DETAILED ACTION Election /Restrictions - NO TRAVERSE A restriction requirement was mailed on 12/11/25. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 2/11/26 is acknowledged. Claim 10 is withdrawn. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: P hase change RAM having nanofilament geometry Claim Interpretation The applicant is hereby notified that the examiner is treating claim 8 as a "product-by-process” claim. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” (See In re Thorpe , 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985), and also see MPEP 2113). The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. (See, e.g., In re Garnero , 412 F.2d 276, 279, 162 USPQ 221, 223 (CCPA 1979) and also see MPEP 2113). Claim 8 recites “ The phase change RAM of claim 1, wherein the phase change material region is formed by providing a material of the second layer to the first layer due to a voltage applied to the second layer ”, thus being directed to a device, but having a process limitation “is formed by providing… due to a voltage…”. The limitation results in the distinctive structural characteristic of the material of the second layer being at least contacting the material of the first layer in the phase change material region , because t he “provided to” process could result in a junction between of the two materials, mixing of the two materials, forming of a compound comprising the two materials , etc. Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. (See In re Marosi , 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). Also note the use of 102/103 rejections for product-by-process claims has been approved by the courts. (See In re Brown , 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685, 688 (CCPA 1972), and also see MPEP 2113). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, some of which 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) 1-3 , 5 , and 7- 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2022/0165946 A1 (“Navarro”) . Navarro teaches, for example: Navarro teaches: 1. A phase change RAM ( e.g. 3, see e.g. Fig. 3) comprising: an electrode (e.g. 21, see e.g. para 43) ; a first layer (e.g. 27, see e.g. para 59) located on the electrode; and a second layer (e.g. 25, see e.g. para 43) located on the first layer, wherein the first layer includes a locally formed phase change material region (e.g. 29, see e.g. para 61, 59) . 2. The phase change RAM of claim 1, further comprising a top electrode (e.g. 23, see para 43) located on the second layer. 3. The phase change RAM of claim 1, wherein the phase change material region comprises a combination of a material of the first layer and a material of the second layer (see e.g. para 59) . 5. The phase change RAM of claim 1, wherein a material of the first layer includes a Group 14 element (Ge, see e.g. para 59) and a material of the second layer includes a Group 15 or 16 element (e.g. Ge, Sb, or Te , see e.g. para 43, 45) . 7. The phase change RAM of claim 1, wherein the phase change material region has a nanoscale filament shape (see e.g. Fig. 3) . 8. The phase change RAM of claim 1, wherein the phase change material region is formed by providing a material of the second layer to the first layer due to a voltage applied to the second layer (see e.g. para 59) . 9. A phase change RAM (e.g. 3 , see e.g. Fig. 3) comprising: an electrode (e.g. 21, see e.g. para 43) ; a first layer (e.g. 27, see e.g. para 59) located on the electrode; and a second layer (e.g. 25, see e.g. para 43) located on the first layer, wherein the first layer includes a locally formed nanofilament (e.g. 29, see e.g. para 61, 59 , see e.g. Fig. 3 ) , and the nanofilament has phase change material characteristics (see e.g. para 59, 71-81) . 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 of this title, 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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro in view of US 2019/0088869 A1 (“Han”). Navarro teaches claim 1, as discussed above, and further teaches that a material of the second layer includes tellurium ( Te ) (see e.g. para 45), but does not explicitly teach wherein a material of the first layer includes silicon (Si) . Han teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Navarro wherein a material of the first layer includes silicon (Si) (see e.g. para 44) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Han to the invention of Navarro. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of substituting one known material (e.g. the Si of Han) for another known material (e.g. the Ge compound of Navarro) (see e.g. para 44), wherein it is known that each material may react to form a filament (see e.g. Fig. 4) in memory cells. It has been established that “the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” because the Office or “a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR Int’ Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). It is also well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the inferences one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably been expected to draw therefrom. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Applicant has not disclosed that the claimed material is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or is otherwise critical, which are criteria that have been held to be necessary for material limitations to be prima facie unobvious. The claimed material is considered to be a "preferred" or "optimum" material out of a plurality of well known materials that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have found obvious to provide to the invention of the cited prior art reference, using routine experimentation and optimization of the invention. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Navarro in view of US 2006/0118913 A1 (“Yi”). Navarro teaches claim 1, as discussed above, but does not explicitly teach wherein the second layer functions as a top electrode . Yi teaches and/or would have suggested as obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, in combination with Navarro , wherein the second layer functions as a top electrode (see e.g. para 36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the invention of Yi to the invention of Navarro , essentially not forming the upper electrode and instead using the upper phase change material as an electrode. The motivation to do so is that the combination produces the predictable results of avoiding problems with adhesion between electrode and phase change material that is known in the art, avoiding degrading of the device characteristics (see e.g. para 36). Conclusion Conclusion / Prior Art The prior art made of record, because it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but which is not relied upon specifically in the rejections above, is listed on the Notice of References Cited. Conclusion / Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Parendo who can be contacted by phone at (571) 270-5030 or by direct fax at (571) 270-6030. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9 am to 4 pm ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Billy Kraig, can be reached at (571) 272-8660. The fax 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. /Kevin Parendo/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896