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 group I in the reply filed on 05/26/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Majhi et al., US 2019/0036020.
Majhi et al. shows the invention as claimed including a resistive random access memory device, comprising:
A first electrode 231;
A second electrode 201 comprising a conductive material; and
A switching oxide layer 211 fabricated between the first electrode and the second electrode, wherein the switching oxide layer comprises a transition metal oxide and deuterium.
Concerning dependent claim 6, note that the device further comprises an interface layer 211 positioned between the switching oxide layer 221 and the second electrode 201, wherein the interface layer can be deuterium based as a result of the deuterium treatment (see figs. 2-3H and their descriptions).
With respect to dependent claim 8, note that the second electrode is fabricated on the deuterium-treated interface layer 211 (see fig. 2).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majhi et al., US 2019/0036020.
Majhi et al. is applied as above but does not expressly disclose wherein the switching oxide layer comprises a base oxide and a dopant oxide that is more chemically stable than the base oxide, wherein the first electrode comprises a non-reactive material that is not reactive to the base oxide or the dopant oxide. However, Majhi et al. discloses where the oxide layer 211 can include at least one of HfOx, SiOx, Al2Ox, TiOx, TaOx, GdOx, ErOx, NbOx, WOx, ZnOx, InSnO, and InGaZnOx, where the list of materials includes, for example, the dopant oxide of Al2O3, and SiO2, and the base oxide of HfOx (see paragraph 0017). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to select one of the claimed base oxide and dopant oxides because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Regarding dependent claim 3, note that, as stated above, Majhi discloses both one of the materials from the dopant and base oxides (see paragraph 0017).
Concerning dependent claim 4, note that Majhi discloses wherein the first electrode can comprise ruthenium, for example (see paragraph 0059).
With respect to dependent claim 5, note that Majhi discloses that the second electrode can comprise titanium and tantalum (see paragraph 0059).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Majhi et al., US 2019/0036020 in view of Zhang et al., US 2022/0006008.
Majhi et al. is applied as above and additionally discloses wherein at least a portion of the second electrode is deposited on the switching oxide layer but does not expressly disclose wherein the interface layer positioned between the switching oxide layer and the second electrode comprises a discontinuous film of a dielectric material. Zhang et al. discloses where an interface layer is formed between electrodes and comprises a discontinuous film 2053 of a dielectric material (see, for example, fig. 2 and paragraphs 0035-0047). In view of this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the primary reference of Majhi et al. so as to comprise the discontinuous film to be used as a geometric confining film because in such a way the operating current can be lowered and the contact resistance can be increased.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Smythe et al., US 2011/0182103 discloses a RRAM including a deuterium treatment (see fig. 8 and paragraphs 0024, 0034, and 0052).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD A BOOTH whose telephone number is (571)272-1668. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 to 5:00.
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, Christine Kim can be reached at 571-272-8458. 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.
/RICHARD A BOOTH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
June 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights