DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application No. 18/777,380 filed on July 18, 2024.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) form PTO-1449. The IDS has been considered.
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 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites “…forming a first electrode including a carbon layer…”, rendering the claim indefinite. The number of required layers is not clear. This limitation is confusing because it is not clear if the first electrode 11 must include an additional carbon layer (e.g. barrier layer 13), or perhaps another carbon layer not shown, in addition to layer 11. If it is Applicant’s intent to describe a material of the first electrode, the word “layer” should be deleted, or alternatively, the word layer should be changed to material, or alternatively recite the first electrode is a carbon layer.
Claim 3 recites …the barrier layer as a non-conductor is formed, rendering the claim indefinite since carbon nitride, while perhaps can be made highly resistive, it not a true insulator. Carbon nitride (e.g. C3N4, see specification at ¶29) is a semiconductor with high resistance/poor conductivity. The material conducts, in fact if it did not conduct at all (i.e. a “non-conductor”) then Applicant’s memory device would not function. The subjective degree to which the layer is a “non-conductor” is unclear. It appears Applicant is using the term non-conductor contrary to its conventional meaning.
Claim 6 recites wherein the variable resistance layer maintains an amorphous state in a program operation, rendering the claim indefinite since no programming operation is recited or defined in any claim. The metes and bounds are unclear. It is also unclear what manufacturing step requires this layer to be amorphous. It is also unclear how any program operation relates to the manufacture of the device as this appears to be drawn to the manner in which the completed/operable device is used or operated (programmed), rather than how the device is manufactured.
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 recites wherein the variable resistance layer maintains an amorphous state in a program operation. Claim 6 is not drawn to a method of manufacturing the device, the claim is drawn to how the device behaves when it is operated (i.e. programmed). A program operation, i.e. programming, is drawn to using the completed device and how a layer behaves when the device is used or operated, a program operation has nothing to do with manufacturing the device, and therefore does not further limit claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 2010/0181546) in view of Russell et al. (US 2019/0044060).
(Re Claim 1) Yamamoto teaches a method of manufacturing a semiconductor device, the method comprising (see Fig. 2 and corresponding text): forming a first electrode (12) including a carbon layer (discussed below); forming, on the first electrode, a barrier layer including carbon nitride in which a concentration of nitrogen is equal to or higher than that of carbon (13 is carbon nitride with a ratio of up to 50%, i.e. equal, ¶40); forming a variable resistance layer (14) on the barrier layer; and forming a second electrode (16) on the variable resistance layer.
Yamamoto teaches several conventional metals for the electrode (¶34) and is silent regarding the first electrode comprising a carbon layer. A PHOSITA desiring to make, use, and improve upon Yamamoto’s method would be motivated to look to related art to teach possible alternative materials of the electrode(s). Related art from Russell teaches the electrodes of a variable resistance memory cell may be formed from a variety of materials (¶¶41, 46) including conventional metals as disclosed by Yamamoto, or carbon, making these art recognized alternatives. Using carbon instead of conventional metals as an electrode in a variable resistance memory cell provides excellent thermal stability and prevents unwanted metal ion migration into the switching layer. This prevents device degradation and ensures highly reliable, high-speed switching operations over a longer operational lifetime. In view of Russell, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to use carbon electrodes.
(Re Claim 3) wherein, in the forming of the barrier layer, the barrier layer as a non-conductor is formed (the barrier layer is formed having the composition according to claim 1, thus it must be “non-conductive”, also see §112 rejection above).
(Re Claim 4) wherein, in the forming of the barrier layer, the barrier layer is formed to have a volume which is 1% to 10% of that of the first electrode (multiple interpretations: (1) since forming the layer involves depositing a thin film, at some point during deposition, as the layer becomes thicker, the layer will meet this limitation regardless of the final layer volume or thickness, (2) one may arbitrarily select a portion of the layer to meet the claimed layer volume).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. and Russell et al. as applied above, and further in view of Conti et al. (US 2019/0043924) and Fugazza et al. (US 2021/0050512).
(Re Claim 2)Yamamoto teaches forming a carbon nitride barrier, however is silent regarding forming an amorphous barrier.
Since Yamamoto is silent regarding the structure of the barrier layer, a PHOSITA desiring to make and use Yamamoto’s device would be motivate to look to related art to teach the structure of a barrier layer. Related art from Conti discloses (¶¶117,145) forming a amorphous barrier layer. Related art from Fugazza teaches forming amorphous carbon nitride CNx 110 (¶¶26-29), and based on the location of this layer in the structure (e.g. see Fig. 1B), it is the same as Yamamoto’s barrier 13 regardless of Fugazza referring to it as an electrode. In view of Conti and Fugazza, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to form the barrier layer as an amorphous layer. Using an amorphous barrier layer like carbon nitride or amorphous carbon provides excellent thermal stability and structural uniformity, which effectively prevents metal atom diffusion and localized filament overgrowth. This structural disordered state significantly improves switching endurance, reduces leakage currents, and lowers operational power consumption across the memory cell.
(Re Claim 6, see §112 rejections above) Claim 6 does not recite a manufacturing step, does not further limit claim 1, and does not define what is supposedly required by a programming operation. As discussed above regarding claim 2, in view of Conti and Fugazza, the layer may obviously be amorphous and the undefined “program operation” and may simply involve not causing any changes in the layer, a program operation could be construed as a cell select or a delay, etc.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. and Russell et al. as applied above, and further in view of Gotti et al. (US 2013/0048935) and Kusano et al. (Thin solid Films 332 (1988), pp. 55-61).
(Re Claim 5) wherein, in the forming of the barrier layer, the barrier layer is deposited through a Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD) process by using a nitrogen gas having an amount of 15 sccm to 30 sccm with power of 50 W to 1000 W.
Yamamoto discloses forming the barrier layer by sputtering (¶70), however does not provide details of the process. A PHOSITA would be motivated to look to related art to teach details of sputtering processes in order to form the barrier by the sputtering process Yamamoto discloses. Related art from Gotti teaches sputtering in nitrogen gas with a flow rate to 0.1-50 sccm. Related art from Kusano teaches sputtering using a power of 100 or 130 W (p. 57, col 2, Fig. 1). In view of the prior art from Gotti and Kusano, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to select appropriate sputtering process conditions of flowing nitrogen in the claimed range and to select an appropriate power in the claimed range. The sputtering process variables would be obvious to optimize and ascertainable through routine experimentation, see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional cited art teaches related variable resistance devices and manufacturing processes thereof, including forming carbon and carbon nitride layers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIK T. K. PETERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3997. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 pm (CST).
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
/ERIK T. K. PETERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights