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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, per page 3, filed August 13, 2026, with respect to the title have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of April 30, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Kang discloses a monolithic bottom electrode 265 as described below.
Status of the Claims
Claims 7 and 18 are cancelled. Claims 1 and 12 are amended. Claims 1-6, 8-17, and 19-22 are present for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 11-12, 16, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang (US 2008/0315174). Claim 1, Kang discloses (Fig. 3) a resistive random access memory (RRAM) structure comprising: an RRAM (Fig. 3), wherein the RRAM comprises a bottom electrode (265, lower electrode, Para [0055]), a variable resistive layer (280, variable resistivity material layer, Para [0055]) and a top electrode (290, upper electrode, Para [0055]) stacked from bottom to top (265/280/290 are stacked from bottom to top), wherein the bottom electrode (265) is monolithic (265 is a single layer) and is composed of titanium oxide (TiOx) (265 can be TiOx, Para [0074]), and x has an increased gradient variation which is increased toward the top electrode (top of 265 has larger oxide than bottom, Para [0074]). Claim 5, Kang discloses (Fig. 3) the RRAM structure of claim 1, wherein a composition of the bottom electrode (265) along a direction toward the top electrode is nonhomogeneous (265 has more oxide in vertical direction toward top of 290, Para [0074]). Claim 11, Kang discloses (Fig. 3) the RRAM structure of claim 1, wherein 0<x≤2 (top of 265 can be titanium oxide which is TiO2, Para [0074]). Claim 12, Kang discloses (Fig. 3) a fabricating method of a resistive random access memory (RRAM) structure, comprising: forming an RRAM (Fig. 3),
wherein the RRAM comprises a bottom electrode (265, lower electrode, Para [0055]), a variable resistive layer (280, variable resistivity material layer, Para [0055]) and a top electrode (290, upper electrode, Para [0055]) stacked from bottom to top (265/280/290 are stacked from bottom to top), wherein the bottom electrode (265) is monolithic (265 is a single layer) and is composed of titanium oxide (TiOx) (265 can be TiOx, Para [0074]), and x has an increased gradient variation which is increased toward the top electrode (top of 265 has larger oxide than bottom, Para [0074]). Claim 16, Kang discloses (Fig. 3) the fabricating method of the RRAM structure of claim 12, wherein a composition of the bottom electrode (265) along a direction toward the top electrode is nonhomogeneous (265 has more oxide in vertical direction toward top of 290, Para [0074]).
Claim 22, Kang discloses (Fig. 3) the fabricating method of the RRAM structure of claim 12, wherein 0<x≤2 (top of 265 can be titanium oxide which is TiO2, Para [0074]).
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang (US 2008/0315174) as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Fujii (US 2009/0224224).
Claim 10, Kang discloses the RRAM structure of claim 1. Kang does not explicitly disclose wherein the variable resistive layer comprises tantalum oxide or hafnium oxide. However, Fujii discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a variable resistive layer 104 may comprise tantalum oxide (Para [0131]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Fujii, including the specific material of the
variable resistive layer to the teachings of Kang.
The motivation to do so is that the combination yields the predictable results of allowing for the
selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use as a variable resistive layer as tantalum oxide has high affinity to the semiconductor process and can easily be incorporated into the process (Fujii, Para [0204]). Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 21, Kang discloses the fabricating method of the RRAM structure of claim 12. Kang does not explicitly disclose wherein the variable resistive layer comprises tantalum oxide or hafnium oxide. However, Fujii discloses (Fig. 1) wherein a variable resistive layer 104 may comprise tantalum oxide (Para [0131]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Fujii, including the specific material of the
variable resistive layer to the teachings of Kang
The motivation to do so is that the combination yields the predictable results of allowing for the
selection of a known material based on its suitability for the intended use as a variable resistive layer as tantalum oxide has high affinity to the semiconductor process and can easily be incorporated into the process (Fujii, Para [0204]). Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-9, 13-15, and 17-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art of record, Kobayashi (US 2012/0217464), Fujii (US 2009/0224224), Kang (US 2008/0315174), fail to disclose (by themselves or in combination) the following limitations in combination with the rest of the claim:
Regarding Claim 2, wherein the increased gradient variation is increased in a unit that is not an integer.
Regarding Claim 3, wherein the increased gradient variation is increased in a continuous manner.
Regarding Claim 4, wherein the increased gradient variation is increased linearly or curvedly.
Regarding Claim 6 (from which claims 8-9 depend), a titanium plug embedded in the dielectric layer, wherein the titanium plug contacts the bottom electrode.
Regarding Claim 13, wherein the increased gradient variation is increased in a unit that is not an integer.
Regarding Claim 14, wherein the increased gradient variation is increased in a continuous manner.
Regarding Claim 15, wherein the increased gradient variation is increased linearly or curvedly.
Regarding Claim 17 (from which claims 19-20 depend), a titanium plug embedded in the dielectric layer, wherein the titanium plug contacts the bottom electrode.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GUSTAVO G RAMALLO whose telephone number is (571)272-9227. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 6pm.
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 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.
/G.G.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights