Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/659,436

PHASE CHANGE MEMORY ELEMENT PARTICULARLY SUITABLE FOR EMBEDDED AND AUTOMOTIVE APPLICATIONS

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
May 09, 2024
Priority
May 17, 2023 — IT 102023000009990
Examiner
YAP, DOUGLAS ANTHONY
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
STMicroelectronics N.V.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allowance Rate
54 granted / 67 resolved
+20.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
107
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
56.0%
+16.0% vs TC avg
§102
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
§112
18.2%
-21.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 67 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "12" and "17" in Fig. 4 have both been used to designate a memory region and a storage region, respectively. However, both reference characters are pointing to the same structure in Fig. 4. Hence, there are no structural differentiation that would distinguish between “a memory region” and “a storage region,” as required by claim 1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Claim 1 requires distinct “a memory region” and “a storage region.” However, as noted above, the figures do not show a distinction between these two regions. Therefore, the “a storage region” that is distinct from “a memory region,” and vice versa, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner will cite art wherein the storage region is a sub-region within the memory region. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1, 3 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Wu (US 2021/0249592 A1). Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches a phase change memory element (Fig. 4), comprising: a memory region (130); a first electrode (140); and a second electrode (144), wherein: the memory region is arranged between the first and the second electrodes; the memory region comprises a germanium-antimony-tellurium (GST) alloy (GST-612; see ¶ [0047] ) with an average percentage of germanium higher than or equal to 50% (¶ [0047]: 30 atomic percent (at) to about 80 atomic percent % Ge ), and the memory region comprises a storage portion (130C; alternatively, 130A&130B; see also Drawings Objection above) including nitrogen in an electrically relevant amount (¶ [0048]: less than 10% of N1).. Regarding claim 3, the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein a percentage of nitrogen is comprised between 8% and 21% (¶ [0047], [0048]: 1 at % to 10 at% N ). Regarding claim 7, the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein the average percentage of germanium is comprised between 61% and 67% (¶ [0047]: from about 30 at % to 80 at % Ge). Regarding claim 8, the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein the average percentage of germanium is comprised between 62% and 66% (¶ [0047]: from about 30 at % to 80 at % Ge ). Regarding claim 9, the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein the average percentage of germanium is comprised between 63% and 65% (¶ [0047]: from about 30 at % to 80 at % Ge). Regarding claim 10, the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein the average percentage of germanium is equal to 64% (¶ [0047]: from about 30 at % to 80 at % Ge). Regarding claim 11, the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein a percentage of antimony is comprised between 8% and 6% (¶ [0047]: using the given ranges, the alloy may be 60% Ge, 28% Te, and 5% N, for a total of 93% Ge/Te/N; hence antimony is 7% in order to make the alloy 100%). Regarding claim 12, the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein a percentage of antimony is equal to 7% (¶ [0047]: using the given ranges, the alloy may be 60% Ge, 28% Te, and 5% N, for a total of 93% Ge/Te/N; hence antimony is 7% in order to make the alloy 100%). Regarding claim 13, the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein a percentage of tellurium is comprised between 17% and 12% (¶ [0047] 15% to 35% Te). Regarding claim 14, the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein a percentage of tellurium is comprised between 16% and 14% (¶ [0047] 15% to 35% Te). Regarding claim 15, the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein a percentage of tellurium is equal to 15% (¶ [0047] 15% to 35% Te). Regarding claim 16, the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein the memory region further comprises an interface layer (130A or 130B; see Figs. 4B-4C) formed by a GST alloy having a germanium content (¶ [0053]: 130A has 35 at% to 45%; 130B has 45 at % to 55 at % ) that is lower than the average percentage of germanium in the storage portion (130C has 50 at% to 70 at%; see ¶ [0053], [0055] ). Regarding claim 17, the phase change memory element according to claim 16, wherein the GST alloy of the interface layer (130A) contains a percentage of tellurium higher than 45% (¶ [0053]: using the given ranges, 130A may contain 35% Ge, 15% Sb, and 1% dopant, for a total of 51% Ge/Sb/dopant content; that makes the Te to be 49% in order to make the alloy whole at 100%) and a percentage of germanium lower than 40% (¶ [0053]: 130A contains “from about 35 at % to about 45 at % Ge” ). Regarding claim 18, the phase change memory element according to claim 16, wherein the GST alloy of the interface layer (130A) comprises a percentage of germanium comprised between 21% and 28% (¶ [0053]: using the given ranges, 130A may contain 45% Te, 25% Sb, and 5% dopant, for a total of 75% Te/Sb/dopant content; that makes the Ge to be 25% in order to make the alloy whole to 100%), a percentage of antimony comprised between 21% and 27% (¶ [0053]: 130A contains “from about 25 at % to about 15 at % Sb”) and a percentage of tellurium comprised between 45% and 55% (¶ [0053]: 130A contains “from about 35 at % to about 45 at % Te”). Regarding claim 19, the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein the first electrode has a wall or pore shape (¶ [0040]: 140 disposed in a via or through-hole H1 ) and has a first contact area (top surface of 140 contacts bottom surface of 130) with the memory region and the second electrode has a second contact area (bottom surface of 144) with the memory region, the first contact area having a smaller dimension (140 has shorter width than 144; see Figs 4A-4D) than the second contact area. Regarding claim 20, the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein the memory region comprises an interface layer (130C; see Figs. 4B-4C and alternative claim 1 rejection above), wherein the interface layer is in direct contact with the first electrode and the storage portion (130C is in between 140 and 130A&130B), and wherein the storage portion is in direct contact with the second electrode (130A&130B is in contact with 144). 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US 2021/0249592 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zheng (WO 2013/152088 A1). Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches the phase change memory element according to claim 1, wherein the storage portion is formed by an alloy (¶ [0053]: 130C is formed of the same GST) including: a percentage of germanium comprised between 60% and 68% (¶ [0053]: from about 50 at % to 70 at % Ge ); and a percentage of nitrogen comprised between 5% and 25% (¶ [0053]: 1 at % to 10 at% N ). Wu further teaches a percentage of antimony comprised between 11% and 21% (¶ [0053]: 11 at % to 21 at % Sb); and a percentage of tellurium comprised between 19% and 29% (¶ [0053] 19% to 29% Te). However, Wu does not teach the percentage of antimony comprised between 9% and 5% and the percentage of tellurium comprised between 18% and 10%. Zheng, in the same field of invention, teaches a phase change memory element wherein percentage of antimony comprised between 9% and 5% (¶ [0059]: y is about 0-0.7, which is 0-70 at% Sb ) and the percentage of tellurium comprised between 18% and 10% (¶ [0059]: z is about 0.2-0.9, which is 20%-90 at% Te). A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Zheng into the device of Wu to set the percentage of antimony between 9% to 5% and the percentage of tellurium between 18% and 10%. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wu in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimizing the ranges of the doping content (¶ [0059]: N is between 0 at% to 20 at% ), for the further purpose of getting desired characteristics of the resulting GST film (Zheng ¶ [0050] ). Furthermore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985). (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.") Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches the phase change memory element according to claim 1, but does not teach: wherein a percentage of nitrogen is comprised between 11% and 18%. Zheng, in the same field of invention, teaches a phase change memory element, wherein a percentage of nitrogen is comprised between 11% and 18% ( ¶ [0050]: GST material can be doped with nitrogen at 2 to 20 at. %). A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Zheng into the device of Wu to set the percentage of nitrogen between 11% and 18%. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wu in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimizing the ranges of the amount of doping material in the GST alloy based on the desired characteristics of the resulting GST film (Zheng ¶ [0050] ). Regarding claim 5, Wu teaches the phase change memory element according to claim 1, but does not teach: wherein a percentage of nitrogen is comprised between 13% and 15. Zheng, in the same field of invention, teaches a phase change memory element, wherein a percentage of nitrogen is comprised between 13% and 15% ( ¶ [0050]: GST material can be doped with nitrogen at 2 to 20 at. %). A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Zheng into the device of Wu to set the percentage of nitrogen between 13% and 15%. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wu in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimizing the ranges of the amount of doping material in the GST alloy based on the desired characteristics of the resulting GST film (Zheng ¶ [0050] ). Regarding claim 6, Wu teaches the phase change memory element according claim 1, but does not teach: wherein a percentage of nitrogen is equal to 14% Zheng, in the same field of invention, teaches a phase change memory element, wherein a percentage of nitrogen is equal to 14% ( ¶ [0050]: GST material can be doped with nitrogen from at 2 to 20 at. %). A person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective date of the claimed invention, will find it obvious to combine the teachings of Zheng into the device of Wu to set the percentage of nitrogen is 14%. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Wu in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of optimizing the ranges of the amount of doping material in the GST alloy based on the desired characteristics of the resulting GST film (Zheng ¶ [0050] ). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (US 2024/0074337 A1) also teaches aspects of the claimed invention. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS YAP whose telephone number is (703)756-1946. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET. 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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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. /DOUGLAS YAP/Assistant Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899 1 the definition of “electrically relevant” is the alloy is composed of between 5% to 25% of nitrogen, see ¶ [0054] of the PG-PUB of the instant application (US 2024/0389484 A1).
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 09, 2024
Application Filed
Aug 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12740202
METHOD OF MANUFACTURING LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12740232
DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12721194
Integrated Circuit Packages and Methods of Forming the Same
3y 7m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12713919
SEMICONDUCTOR PACKAGE STRUCTURE
3y 8m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12713927
Reinforcement Structure and Electronic Device
3y 3m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+12.1%)
3y 2m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 67 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month