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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-10 in the “Reply To Restriction Requirement” filed on January 23, 2026 (hereinafter the “Reply”) is acknowledged. The Reply cancelled claims 11-20 and added new claims 21-30. The Reply states that “[s]upport for new claims 21-30 can be found in the specification and drawings as originally filed”, but does not specifically indicate (e.g., paragraphs and/or drawings) where such support can be found.
The Reply also appears to indicate that new claims 21-30 are readable upon the elected invention of Group I, claims 1-10, as required by paragraph ten (10) of the Restriction Requirement dated November 26, 2025 (hereinafter the “Restriction Requirement”). Specifically, the Reply states: “For the purpose of examination of the present application, Applicant provisionally elects, without traverse, Group I, claims 1-10 and 21-30.” (emphasis original). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Newly submitted claims 21-30 are directed to inventions that are independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed and identified in paragraph two (2) of the Restriction Requirement (i.e., Group I, claims 1-10) for at least the following reasons.
The inventions of Group I, claims 1-10, drawn to a method, and new Groups IV (claims 21-27, drawn to a method) and V (claims 28-30, drawn to a method) are directed to related processes. The related inventions are distinct if: (i) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (ii) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (iii) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. Please see, MPEP § 806.05(j) and MPEP § 802.01.
In the instant case, the invention as claimed in Group I is a materially different process than the invention as claimed in Group IV and the invention as claimed in Group V for at least the following reasons. For example, the claimed invention of Group IV requires “forming a conductive layer over a substrate” which the claimed invention of Group I does not require. As another example, the claimed invention of Group V requires “sputtering a metal layer over a substrate” which the claimed invention of Group I does not require. Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for at least the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
(a) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification;
(b) the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter;
(c) the inventions require a different field of search (for example, searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or
(d) the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
In the present application, the inventions as claimed have nothing of current record to show them to be obvious variants. The claims to the different inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different class/subclass combinations) and/or employing different search strategies and search queries to find at least the different features listed above.
Because Applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, newly added claims 21-30 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected inventions. Please see, 37 § C.F.R. 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, Applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should Applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, Applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the Examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on September 25, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the Examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the Examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0054196 A1 (Wu) in view of US 2021/0090877 A1 (Chen).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses, A method (FIG. 3, [0021]), comprising:
forming a bottom electrode layer (bottom electrode layer (11); FIG. 2a; [0025]) over a substrate (substrate (10); FIG. 2a; [0025]);
PNG
media_image1.png
585
1063
media_image1.png
Greyscale
performing a first deposition sequence (FIG. 3; [0008] and [0021]) over the bottom electrode layer (11), wherein the first deposition sequence (FIG. 3; [0008] and [0021]) comprises:
pulsing a first precursor (first precursor (21); FIG. 3; [0030] and [0008]) over the bottom electrode layer (11) such that the first precursor comprises a first plurality of precursor molecules ([0030]) adsorbing on the bottom electrode layer (11);
PNG
media_image2.png
857
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
performing a first purge after pulsing the first precursor (first purge (22); FIG. 3; [0031]);
performing a first plasma treating step ([0032]) using a first treatment gas (first treatment gas (23); FIG. 3; [0032]), wherein the first treatment gas reacts with the first plurality of precursor molecules to form a first monolayer of a film (first monolayer of a film (14); FIG. 2b; [0034]—meal nitride monolayer of a film);
PNG
media_image3.png
397
731
media_image3.png
Greyscale
pulsing the first treatment gas (step (23); [0032] and [0008]); and
after pulsing the first treatment gas, performing a second plasma treating step using a second treatment gas (second treatment gas (23); FIG. 3; [0032], [0034] and/or [0035]—steps 21, 22, 23, 24 are repeated).
But, Applicant may argue that Wu does not appear to explicitly disclose,
the film has an Al-N bond1 with a first intensity; and
such that the film has an Al-N bond2 with a second intensity.
However, in analogous art, Chen discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a method (method (100); FIGs. 1 and 2; [0025]) includes performing a first deposition sequence (first deposition sequence (120); FIG. 1; [0026]) that includes pulsing a first precursor (first precursor (130); FIGs. 1 and 2; [0027] and [0028]) such that the first precursor comprises a first plurality of precursor molecules (first plurality of precursor molecules (210); FIG. 2; [0029]) and performing a first purge after pulsing the first precursor (first purge (135); FIG. 1; [0039]). Chen also discloses performing a first plasma treatment (first plasma treatment (150 and 160); FIG. 1; [0045] and [0050]) using a first treatment gas ([0045] and [0050]), wherein the first treatment gas reacts ([0045] and [0050]) with the first plurality of precursor molecules (210) to form a first monolayer of a film (first monolayer of a film (230); FIG. 2; [0050]—nitride monolayer), which can be an aluminum nitride (AlN) film ([0030]) with an Al-N bond. Chen additionally discloses after pulsing the first treatment gas ([0045] and [0050]), performing a second plasma treatment (second plasma treatment (150 and 160); FIG. 1; [0045] and [0050]); using a second treatment gas ([0045] and [0050]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Wu and Chen before him/her that the first monolayer of a film (14) of Wu which is a meal nitride monolayer of a film can be predicably formed to be an aluminum nitride (AlN) monolayer of a film with an Al-N bond, as taught by Chen, because an aluminum nitride (AlN) monolayer of a film is a metal nitride monolayer of a film—Please see, e.g., MPEP 2143(B)—Simple Substitution Of One Known Element For Another To Obtain Predicable Results.
It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Wu and Chen before him/her that the film (14) of Wu in view of Chen has an Al-N bond with a first intensity and an Al-N bond with a second intensity because the intensities of these Al-N bonds are inherent features or properties of such Al-N bonds. Please see, e.g., Paula Y. Bruice; Organic Chemistry, Chapter 13.10, The Intensity of Absorption Bands; 2010; Prentice Hall; 6th Edition; pages 13.10.1-13.10.9 (Year: 2010). Please also see, MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 2, Wu in view of Chen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 1, further comprising:
after performing the first deposition sequence (FIG. 3; [0008] and [0021], all of Wu) over the bottom electrode layer (11), performing a second deposition sequence (FIG. 3; [0008] and [0021], all of Wu) to form a second monolayer of the film (second monolayer of film (14); FIG 2b; [0034], all of Wu), wherein the second deposition sequence (FIG. 3; [0008] and [0021], all of Wu) is different from the first deposition sequence ([0035] of Wu—sequence of steps of second deposition sequence may be different).
Regarding claim 3, Wu in view of Chen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 2, wherein the first intensity of the Al-N bond is different from the second intensity of the Al-N bond because one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Wu and Chen before him/her would have recognized that there are a finite number of predicable solutions regarding the inherent first intensity of the Al-N bond with respect to the inherent second intensity of the Al-N bond—i.e., the first intensity of the Al-N bond can be either: (i) the same as the second intensity of the Al-N bond or (ii) different from the second intensity of the Al-N bond—and, absent unexpected results, it would have obvious to try each of these predicable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success one of which is wherein the first intensity of the Al-N bond is different from the second intensity of the Al-N bond, as recited in claim 3. Please see, MPEP 2143(E)—“Obvious To Try” – Choosing From A Finite Number Of Identified, Predicable Solutions, With A Reasonable Expectation Of Success.
Regarding claim 4, Wu in view of Chen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 2, wherein the first intensity of the Al-N bond is less than the second intensity of the Al-N bond because one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Wu and Chen before him/her would have recognized that there are a finite number of predicable solutions regarding the inherent first intensity of the Al-N bond with respect to the inherent second intensity of the Al-N bond—i.e., the first intensity of the Al-N bond can be: (i) the equal to the second intensity of the Al-N bond, (ii) greater than the second intensity of the Al-N bond, or (iii) less than the second intensity of the Al-N bond—and, absent unexpected results, it would have obvious to try each of these predicable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success one of which is wherein the first intensity of the Al-N bond is less than the second intensity of the Al-N bond, as recited in claim 4. Please see, MPEP 2143(E), above.
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Chen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 1, wherein the film (14) is AlN ([0030] of Chen).
Regarding claim 9, Wu in view of Chen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 1, wherein a composition of the first treatment gas (23) is different from a composition of the second treatment gas (23) ([0032] of Wu—NH3, N2H4, and N2 are different gases).
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Chen, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 2022/0140197 A1 (Yen).
Regarding claim 5, Wu in view of Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose, further comprising:
forming a top electrode layer over the second monolayer of the film, wherein the top electrode layer is TiN.
However, in analogous art, Yen discloses, that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an RRAM memory element (memory element (ME); FIGs. 5A and 5B; [0034]) may be predicably fabricated to include a bottom electrode (bottom electrode (E1); FIG. 5B; [0034]), a top electrode (top electrode (E2); FIG. 5B; [0034]), and a resistance variable layer (resistance variable layer (RV); FIG. 5B; [0034]) between and in contact with bottom electrode (E1) and top electrode (E2) (FIG. 5B).
PNG
media_image4.png
742
562
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Yen also that top electrode (E2) may be predicably fabricated of a conductive material such as TiN ([0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Wu, Chen, and Yen before him/her to form a top electrode layer over the second monolayer of the film (14) of Wu in view of Chen to form an RRAM memory element, as taught by Yen, and that the top electrode layer is TiN, as also taught by Yen.
Regarding claim 6, Wu in view of Chen and further in view of Yen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 5, wherein the top electrode layer (E2) is in contact with the second monolayer of the film (14).
Regarding claim 7, Wu in view of Chen and further in view of Yen discloses, The method (FIG. 3, [0021], both of Wu) of claim 2, wherein the bottom electrode (E1) layer is Pt ([0034] of Yen—“top electrode E2 may be made of a conductive material such as Pt” and [0035] of Yen—“In alternative embodiments, materials forming the bottom electrode E1 and the top electrode E2 are exchanged’).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Chen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2022/0069204 A1 (Ko).
Regarding claim 10, Applicant may argue that Wu in view of Chen does not appear to explicitly disclose, wherein the second treatment gas is a mixture of He and Ar.3
However, in analogous art, Ko discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a memory cell may be predicably fabricated to include a bottom electrode layer, a top electrode layer, and a data storage film between the top and bottom electrode layers ([0126]). Ko also discloses that it was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the method of predicably fabricating the memory cell thereof may include a plasma treating step which includes a treatment gas mixture of He and Ar ([0126]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention having the teachings of Wu, Chen, and Ko before him/her that the second treatment gas (23) of Wu in view of Chen is a mixture of He and Ar, as taught by Ko, to predicably fabricate a memory cell, via a plasma treating step, as also taught by Yen. See also, e.g., MPEP 2143(A)—Combining Prior Art Elements According To Known Methods To Yield Predicable Results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
US 2021/0351071 A1 (Liu)—Discloses a method (500; FIG. 5) including a deposition sequence for fabricating a metal nitride layer (414).
US 2004/0038525 A1 (Meng)—Discloses methods (100, 200, and 400; FIGs. 1, 2, and 4) that include deposition sequences for fabricating a memory cell (500; FIG. 5) that includes a metal nitride layer (514).
US 6,491,978 B1 (Kalyanam)—Discloses a method (FIG. 6) that includes a deposition sequence that includes depositing a bottom metal layer on a substrate (620), forming a metal nitride layer (640), plasma treatment (650), and forming a top metal layer on the metal nitride layer (660).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Erik A. Anderson whose telephone number is (703) 756-1217. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m. (Pacific Time Zone).
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, William B. Partridge, can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
/ERIK A. ANDERSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
1 However, Wu does disclose that the first monolayer of a film (14) is a metal nitride film ([0034]) and aluminum (Al) is a metal.
2 However, Wu does disclose that the first monolayer of a film (14) is a metal nitride film ([0034]) and aluminum (Al) is a metal.
3 The Examiner respectfully notes that Wu does, however, disclose the use of helium (He) and argon (Ar) as part of the method of FIG. 3. Please see, e.g., paragraph [0031] of Wu.