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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Applicant’s election, without traverse, of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on May 20th, 2026, is acknowledged. Non-elected invention, claims 10-20 have been withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Action on merits of Group I, claims 1-9 as follows.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 10th, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 04/10/2024 are acceptable.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (f)/sixth paragraph
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “the switching pattern is configured so that a concentration gradient of a bonded element including the combination and the group VI chalcogen element remains unchanged before and after applying an operating voltage to the switching pattern…” as recited in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fratin (US 2022/0384720, hereinafter as Frat ‘720) in view of Erbetta (US 2014/0034892, hereinafter as Erba ‘892).
Regarding Claim 1, Frat ‘720 teaches a memory device comprising:
a first conductive line (Fig. 3, (215); [0039]) extending in a first horizontal direction;
a second conductive line (Fig. 3, (210); [0039]) extending in a second horizontal direction; and
a memory cell (310; [0048]) extending in a vertical direction between the first conductive line (215) and the second conductive line (210), wherein the memory cell comprises a lower electrode layer (325b; [0048]), a switching pattern (320b; [0048]), and an upper electrode layer (330b; [0048]), wherein the lower electrode layer, the switching pattern, and the upper electrode layer are sequentially stacked on the first conductive line, wherein the switching pattern comprises a chalcogenide layer including: a group VI chalcogen element of a periodic table (Se, Te; [0049]), and a combination of a group IV element (Si, Ge; [0049]) and a group V element (As, Sb; [0049]) of the periodic table, wherein the combination is chemically bonded to the group VI chalcogen element.
Thus, Frat ‘720 is shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “the switching pattern has a three-level concentration gradient of the group IV element or the group V element in the vertical direction”.
However, Erba ‘892 teaches the switching pattern (Fig. 2A, (230); [0038]) has a three-level concentration gradient of the group IV element or the group V element in the vertical direction (232/234/236; [0016] and [0037]-[0038]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Frat ‘720 by having the switching pattern has a three-level concentration gradient of the group IV element or the group V element in the vertical direction for the purpose of improving adhesion to an adjacent electrode or improving retention of memory, e.g., stored bits, among other benefits conferred by stoichiometric differences associated with the PCM (see para. [0011]) as suggested by Erba ‘892.
PNG
media_image1.png
340
363
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 (Frat ‘720)
PNG
media_image2.png
238
310
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2A (Erba ‘892)
Regarding Claim 2, Erba ‘892 teaches a first interface region (236; [0038]) formed on the lower electrode layer (see Fig. 1B, PCM (120; [0025]) forms on the lower electrode layer (118; [0025]), a core region (234; [0038]) formed on the first interface region, and a second interface region (232; [0038]) formed on the core region.
Regarding Claim 3, Frat ‘720 and Erba ‘892 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a concentration of the group V element in each of the first interface region and the second interface region is higher than a concentration of the group V element in the core region”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a concentration of the group V element in each of the first interface region and the second interface region is higher than a concentration of the group V element in the core region on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a concentration of the group V element in each of the first interface region and the second interface region is higher than a concentration of the group V element in the core region in order to improve the performance of the memory cell.
Regarding Claim 4, Frat ‘720 and Erba ‘892 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a concentration of the group IV element in each of the first interface region and the second interface region is lower than a concentration of the group IV element in the core region”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a concentration of the group IV element in each of the first interface region and the second interface region is lower than a concentration of the group IV element in the core region on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a concentration of the group IV element in each of the first interface region and the second interface region is lower than a concentration of the group IV element in the core region in order to improve the performance of the memory cell.
Regarding Claim 5, Frat ‘720 and Erba ‘892 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a concentration of the group VI chalcogen element in each of the first interface region and the second interface region is the same as a concentration of the group VI chalcogen element in the core region”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a concentration of the group VI chalcogen element in each of the first interface region and the second interface region is the same as a concentration of the group VI chalcogen element in the core region on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to a concentration of the group VI chalcogen element in each of the first interface region and the second interface region is the same as a concentration of the group VI chalcogen element in the core region in order to improve the performance of the memory cell.
Regarding Claim 6, Frat ‘720 teaches the group VI chalcogen element comprises at least one of tellurium (Te), selenium (Se), or sulfur (S), wherein the group V element comprises at least one of arsenic (As), antimony (Sb), or phosphorous (P), and wherein the group IV element comprises at least one of silicon (Si) or germanium (Ge) (see para. [0049]).
Regarding Claim 7, Frat ‘720 teaches a group III doping element of the periodic table (In; [0049]).
Regarding Claim 8, Frat ‘720 teaches the group III doping element comprises at least one of indium (In) (see para. [0049]).
Regarding Claim 9, Frat ‘720 and Erba ‘892 are shown to teach all the features of the claim with the exception of explicitly the limitations: “a concentration gradient of a bonded element including the combination and the group VI chalcogen element remains unchanged before and after applying an operating voltage to the switching pattern”.
However, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a concentration gradient of a bonded element including the combination and the group VI chalcogen element remains unchanged before and after applying an operating voltage to the switching pattern on the basis of it suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. A person of ordinary skills in the art is motivated to select a concentration gradient of a bonded element including the combination and the group VI chalcogen element remains unchanged before and after applying an operating voltage to the switching pattern in order to improve the performance of the memory cell.
Examiner’s Note
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicants' definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP 2111, 2123, 2125, 2141.02 VI, and 2182.
Examiner has cited particular paragraph numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to semiconductor devices:
Redaelli et al. (US 2020/0118621 A1)
Redaelli et al. (US 2018/0286921 A1)
Kim et al. (US 2017/0186813 A1)
Lee et al. (US 2017/0186812 A1)
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DZUNG T TRAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3911. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DZUNG TRAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights