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 .
This office action is in response to the application filed on 5/31/24. Claims 1-16 are pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/31/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 Objections
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Examiner points out that depend claim 5 depends refers back to both independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 which is improper.
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
For purpose of examination on the merits the examiner with view claim 5 to refer back to the independent claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Czubatyj et al. (US PGPub 2008/0035907, hereinafter referred to as “Czubatyj”, IDS reference).
Czubatyj teaches the semiconductor device as claimed. See figures 1-10 and corresponding text, where Czubatyj teaches, in claim 1, a switch device, comprising
a lower electrode (130), an upper electrode (170), and a switch material layer (150) disposed between the lower electrode (130) and the upper electrode (170), wherein the switch material layer (150) comprises at least one element of Te, Se, and S (figure 2; [0047-0048], [0053]);
when the switch device is in an on state, the switch material layer is in a liquid state and has a bandgap of 0 ([0033-0045]);
when the switch device is in an off state ([0045]), the switch material layer (150) is in a crystalline state, the switch material layer and the upper electrode (170) form a Schottky barrier, and the switch material layer (150) and the lower electrode (130) form a Schottky barrier.
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 2, wherein when an applied voltage is greater than a threshold voltage, the switch material layer is melted into the liquid state under the action of Joule heat, so that the switch device is turned on; and
when the applied voltage is removed or when the applied voltage is less than the threshold voltage, the switch material layer recrystallizes spontaneously, so that the switch device is turned off ([0033-0045]).
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 3, wherein the switch device has a ovonic threshold switching characteristic (figure 4; [0052]).
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 4, wherein the switch device has an on/off current ratio ranging from 1×101 to 9.9×108 and a switching speed faster than 200 ns ([0045]).
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 6, wherein the switch material layer further comprises at least one of the elements of Ge, Si, Al, Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, and Mn ([0053]).
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 7, wherein a general chemical formula of the switch material layer is (TexSeySz)1-a-bMaNb, wherein M and N are different elements, M is selected from the elements of Ge, Si, Al, Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, and Mn, and N is selected from the elements of Ge, Si, Al, Be, Mg, Ca, Sr, Ba, and Mn; x, y, z, a, and b represent atomic contents and x+y+z=1, 0≤x≤1, 0≤y≤1, 0≤z≤1, 0≤a+b<1, 0≤a≤0.5, 0≤b≤0.5 ([0053]).
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 8, wherein a general chemical formula of the switch material layer is GesTe100-s, wherein s is an atomic content and 1 ≤ s ≤ 15 ([0053]).
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 9, wherein a thickness of the switch material layer ranges from 0.2 nm to 200 nm ([0058]).
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 10, wherein the thickness of the switch material layer is less than 2 nm ([0058]).
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 11, wherein the switch material layer has an atomic scale uniformity ([0045]).
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 12, wherein the lower electrode comprises at least one of TiN, TaN, W, WN, and TiNSi ([0077]); and
the upper electrode comprises at least one of TiN, TaN, W, WN, and TiNSi ([0077-0080]).
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 13, wherein a diameter or an equivalent circular diameter of the switch material layer ranges from 0.4 nm to 500 nm ([0051]).
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 14, a memory, comprising
a plurality of gated memory cells, wherein each of the plurality of gated memory cell comprises a gated unit and a storage unit, the gated unit is electrically connected to the storage unit to drive the storage unit, wherein the gated unit comprises the switch device of claim 1 ([0016]).
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 15, wherein the storage unit is selected from a phase change storage unit, a resistive storage unit, a ferroelectric storage unit, and a magnetic storage unit ([0016]).
Czubatyj teaches, in claim 16, wherein the plurality of gated memory cells form a crossbar memory array or a vertical memory array ([0016]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czubatyj et al. (US PGPub 2008/0035907, hereinafter referred to as “Czubatyj”, IDS reference) as applied to claim 1.
Czubatyj discloses the semiconductor device substantially as claimed. See the rejection above. However, Czubatyj fails to teaches, in claim 5, wherein the switch material has a switching characteristics after being annealed at a temperature higher than 400°C.
Czubatyj teaches, an example that includes annealing at 300oC and that the leakage current was reduced ([0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the switch material has a switching characteristics after being annealed at a temperature higher than 400°C, in the device of Czubatyj, according to the teachings of Czubatyj, with the motivation of reducing leakage current,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. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANETTA D ISAAC whose telephone number is (571)272-1671. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Leonard Chang can be reached at 571-270-3691. 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.
/STANETTA D ISAAC/Examiner, Art Unit 2898 June 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights