DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Applicant Election filed on 03/12/2026.
Currently, claims 1-9 are pending in the application.
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 with traverse of Group I (Claims 1-9), and Species III (Figs. 5B-5D) in the reply filed on 03/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the identified species are not mutually exclusive and that search and examination of all of the identified species can be made without undue burden. This argument is found persuasive and the election requirement between species I-IV as set forth in the Office action mailed on 01/12/2026 is hereby withdrawn. Claims 1-9 are examined in this Office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over ZHANG et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0077389) in view of GE et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0343303).
Regarding independent claim 1, Zhang teaches a resistive random-access memory (RRAM) device (Fig. 5D), comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 5D, 420, ¶¶ [0053] & [0058]);
a second electrode (Fig. 5D, 540, ¶¶ [0064] & [0072]) comprising a conductive material (¶¶ [0064] & [0079] teaches that Zhang’s second electrode can include metallic materials); and
a switching oxide layer (Fig. 5D, 430, ¶ [0060]) fabricated between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 5D), wherein the switching oxide layer comprises a base oxide (¶ [0060] teaches that 430 can include tantalum oxide Ta2O5) and a dopant oxide that is more chemically stable than the base oxide, wherein the first electrode comprises a non-reactive material (¶ [0053] teaches that Zhang’s first electrode can be made of a non-reactive material such as platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), iridium (Jr),or titanium nitride (TiN)) that is not reactive to the base oxide or the dopant oxide.
However, Zhang does not explicitly teach that the switching oxide layer comprises a base oxide and a dopant oxide that is more chemically stable than the base oxide, the first electrode comprises a non-reactive that is not reactive to the base oxide or the dopant oxide.
However, Ge is a pertinent art that teaches that the switching oxide layer (Fig. 5A, 503, ¶ [0055]) comprises a base oxide (¶ [0055] teaches that switching layer 503 can include tantalum oxide Ta2O5) and a dopant oxide (¶ [0055] teaches that switching layer 503 can be doped with SiO2 or Al2O3, which are more chemically stable than Ta2O5) that is more chemically stable than the base oxide, the first electrode comprises a non-reactive material that is not reactive to the base oxide or the dopant oxide (Zhang’s first electrode can be made of a non-reactive material such as platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), iridium (Jr),or titanium nitride (TiN) which would not be reactive with SiO2 or Al2O3. Therefore, Zhang modified by Ge would fulfill this limitation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang’s switching layer to include a doped oxide according to the teaching of Ge (Fig. 5A) in order to reduce RRAM relaxation (Ge ¶¶ [0030] & [0051]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang modified by Ge teaches the RRAM device of claim 1, and Zhang teaches that the base oxide (¶ [0060] teaches that 430 can include tantalum oxide Ta2O5) comprises at least one of HfOx or TaOy, wherein x<2.0, and wherein y<2.5 (¶ [0060] teaches that 430 can be TaOx or HfOx where x≤2.0 for HfOx (where HfO2 being the full oxide), and x≤2.5 for TaOx (where Ta2O5 being the full oxide).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang modified by Ge teaches the RRAM device of claim 1, and Zhang modified by Ge teaches that the base oxide comprises Ta2O5 (Zhang ¶ [0060] teaches that 430 can include tantalum oxide Ta2O5), wherein the dopant oxide () comprises at least one of Al2O3, SiO2, ZrO2, Sc2O3, or Y2O3 (Ge ¶ [0055] teaches that switching layer 503 can be doped with SiO2 or Al2O3, which are more chemically stable than Ta2O5).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang modified by Ge teaches the RRAM device of claim 3, and Zhang teaches that the non-reactive material (¶ [0053] teaches that Zhang’s first electrode can be made of a non-reactive material such as platinum (Pt), palladium (Pd), iridium (Jr),or titanium nitride (TiN)) in the first electrode (Fig. 5D, 420, ¶¶ [0053] & [0058]) comprises at least one of titanium nitride, tantalum nitride, platinum, palladium, iridium, or ruthenium.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang modified by Ge teaches the RRAM device of claim 4, and Zhang teaches that the second electrode (Fig. 5D, 540, ¶¶ [0064] & [0072]) further comprises a layer of titanium and a layer of tantalum (Fig. 7, ¶¶ [0064] & [0079]-[0080] teaches that Zhang’s second electrode can include a layer of titanium and a layer of tantalum).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang modified by Ge teaches the RRAM device of claim 1, and Zhang teaches an interface layer (Fig. 5D, 532, ¶ [0069]) positioned between the switching oxide layer (Fig. 5D, 430, ¶ [0060]) and the second electrode (Fig. 5D, 540, ¶¶ [0064] & [0072]).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang modified by Ge teaches the RRAM device of claim 6, and Zhang teaches that the interface layer (Fig. 5D, 532, ¶ [0069]) positioned between the switching oxide layer (Fig. 5D, 430, ¶ [0060]) and the second electrode (Fig. 5D, 540, ¶¶ [0064] & [0072]) comprises a discontinuous film (Fig. 5D, ¶ [0069]) of a dielectric material (¶ [0069] teaches that 532 can be Al2O3, MgO, Y2O3, or La2O3, which are dielectric materials), wherein at least a portion of the second electrode is deposited on the switching oxide layer (Fig. 5D).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang modified by Ge teaches the RRAM device of claim 1, and Zhang teaches a first interface layer (Fig. 5D, 422, ¶ [0059]) positioned between the first electrode (Fig. 5D, 420, ¶¶ [0053] & [0058]) and the switching oxide layer (Fig. 5D, 430, ¶ [0060]).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang modified by Ge teaches that the RRAM device of claim 8, and Zhang teaches a second interface layer (Fig. 5D, 532, ¶ [0069]) positioned between the second electrode (Fig. 5D, 540, ¶¶ [0064] & [0072]) and the switching oxide layer (Fig. 5D, 430, ¶ [0060]).
Cited Prior Art
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2017/0346006 by Nabatame et al discloses a semiconductor device.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pub No. 2022/0320430 by Zhang et al discloses a semiconductor device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RHYS P. SHEKER whose telephone number is (703)756-1348. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am to 5 pm.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached on 571-270-0373. 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.
/R.P.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 2813
/STEVEN B GAUTHIER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights