content of the interview should be presented briefly, preferably in writing. Upon review of the agenda, the Examiner may grant the interview if the examiner is convinced that disposal or clarification for appeal may be accomplished with only nominal further consideration. Interviews merely to restate arguments of record or to discuss new limitations will be denied. See MPEP § 714.13
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Dzung Tran whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Supervisor Sue Purvis can be reached on 571-272-1236. 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.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights