DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the following communication: the response filed 7/30/26. The changes and remarks disclosed therein have been considered.
Claim(s) status: 2-21 are pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed 7/30/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the examiner.
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 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) 13, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schricker et al. (US 2009/0001342 ‒hereinafter Schricker).
Regarding claim 13, Schricker discloses a memory device (fig. 2C-2D), comprising:
a plurality of decks (218, 220) of memory cells (200), wherein a first deck (218) of memory cells of the plurality of decks of memory cells is below a second deck (220) of memory cells of the plurality of decks of memory cells (first deck 218 is shown arranged below second deck 220); and
a plurality of sets of access lines (lower, middle, upper access lines), wherein a first set of access lines (lower access line(s) comprising conductor 206 with layers 210 and 212) is coupled with the first deck of memory cells (218) and oxidized using a first set of oxidation parameters (may be oxidized to form titanium oxide (e.g., using rapid thermal oxidation or another oxidation process); para 0039), and wherein a second set of access lines (middle access line(s) comprising conductor 206 with layers 210 and 212) is coupled with the second deck of memory cells (220) and oxidized using a second set of oxidation parameters (may be oxidized to form titanium oxide (e.g., using rapid thermal oxidation or another oxidation process); para 0039).
Regarding claim 17, Schricker discloses the memory device (fig. 2C-2D), wherein the first set of oxidation parameters is different than the second set of oxidation parameters (i.e. using rapid thermal oxidation or another oxidation process); para 0039).
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 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 of this title, 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) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker et al. (US 2009/0001342 ‒hereinafter Schricker) in view of Baek et al. (US 2021/0020236 ‒hereinafter Baek).
Regarding claim 14, Schricker discloses the memory device (fig. 2C-2D), wherein the first set of access lines each comprise metal having a first thickness (i.e. in a vertical direction) and the second set of access lines each comprise metal having a second thickness (i.e. in the vertical direction).
Schricker does not expressly disclose wherein the second thickness is different than the first thickness.
Baek discloses wherein the first thickness is different than the second thickness (thicknesses of metal oxide electrodes may be different from one another, essentially having one thickness, i.e. first thickness, greater than the other thickness, i.e. second thickness; para 0149).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Schricker is modifiable as taught by Baek for the purpose of improving accessibility of a resistive memory device in order to increase performance and endurance (para 0009 of Baek).
Regarding claim 15, Schricker does not expressly disclose the memory device, wherein the first set of access lines comprises a first type of metal lines and the second set of access lines comprises a second type of metal lines different than the first type of metal lines.
Baek discloses wherein the first set of access lines comprises a first type of metal lines and the second set of access lines comprises a second type of metal lines different from the first type of metal lines (access lines, i.e. 510, 520, 530, may be formed of different metals, essentially having different types of metals from one another; para 0149).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Schricker is modifiable as taught by Baek for the purpose of improving accessibility of a resistive memory device in order to increase performance and endurance (para 0009 of Baek).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker et al. (US 2009/0001342 ‒hereinafter Schricker) in view of Chung (2012/0044740).
Regarding claim 16, Schricker does not expressly disclose the memory device, wherein the first set of access lines each comprise a first resistivity and the second set of access lines each comprise a second resistivity, wherein the first resistivity is different than the second resistivity.
Chung discloses wherein the first set of access lines each comprise a first resistivity (local wordlines having a first resistivity; para 0020) and the second set of access lines each comprise a second resistivity (global wordlines having a second resistivity; para 0020), wherein the first resistivity is different than the second resistivity (high-resistivity local wordlines coupled to low-resistivity global wordlines; para 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Schricker is modifiable as taught by Chung for the purpose of facilitating data accessing schemes by connecting access lines with particular elements suitable for different resistivities, which may reduce manufacturing costs and the overall geometry of the device (para 0014-0015 of Chung).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker et al. (US 2009/0001342 ‒hereinafter Schricker) in view of Kikuchi et al. (US 2017/0077184 ‒hereinafter Kikuchi).
Regarding claim 18, Schricker discloses the memory device (fig. 2C-2D), wherein a first oxidation parameter of the first set of oxidation parameters comprises a first duration (a first duration of time respective to oxidizing of the first access lines) and a first oxidation parameter of the second set of oxidation parameters comprises a second duration (a second duration of time respective to oxidizing of the second access lines).
Schricker does not expressly disclose the first duration different from the second duration.
Kikuchi discloses the first duration (oxidizing of first access line 30 for a first duration of time; para 0041) different from the second duration (forming and oxidizing of second access line 90 is considered to occur after, which is different, than that of first access line 30, i.e. in a different duration; fig. 2A, 5A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Schricker is modifiable as taught by Kikuchi for the purpose of improving manufacturing processes by reducing damages to further avoid points of failure that could otherwise hinder a complex operating system (para 0073 of Kikuchi).
Regarding claim 19, Schricker discloses the memory device (fig. 2C-2D), wherein the first duration and the second duration are associated with exposure to oxygen or hydrogen peroxide (para 0031).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schricker et al. (US 2009/0001342 ‒hereinafter Schricker) in view of Lee et al. (US 2019/0123262 ‒hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 20, Schricker does not expressly disclose the memory device, wherein a second oxidation parameter of the first set of oxidation parameters comprises a first pressure and a second oxidation parameter of the second set of oxidation parameters comprises a second pressure, the first pressure different from the second pressure.
Lee discloses second oxidation parameter of the first set of oxidation parameters comprises a first pressure (first oxidation process for oxidizing a first metal layer on a substrate by injecting an oxygen gas into the first process chamber; para 0007) and a second oxidation parameter of the second set of oxidation parameters comprises a second pressure (second oxidation process for oxidizing a second metal layer provided on the oxidized first metal layer by injecting an oxygen gas into the second process chamber; para 0007), the first pressure different from the second pressure (para 0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Schricker is modifiable as taught by Lee for the purpose of facilitating the formation of metal lines by ensuring a stability of oxidizing processes without unwanted dispersions (para 0054-0055 of Lee).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-12, 21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art of record and considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed invention having the following limitation, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations.
With respect to independent claim 2 (and all dependent claim(s) therefrom), the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely adjusting the first set of oxidation parameters and the second set of oxidation parameters after selecting the first set of oxidation parameters and the second set of oxidation parameters; and oxidizing the first set of access lines based at least in part on adjusting the first set of oxidation parameters and the second set of access lines based at least in part on adjusting the second set of oxidation parameters.
With respect to independent claim 21, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed limitations, namely adjusting the first set of oxidation parameters based at least in part on selecting the first set of oxidation parameters; and oxidizing the first set of access lines based at least in part on adjusting the first set of oxidation parameters; adjusting the second set of oxidation parameters based at least in part on selecting the second set of oxidation parameters; and oxidizing the second set of access lines based at least in part on adjusting the second set of oxidation parameters.
The allowable claims are supported in at least fig. 2 of the instant application.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/26 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant submits that Schricker et al. (US 2009/0001342 “Schricker”) fails to disclose first and second oxidization parameters used on first and second set of access lines (on page 8 of the response, regarding the pending claim(s)).
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments. MPEP § 2111 discusses proper claim interpretation, including giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification during examination. Under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the words of a claim must be given their plain meaning unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification, and it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification into the claim. The requirements for anticipation are discussed in MPEP § 2131. MPEP § 2131 notes that “To reject a claim as anticipated by a reference, the disclosure must teach every element required by the claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation.”
As stated in the previous office action, Schricker discloses first and second access lines, which are oxidized using rapid thermal oxidation or another oxidation process (Schricker, para 0039). The BRI of claim 13 does not preclude any oxidation process as a parameter, or as different parameters. It is noted that the word parameter may be broadly interpreted as characteristic, including physical properties, or factor that defines a process. While the examiner appreciates that the disclosed invention may require particular/different parameters, this is not commensurate or required within the scope of the claim. Therefore, oxidation process to the first access line, i.e. first oxidation parameters, and oxidation process to the second access line, i.e. second oxidation parameters, are considered to meet the BRI claimed “wherein a first set of access lines is coupled with the first deck of memory cells and oxidized using a first set of oxidation parameters, and wherein a second set of access lines is coupled with the second deck of memory cells and oxidized using a second set of oxidation parameters.”
For at least the aforementioned reasons, the rejection is deemed proper and made final.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN SMET whose telephone number is (571)272-2267. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM-5 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, Richard Elms can be reached on (571) 272-1869. 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.
/UYEN SMET/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824
