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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “wherein the first electrodes are stacked along a first direction, and
the second electrodes” in Line L3 but should read –wherein the first electrodes are stacked along a first direction, [[and]] the second electrodes --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation "an amount of the first electrode" in Lines L1-2, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “an amount of the first electrode” (Lines L1-2) refers to a new first electrode or the “the first electrode” previously cited in Claim 1 Line L2. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “an amount of the first electrode” has been interpretated as the first electrode is one of a plurality of first electrode.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation "an amount of the second electrode" in Line L2, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “an amount of the second electrode” (Line L2) refers to a new second electrode or the “the second electrode” previously cited in Claim 1 Line L3. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “an amount of the second electrode” has been interpretated as the second electrode is one of a plurality of second electrode.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation " an amount of the memory layer are a plural" in Lines L2-3, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “an amount of the memory layer are a plural” (Lines L2-3) refers to a new memory layer or the “the memory layer” previously cited in Claim 1 Line L4 In the purpose of compact prosecution, “an amount of the memory layer are a plural” has been interpretated as the memory layer is one of a plurality of memory layers.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation "the first electrodes" in Lines L3, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the first electrodes” (Lines L3) refers to new first electrodes or the “the first electrode” previously cited in Claim 1 Line L2. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the first electrodes” has been interpretated as the plurality of first electrodes.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation "the second electrodes" in Lines L3, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the second electrodes” (Lines L3) refers to new second electrodes or the “the second electrode” previously cited in Claim 1 Line L2. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the second electrodes” has been interpretated as the plurality of second electrodes.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation "the first electrodes" in Lines L1, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the first electrodes” (Lines L1) refers to new first electrodes or the “the first electrode” previously cited in Claim 1 Line L2. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the first electrodes” has been interpretated as the plurality of first electrodes.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation "the second electrodes" in Lines L2, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the second electrodes” (Lines L2) refers to new second electrodes or the “the second electrode” previously cited in Claim 1 Line L2. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the second electrodes” has been interpretated as the plurality of second electrodes.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation "the first electrodes" in Lines L3, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the first electrodes” (Lines L3) refers to new first electrodes or the “the first electrode” previously cited in Claim 1 Line L2. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the first electrodes” has been interpretated as the plurality of first electrodes.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation "the second electrodes" in Lines L4, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the second electrodes” (Lines L4) refers to new second electrodes or the “the second electrode” previously cited in Claim 1 Line L2. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the second electrodes” has been interpretated as the plurality of second electrodes.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation "the memory layers" in Lines L3, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the memory layers” (Lines L3) refers to new memory layers or the “the memory layer” previously cited in Claim 1 Line L4. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the memory layers” has been interpretated as the plurality of memory layers.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation " the first barrier layers " in Line L2, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the first barrier layers” (Line L2) refers to new first barrier layers or the “plurality of first barrier layers” previously cited in Claim 10 Lines L1-2. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the first barrier layers” has been interpretated as the plurality of first barrier layers.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation " the second barrier layers " in Lines L3-4, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the second barrier layers” (Lines L3-4) refers to new second barrier layers or the “plurality of second barrier layers” previously cited in Claim 10 Lines L2. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the second barrier layers” has been interpretated as the plurality of second barrier layers.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation " the first barrier layers " in Line L1, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the first barrier layers” (Line L1) refers to new first barrier layers or the “plurality of first barrier layers” previously cited in Claim 10 Lines L1-2. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the first barrier layers” has been interpretated as the plurality of first barrier layers.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation " the second barrier layers " in Lines L1-2, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the second barrier layers” (Lines L1-2) refers to new second barrier layers or the “plurality of second barrier layers” previously cited in Claim 10 Lines L2. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the second barrier layers” has been interpretated as the plurality of second barrier layers.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation "the first electrodes" in Line L1, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the first electrodes” (Line L1) refers to new first electrodes or the “the first electrode” previously cited in Claim 1 Line L2. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the first electrodes” has been interpretated as the plurality of first electrodes.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation "the second electrodes" in Line L2, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the second electrodes” (Line L2) refers to new second electrodes or the “the second electrode” previously cited in Claim 1 Line L2. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the second electrodes” has been interpretated as the plurality of second electrodes.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation "the memory layers" in Lines L3-4, renders the claim indefinite because the antecedent basis is unclear as to whether “the memory layers” (Lines L3-4) refers to new memory layers or the “the memory layer” previously cited in Claim 1 Line L4. In the purpose of compact prosecution, “the memory layers” has been interpretated as the plurality of memory layers.
The balance of claims are rejected for being dependent upon an already rejected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Clark et al. (US 20170104031 A1-Clark31) from IDS.
Regarding claim 1, Clark31 discloses a memory device ([0002] L 10-11), comprising:
a first electrode (First electrode 110-Fig 1A);
a second electrode (Second electrode 120-Fig 1A); and
a memory layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Memory layer 130 between First electrode 110 and second electrode 120-Fig 1A),
the memory layer comprising a composition (memory layer 130 having a composition-Abstract L 12-17),
the composition comprising X wt% Cu, Y wt% Ge and Z wt% Se (Abstract L 12-17), wherein
X ranges between 3.33 and 26.66,
Y ranges between 28.33 and 86.66, and
Z ranges between 10 and 45 (Ge47Se29Cu24 having a molar mass of 7229 g/mol with X wt% Cu = (24*63.55)/7229 = 21.10%, Y wt% Ge =(47*72.64)/7229 =47.23%, and Z wt% Se = (29*78.96)/7229= 31.68% so X ranging between 3.33 and 26.66, Y ranging between 28.33 and 86.66, and Z ranging between 10 and 45-Abstract L 10-11, Fig 10A-C).
Regarding claim 2, Clark31 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Clark31 further discloses a memory device
wherein an atomic percentage (at%) ratio of Cu, Se and Ge in the composition of the memory layer is shown as follows: Cu:Se:Ge=1:4:5 (various other combination of germanium, copper, and selenium, so included Cu:Se:Ge=1:4:5a-[0082] L 1-3, Fig 10A-C).
Regarding claim 3, Clark31 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Clark31 further discloses a memory device
wherein the composition of the memory layer comprises
GeSe ([0077] L 5-9, Fig 10A-C),
Ge (various other combination of germanium and selenium, so germanium and GeSe-[0077] L 5-9, Fig 10A-C) and
Cu2GeSe3 ([0087] L3, [0082] L 1-3, Fig 7, Fig 10A-C).
Regarding claim 4, Clark31 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Clark31 further discloses a memory device
wherein the composition of the memory layer comprises 10 wt% GeSe, 10 wt% Ge and 80 wt% Cu2GeSe3 (various other combination of germanium, copper, and selenium, so 10 wt% GeSe, 10 wt% Ge and 80 wt% Cu2GeSe3 -[0082] L 1-3, Fig 10A-C, Fig 7).
Regarding claim 5, Clark31 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Clark31 further discloses a memory device
wherein the composition of the memory layer comprises 80 wt% GeSe, 10 wt% Ge and 10 wt% Cu2GeSe3 (various other combination of germanium, copper, and selenium, so 80 wt% GeSe, 10 wt% Ge and 10 wt% Cu2GeSe3 -[0082] L 1-3, Fig 10A-C, Fig 7).
Regarding claim 6, Clark31 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Clark31 further discloses a memory device
wherein the composition of the memory layer comprises 10 wt% GeSe, 80 wt% Ge and 10 wt% Cu2GeSe3 (various other combination of germanium, copper, and selenium, so 10 wt% GeSe, 80 wt% Ge and 10 wt% Cu2GeSe3-[0082] L 1-3, Fig 10A-C, Fig 7).
Regarding claim 7, Clark31 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Clark31 further discloses a memory device
wherein the memory layer contacts the first electrode and the second electrode (Memory layer 130 contacting First electrode 110 and second electrode 120-Fig 1A).
Regarding claim 13, Clark31 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Clark31 further discloses a memory device
wherein the memory layer does not include a phase change memory material (resistive random-access memory-[0059] L 1-8).
Regarding claim 14, Clark31 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Clark31 further discloses a memory device
wherein the memory layer serves as a switching element and a memory element (Unipolar selectors associated with phase change memory used as a switching element so the memory layer serving as a switching element and a memory element -[0059] L 1-8).
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.
Claim(s) 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 20170104031 A1-Clark31) from IDS, in view of Lee et al. (US 20240074337 A1-Lee37).
Regarding claim 8, Clark31 discloses all the elements of claim 1, as noted above.
Clark31 does not disclose a memory device
wherein an amount of the first electrode,
an amount of the second electrode and
an amount of the memory layer are a plural, and
an extension direction of the first electrodes are different from an extension direction of the second electrodes, and
the memory layers are formed at intersections of the first electrodes and the second electrodes.
Lee37 teaches a memory device
wherein an amount of the first electrode,
an amount of the second electrode and
an amount of the memory layer are a plural (first electrode 140, second electrode 142, and memory layer 130 being part of memory cell 100, memory device having more than one memory cell 100-Fig 3, Fig 4A) , and
an extension direction of the first electrodes are different from an extension direction of the second electrodes (Width of first electrode 144 versus height of second electrode 140 so an extension direction of the first electrodes on the horizontal direction, are different from an extension direction of the second electrodes on the vertical direction-Fig 4A), and
the memory layers are formed at intersections of the first electrodes and the second electrodes (memory layers 130 formed between First electrode 144 and second electrode 140 so formed at the intersection of first and second electrodes-Fig 4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the memory device of Clark31, as taught by Lee37 for the purpose of providing electrical connection while preventing the diffusion metal species into the phase change layer (Lee37: [0041]).
Regarding claim 9, Clark31 and Lee37 combination discloses all the elements of claim 8, as noted above.
Lee37 further teaches a memory device
wherein the first electrodes respectively serve as a word line, and the second electrodes respectively serve as a bit line (first electrode 144 and second electrode 140 of memory cell 100 are part of PCRAM structure 10 with FET 700, FET gate connected to word line so connected to second electrode, and first electrode connected to bit line-Fig 1, Fig 2, [0018], [0021], [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the memory device of Clark31, as taught by Lee37 for the purpose of providing electrical connection while preventing the diffusion metal species into the phase change layer (Lee37: [0041]).
Regarding claim 10, Clark31 and Lee37 combination discloses all the elements of claim 8, as noted above.
Lee37 further teaches a memory device comprising
a plurality of first barrier layers (first barrier layer 650C, 650B-Fig 4A) and
a plurality of second barrier layers (second barriers layers 131/132-Fdig 4A),
the first barrier layers disposed on the first electrodes and the memory layers (First barrier layer 650C, 650B disposed on first electrode 144 and memory layers 130-Fig 4A),
the second barrier layers disposed between the second electrodes and the memory layers (second barriers layers 131/132 disposed between second electrode 140 and memory layer 130-Fig 4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the memory device of Clark31, as taught by Lee37 for the purpose of providing electrical connection while preventing the diffusion metal species into the phase change layer (Lee37: [0041]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark et al. (US 20170104031 A1-Clark31) from IDS, in view of Lee et al. (US 20240074337 A1-Lee37), and further in view of Chien et al. (US 20210249600 A1-Chien00).
Regarding claim 11, Clark31 and Lee37 combination discloses all the elements of claim 10, as noted above.
Lee37 further teaches a memory device
wherein a material of the first barrier layers includes carbon (first barrier layer 650C, 650B including Carbon-[0034] L 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the memory device of Clark31, as taught by Lee37 for the purpose of providing electrical connection while preventing the diffusion metal species into the phase change layer (Lee37: [0041]).
Lee37 does not teach a memory device
wherein a material of the second barrier layers includes carbon.
Chien00 teaches a memory device
wherein a material of the second barrier layers includes carbon (second barrier 406 including carbon-Fig4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the memory device of Clark31 in view of Lee37, as taught by Chien00 for the purpose of improving endurance of phase change memory cells by using a carbon deposit (Chien00: Abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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:
Regarding claim 12, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a memory device, namely “the second electrodes respectively pass through the first electrodes along the first direction, and the memory layers surround the second electrodes”.
References such as Clark et al. (US 20170104031 A1-Clark31) from IDS, and Lee et al. (US 20240074337 A1-Lee37) combination, teaches a memory device, but does not teach or suggest a memory device, namely “the second electrodes respectively pass through the first electrodes along the first direction, and the memory layers surround the second electrodes”, in combination with other claimed elements.
The balance of the claims are allowable for at least the above-stated reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wu et al. (US 20240040802 A1-Wu02) teaches a memory device comprising a first electrode (140-Fig 4A); a second electrode (142); and a memory layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (130/160-Fig 4A).
Liu et al. (US8830738B2-Liu38) teaches a memory device comprising a first electrode (301-Fig 3); a second electrode (303); and a memory layer disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (333/344-Fig 3).
Hu et al. ("To improve the thermoelectric properties of Cu2GeSe3 via GeSe compensatory compositing strategy", Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 921 (2022) 166181-NPLHu22) teaches how the combination of Cu2GeSe3 and GeSe can optimize electrical and thermal transport properties (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHALIE R FAYETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-1220. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 am-6pm 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, 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.
NATHALIE R. FAYETTE
Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/NATHALIE R FAYETTE/Examiner, Art Unit 2812 06/05/2026
/CHRISTINE S. KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights