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 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 3-5 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 3, claim 3 recites “represented by a general formula HfxTeyO100-x-y…”. However, the inclusion of “…” does not render clear what material is anticipated by the claim. As such, it is unclear what are the metes and bounds, and thus the scope, of the material that is being claimed. Appropriate correction should be made to clarify the language.
Claims 4 and 5 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) as they spend from and include all of the limitations of rejected claim 3.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ohba et al. (US 2020/0350498) hereinafter “Ohba”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1 and 2 of Ohba teach an amorphous material (Paragraph 0037) that contains Hf, O and Te as main components (Paragraph 0066) and whose electrical resistance transitioning from a first state to a second state that is lower than the first state at a specific threshold voltage (Paragraph 0089).
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ohba et al. (US 2015/0318471) hereinafter “Ohba2”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1 and 2 of Ohba2 teach an amorphous material (Paragraph 0034) that contains Hf, O and Te as main components (Paragraph 0091) and whose electrical resistance transitioning from a first state to a second state that is lower than the first state at a specific threshold voltage (Paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 2, Ohba2 further teaches where the amorphous material according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above; For brevity the rejection of claim 1 will not be repeated here), which is for a selector (Paragraph 0091) in a cross point type memory (Paragraph 0119).
Regarding claim 6, Ohba2 teaches a crosspoint type memory (Paragraph 0119) comprising: a first electrode wiring (Paragraph 0121); a second electrode wiring (Paragraph 0121); a memory portion (Paragraph 0123); and a selector portion (Paragraph 0122) containing the amorphous material according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above; For brevity the rejection of claim 1 will not be repeated here), where the memory portion and the selector portion are disposed between the first electrode wiring and the second electrode wiring (Paragraphs 0121-0123).
Claims 1, 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arendt et al. (US 2021/0090652) hereinafter “Arendt”.
Regarding claim 1, Figs. 1 and 2 of Arendt teach an amorphous material (Paragraph 0021) that contains Hf, O and Te as main components (Paragraph 0020) and whose electrical resistance transitioning from a first state to a second state that is lower than the first state at a specific threshold voltage (Paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 2, Arendt further teaches where the amorphous material according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above; For brevity the rejection of claim 1 will not be repeated here), which is for a selector (Paragraph 0020) in a cross point type memory (Paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 6, Figs. 1 and 2 of Arendt teaches a crosspoint type memory (Paragraph 0001) comprising: a first electrode wiring (Item 204); a second electrode wiring (Item 206); a memory portion (Paragraph 0018); and a selector portion (Paragraph 0020) containing the amorphous material (Paragraph 0020) according to claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1 above; For brevity the rejection of claim 1 will not be repeated here), where the memory portion and the selector portion are disposed between the first electrode wiring (Item 204) and the second electrode wiring (Item 206).
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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohba et al. (US 2020/0350498) hereinafter “Ohba”.
Regarding claim 3, Ohba teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Ohba does not explicitly teach where the amorphous material is represented by a general formula HfxTeyO100-x-y (1), and in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 32.0, 10.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0 and 35 ≤ x + y ≤ 50.
However, Ohba teaches where the ratio of Hf and Te in HfTeO is a result effective variable (Ohba Paragraph 0077 where the ratio of Hf to Te in HfTeO will impact the write current and selection ratio). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the Hf and Te in HfTeO such that the amorphous material is represented by a general formula HfxTeyO100-x-y (1), and in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 32.0, 10.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0 and 35 ≤ x + y ≤ 50 because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Ohba teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Ohba does not explicitly teach where in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 30.0 and 13.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0.
However, Ohba teaches where the ratio of Hf and Te in HfTeO is a result effective variable (Ohba Paragraph 0077 where the ratio of Hf to Te in HfTeO will impact the write current and selection ratio). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the Hf and Te in HfTeO such that in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 30.0 and 13.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0 because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Ohba teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Ohba does not explicitly teach where in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 28.0 and 15.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0.
However, Ohba teaches where the ratio of Hf and Te in HfTeO is a result effective variable (Ohba Paragraph 0077 where the ratio of Hf to Te in HfTeO will impact the write current and selection ratio). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the Hf and Te in HfTeO such that in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 28.0 and 15.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0 because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohba et al. (US 2015/0318471) hereinafter “Ohba2” in view of Ohba et al. (US 2020/0350498) hereinafter “Ohba”.
Regarding claim 3, Ohba2 teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Ohba2 does not explicitly teach where the amorphous material is represented by a general formula HfxTeyO100-x-y (1), and in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 32.0, 10.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0 and 35 ≤ x + y ≤ 50.
However, Ohba teaches where the ratio of Hf and Te in HfTeO is a result effective variable (Ohba Paragraph 0077 where the ratio of Hf to Te in HfTeO will impact the write current and selection ratio). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the Hf and Te in HfTeO such that the amorphous material is represented by a general formula HfxTeyO100-x-y (1), and in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 32.0, 10.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0 and 35 ≤ x + y ≤ 50 because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Ohba2 teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Ohba2 does not explicitly teach where in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 30.0 and 13.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0.
However, Ohba teaches where the ratio of Hf and Te in HfTeO is a result effective variable (Ohba Paragraph 0077 where the ratio of Hf to Te in HfTeO will impact the write current and selection ratio). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the Hf and Te in HfTeO such that in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 30.0 and 13.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0 because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Ohba2 teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Ohba2 does not explicitly teach where in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 28.0 and 15.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0.
However, Ohba teaches where the ratio of Hf and Te in HfTeO is a result effective variable (Ohba Paragraph 0077 where the ratio of Hf to Te in HfTeO will impact the write current and selection ratio). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the Hf and Te in HfTeO such that in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 28.0 and 15.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0 because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arendt et al. (US 2021/0090652) hereinafter “Arendt” in view of Ohba et al. (US 2020/0350498) hereinafter “Ohba”.
Regarding claim 3, Arendt teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Arendt does not explicitly teach where the amorphous material is represented by a general formula HfxTeyO100-x-y (1), and in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 32.0, 10.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0 and 35 ≤ x + y ≤ 50.
However, Ohba teaches where the ratio of Hf and Te in HfTeO is a result effective variable (Ohba Paragraph 0077 where the ratio of Hf to Te in HfTeO will impact the write current and selection ratio). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the Hf and Te in HfTeO such that the amorphous material is represented by a general formula HfxTeyO100-x-y (1), and in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 32.0, 10.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0 and 35 ≤ x + y ≤ 50 because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 4, Arendt teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Arendt does not explicitly teach where in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 30.0 and 13.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0.
However, Ohba teaches where the ratio of Hf and Te in HfTeO is a result effective variable (Ohba Paragraph 0077 where the ratio of Hf to Te in HfTeO will impact the write current and selection ratio). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the Hf and Te in HfTeO such that in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 30.0 and 13.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0 because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Arendt teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above.
Arendt does not explicitly teach where in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 28.0 and 15.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0.
However, Ohba teaches where the ratio of Hf and Te in HfTeO is a result effective variable (Ohba Paragraph 0077 where the ratio of Hf to Te in HfTeO will impact the write current and selection ratio). In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977), the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation, because "obvious to try" is not a valid rationale for an obviousness finding (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the Hf and Te in HfTeO such that in the formula (1), 23.0 ˂ x ˂ 28.0 and 15.0 ˂ y ˂ 22.0 because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC K ASHBAHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5187. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5:30 PM.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/ERIC K ASHBAHIAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights