DETAILED ACTION
As per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
In responding to this Office action, the applicant is requested to include specific references (figures, paragraphs, lines, etc.) to the drawings/specification of the present application and/or the cited prior arts that clearly support any amendments/arguments presented in the response, to facilitate consideration of the amendments/arguments.
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 .
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.
Inventorship
It appears applicant has legal representation but a valid power of attorney has not been filed in the present application. Providing representative information in an Application Data Sheet (ADS) does not constitute a power of attorney. See 37 CFR 1.76(b)(4) and MPEP § 408. For information on appointing a power of attorney, see MPEP § 402.02 et seq.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 03/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-17, 19, and 20 are allowable. The restriction requirement between inventions, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 02/05/2026, has been reconsidered in view of the allowability of claims to the elected invention pursuant to MPEP § 821.04(a). The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn as to any claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable claim. Specifically, the restriction requirement of 02/05/2026 is withdrawn. Claims 12-15 , directed to implementing seasoning voltages no longer withdrawn from consideration because the claim(s) requires all the limitations of an allowable claim.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 and 18 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 5 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “the half select voltage has a magnitude of approximately half the seasoning voltage”, where claim 3 already recites “the half select voltage having a magnitude that is approximately half the magnitude of a maximum value of the voltage that appears across the selected memory cell” and it is unclear if the two magnitudes of the half select voltage are the same or different from one another.
Claim(s) 7 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “applies a current that causes a voltage across the selected memory cell; and limits the voltage across the selected memory cell to a voltage limit”, where claim 2 already recites “the seasoning signal applied to a selected memory cell creates a voltage across the selected memory cell that is at least as great as the threshold voltage” and it is unclear if the two voltages across the selected memory cell are the same or different from one another.
Claim(s) 7 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “the half select voltage has a magnitude of approximately half the voltage limit”,
Claim(s) 18 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “the half-select voltage has a magnitude that is less than a lowest threshold voltage“, where claim 16 recites “the half-select voltage has a magnitude that is approximately half of the seasoning voltage” and it is unclear if the two magnitudes of the half select voltage are the same or different from one another.
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 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) 1, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeon, US 11049559 B1, in view of Ambrosi, US 20240296885 A1.
As to claim 1, Jeon discloses an apparatus (see Fig 2) comprising:
a cross-bar array (see Fig 1B) comprising a first set of conductive lines (see Fig 1B Refs WL0-3), a second set of conductive lines (see Fig 1B Refs BL0-3), and programmable resistance memory cells (see Fig 1A), each programmable resistance memory cell having a threshold switching selector (see Fig 1A Ref 104) in series (see Fig 1A) with a programmable resistance memory element (see Fig 1A 101); and
a control circuit (see Fig 2 Refs 230 and 220) in communication with the cross-bar array, wherein
the control circuit is configured to: apply a seasoning signal (see Fig 8 Ref 801) to each programmable resistance memory cell in the cross-bar array one or more times (see Fig 8 Ref 801) each seasoning cycle of a plurality of seasoning cycles to progressively lower a threshold voltage of the threshold switching selectors over the plurality of seasoning cycles (see Fig 8 Ref 801).
Jeon does not appear to explicitly discloses
the control circuit lowers a magnitude of the seasoning signal with each seasoning cycle to partially form the threshold switching selectors over the plurality of seasoning cycles until a target operating threshold voltage range of the threshold switching selectors is reached.
Ambrosi discloses
the control circuit lowers a magnitude of the seasoning signal with each seasoning cycle to partially form the threshold switching selectors over the plurality of seasoning cycles until a target operating threshold voltage range of the threshold switching selectors is reached (see Ambrosi Fig 11 Ref 610, Fig 10B Ref 300F, and Para [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention that an apparatus, as disclosed by Jeon, may implement a particular seasoning schema, as disclosed by Ambrosi. The inventions are well known variants of OTS technologies, and the combination of known inventions which produces predictable results is obvious and not patentable. Further evidence to the obviousness of their combination is Ambrosi’s attempt to minimize threshold drift of selectors (see Ambrosi Para [0041]).
As to claim 10, Jeon and Ambrosi disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein
the threshold switching selectors each comprise an ovonics threshold switch (OTS) (see Jeon Col 4 Lines 48-53).
As to claim 11, Jeon and Ambrosi disclose the apparatus of claim 10, wherein
the programmable resistance memory element comprises a magnetic tunnel junction having a free layer and a reference layer (see Ambrosi Para [0055]; Examiner takes not that free and reference layers in the disclose MRAM memory elements is well known in the art.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-17, 19, and 20 are allowable.
Claim(s) 2-9 is/are 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.
Claims 5, 7, and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
The prior art does not appear to disclose (as recited in claim 2):
the seasoning signal applied to a selected memory cell creates a voltage across the selected memory cell that is at least as great as the threshold voltage of the threshold switching selector of the selected memory cell.
The prior art does not appear to disclose (as recited in claim 9):
for each seasoning cycle the control circuit applies the seasoning signal to each memory cell in a positive polarity and a negative polarity.
The prior art does not appear to disclose (as recited in claim 12):
applying a seasoning voltage across a selected memory cell in the cross-bar array while applying a half-select voltage across half-selected memory cells in the cross-bar array, wherein the seasoning voltage has a magnitude greater than a threshold voltage of an Ovonics Threshold Switch (OTS) in series with a programmable resistance memory element in the selected memory cell and the half-select voltage has a magnitude that is approximately half of the seasoning voltage, the selected memory cell resides between a selected word line of a set of word lines in the cross-bar array and a selected bit line of a set of bit lines in the cross-bar array.
The prior art does not appear to disclose (as recited in claim 16):
a) apply a seasoning voltage across a selected memory cell in the cross-bar array while applying a half-select voltage across half-selected memory cells in the cross-bar array, wherein the half-select voltage has a magnitude that is approximately half of the seasoning voltage; and
b) repeat said a) for other selected memory cells and other half-selected memory cells in the cross-bar array; and
c) lower the magnitude of the seasoning voltage and repeat said a) and said b) until threshold voltages of the Ovonics Threshold Switches of the memory cells in the cross-bar array reach a target threshold voltage range.
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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ha, US 20230326523 A1 discloses a threshold voltage of the threshold switching selectors.
Franklin, US 20230005530 A1 discloses the programmable resistance memory element comprises a magnetic tunnel junction.
Saenz, US 20250210084 A1 discloses a threshold voltage of the threshold switching selectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME LARRY LEBOEUF whose telephone number is (571)272-7612. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00AM - 6:00PM EST.
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 at (517)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.
/JEROME LEBOEUF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824 - 05/15/2026
Prosecution Insights