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 with traverse of Species 2 in the reply filed on 7/16/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are not properly delineated. This is not found persuasive because an exhaustive search has been conducted on the elected claims and a myriad of issues has arisen to address the additional species constitutes a burden upon the office. However, Applicant is reminded that should future prosecution identify allowable subject matter and have it properly incorporated- rejoinder is possible.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11018295. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are broader and therefore rendered obvious by the claims of 11018295.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11018295. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the current claims are broader and therefore rendered obvious by the claims of 11653580.
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 and18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Molas et al (US 2015/0364679).
1. A non-volatile memory structure, comprising:
a bottom region of a switching layer (Fig.4 (12-1) and [0081]);
one or more lateral regions of the switching layer (Fig.12-c) and [0081]) above the bottom region of the switching layer (Fig.4 (12-1) and [0081]), the one or more lateral regions of the switching layer (Fig.12-c/12-2) and [0081]) including a doping material (Fig.4 (12-c) and [0081]);
a top region of a switching layer (Fig.4 (12-2) and [00181]) above the one or more lateral regions of the switching layer (Fig.12-c) and [0081]); and
a filament (Fig.1 (6) and [0015-0018/0024]) in the switching layer between the top region of the switching layer and the bottom region of the switching layer [0024].
5. The non-volatile memory structure of claim 1, further comprising: a bottom electrode (Fig.4 (11) and [0059]) comprised of tungsten [0063] below the bottom region of the switching layer (Fig.4 (12-1) and [0081]); and
a top electrode (Fig.4 (17) and [0061]) above the top region of the switching layer (Fig.4 (12-2) and [00181]).
6. The non-volatile memory structure of claim 1, wherein the doping material comprises aluminum [0034].
7. The non-volatile memory structure of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more lateral regions comprises a layer of the doping material (Fig.4 (12-c) and [0081]).
8. The non-volatile memory structure of claim 1, wherein a concentration of the doping material in the one or more lateral regions increases near a center of each of the one or more lateral regions (Fig.1 (6) and [0015-0018/0024]).
9. The non-volatile memory structure of claim 1, wherein the one or more lateral regions above the bottom region of the switching layer comprises: a first lateral region including the doping material above the bottom region; and a second lateral region including a second doping material that is different than the doping material above the first lateral region [0060].
10. The non-volatile memory structure of claim 1, wherein the one or more lateral regions are disposed upon the bottom region by an atomic layer deposition process [0080].
11. The non-volatile memory structure of claim 1, wherein disposing the one or more lateral regions comprises a sputtering process [0080].
18. The non-volatile memory structure of claim 1, wherein the one or more lateral regions comprise a planar sheet of the doping material (Fig.4 (12-c) and [0081]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang et al (US 20170244028) and Wang et al (US 20200006650) teach similar RRAM devices including filaments with doping regions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA M MENZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1697. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00-3:30.
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 Gauthier can be reached at 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.
/LAURA M MENZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
8/1/26
Prosecution Insights