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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A1 (figure 3A) and Species B4 (figure 5D) in the reply filed on August 22, 2026 (“Reply”) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species restriction is not properly supported. This is not found persuasive.
Applicant asserts Examiner’s differences between species is not support. Examiner disagrees. Examiner used Species A1 to establish a base species. Then Species A2-A5 pointed out mutually exclusive aspects with respect to Species A1. Species A2 removes elements 310 and 322, and has a direct connection between elements 308 and 324. Species A3 removes element 310 and uses element 344. Species A4 replaces element 302a with a finfet. Species A5 replaces element 302a with a gate-all-around (“GAO”) device. Each one of these species are mutually exclusive as they cannot have all the features of Species A1 in each an every other Species A2-A5. Further, Applicant on page 5 of the Reply has expressly stated that these species are not obvious variants of each other.
Applicant next states the claims are directed to a common structure and functional features of a memory device. Under MPEP 806.04(e) claims are no species. Rather, claims refer to different embodiments of the invention. Here are shown above with respect to Species A1-A5 each of the listed species is not connected by means of design and/or operation. While they may be connected by effect, i.e. a memory cell, MPEP 806.04(b) does not require a species to be related by design, operation, and effect. It requires design, operation, or effect. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant next asserts that specification expressly contemplates the combination of the separate embodiments. Reply at 7. The Court in D Three Enter., LLC v. SunModo Corp., 890 F.3d 1042, 1050-51 (Fed. Cir. 2018) stated that D Three point to a substantially similar statement in their disclosure. The Court then held “[t]his boilerplate language at the end of the 2009 Application's specification is not sufficient to show adequate disclosure of the actual combinations and attachments used in the [ ] Claims.” Therefore, the court has held that generic boilerplate language is insufficient to support the written disclosure. If it cannot support the written disclosure then this boilerplate language cannot support the combination of species as asserted by Applicant. Examiner’s position is further supported by the Court’s holding in Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3D 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Where the Court held “[I]t is not enough that applicant show where each claimed element resides in the earliest filed application but [he] must also provide support for the linkage of the claimed elements creating the embodiment.” citing In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1175 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (emphasis added). Here, Applicant cannot provide support for the combination, the linkage, of the species as they do not have written description support for said linkage. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicants contend that Examiner has not established the required search burden as Examiner has not provided different classifications, fields of search, or different prior art searches. It is Examiner’s position that each Species has mutually exclusive characteristics. It is these mutual exclusive characteristics which will require different fields of search. Searching for a finfet is different than searching for capacitors in series, which is different than searching for a GAO device versus two capacitors directly attached to each other. Therefore, it is clear that the Species disclosed will require different fields of search as they will require different search strategies. Based upon the above, this argument is not persuasive.
Lastly, Applicant bundles the argument against Species A1-A5 for Species B1-B4. There are no specific arguments against Species B1-B4. Therefore, the arguments against Species B1-B4 are not persuasive for the same reasons above, to the extend Applicant has not waived specific arguments to Species B1-B4.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 27-28 is withdrawn as it is directed to figure 5A. The non-elected species B1.
Claims 38-39 is withdrawn as it is not directed to the elected species, but rather Species B3-B4.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on August 14, 2026; November 1, 2024; and September 6, 2024 were considered by the examiner.
Drawings
Any and all drawing corrections required in the parent application, 18/114,643, are required to be made in this continuation application. If Applicant has already incorporated said corrections, or no corrections were required, Applicant must make a statement to that effect to remove this objection.
Specification
Any and all specification corrections required in the parent application, 18/114,643, are required to be made in this continuation application. If Applicant has already incorporated said corrections, or no corrections were required, Applicant must make a statement to that effect to remove this objection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 24, 33 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 24,
Claim 24 is indefinite as it is not clear whether it is optional or not. This is because claim 24 is dependent on claim 23. Claim 23 presents two conditions separated by “or”. If one meets the first condition then the second condition is not needed. This in turn would make claim 23 optional as it does not limit the first condition. If claim 23 is not optional then it would mean that claim 23’s “or” statement is meaningless.
Applicant may want to split claim 24 into two claims, where each of the two claims is directed to a different condition in claim 24.
Regarding claim 33,
Claim 33 claims a functional layer. This is double inclusion of ion conductor portions. According to ¶ 00125 “A functional portion 524 may also be referred to herein as ion conductor portion 524”. Therefore, the functional portion of claim 33 is the same structure as the ion conductor portion of claim 21.
Regarding claim 33,
It is unclear from claim 33 whether the first electrode or second electrode each comprise a first electrode layer, a second electrode layer, and a functional layer, or whether the first electrode is relabeled as first electrode layer, the second electrode is relabeled the second electrode layer and the ion conductor portions are relabeled as functional layer.
If they are not relabeled the layers then claims will be withdrawn as they are not directed to the elected species.
If they are directed to the elected species then there is a drawing error.
If they are relabeled the layers, then there is no drawing error, but claim 21 reads upon the claimed features.
For purposes of examination only, Examiner will reject claim 33 as relabeling the elements.
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.
Claim(s) 21-23, 25, 29-37, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (US 2020/0212168 A1) (“Yoo”), in view of Muller et al. (US 2014/0355328 A1) (“Muller”).
Regarding claim 21, Yoo teaches at least in figure 5:
a first electrode (210);
a second electrode (230); and
a memory layer (220) comprised of a remanent-polarizable material (224a) and disposed between the first electrode (210) and the second electrode (230),
wherein the memory layer (210) comprises a memory portion (224a) and one or more ion conductor portions (222/224b) disposed within the memory portion (220) and/or between the two or more memory portions,
Yoo does not teach:
wherein the memory portion comprise two or more memory portions and one or more ion conductor portions disposed within the two or more memory portions and/or between the two or more memory portions,
wherein each of one or more ion conductor portions is configured to allow an exchange of oxygen ions between at least two memory portions of the two or more memory portions.
Muller teaches at least in figure 3:
wherein the memory portion (figure 3) comprise two or more memory portions (6) and one or more ion conductor portions (8) disposed within the two or more memory portions and/or between the two or more memory portions (6),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the memory portion of Yoo with the memory portion of Muller as Muller teaches by forming the memory portions into a plurality of layers one is able to form said layers thinly which can improve reading and the memory window of the device. ¶ 0005. And, allows one to electrically de-trap the charges. Id.
Based upon the above, Yoo teaches in view of Muller:
wherein each of one or more ion conductor portions is configured to allow an exchange of oxygen ions between at least two memory portions of the two or more memory portions (based upon Applicant’s disclosure the functional portions 524-1 to 524-3 are the ion conducting portions. ¶ 00153. The material of the functional portions is HfO, ZrO, SiO, or YO. ¶¶ 0078, 131. Yoo teaches 222/224b is formed of the same material. ¶ 0050. Therefore, because the prior art teaches the same structure and material as Applicant it would be obvious that 224b of Yoo has this same claimed characteristic.).
Regarding claim 22, Yoo teaches at least in figure 5:
wherein each of the one or more ion conductor portions (222/224b) substantially consists of a material that is both electrically insulating and capable of conducting oxygen ions (¶ 0051, where 224 may be HfO, ZrO, etc. ).
Regarding claim 23, Yoo teaches at least in figure 5:
wherein each of the one or more ion conductor portions includes a material comprising a chemical composition of at least two sorts of atoms at or close to a phase boundary between a first phase and a second phase (¶ 0051, where 224 can be HfO, ZrO, etc.).
Regarding claim 25, Yoo teaches at least in figure 5:
wherein each of the one or more ion conductor portions (222/224b) comprises a material having a greater crystal stress with respect to the remanent-polarizable material (224a) (According to Applicant’s specification at ¶ 00189, the stress created in the ion conductor portions can be due influenced by material it is grown on. If the layer below the ion conductor portions has a different structure it can add stress to the ion conductor portions. 222 of 224b is formed on an electrode. Therefore, according to Applicant’s disclosure this will induce greater stress into the ion conductor portions than the remanent-polarizable material).
Regarding claim 29, Yoo teaches at least in figure 5:
wherein the at least one of the first electrode (210) or the second electrode (230) comprises a columnar structure (Yoo’s figure 5 electrodes look the same as Applicant’s figure 3A electrodes. Therefore, they must be columnar as they look the same).
Regarding claim 30, the combination of prior art teaches:
wherein the two or more memory portions comprise a first memory portion having a first concentration of oxygen vacancies and a second memory portion having a second concentration of oxygen vacancies, wherein the second concentration of oxygen vacancies is different from the first concentration of oxygen vacancies (According to Applicant’s ¶¶ 00127-28, the material of the 524 allows oxygen vacancies to flow throughout 508. Because the prior art teaches the same materials as Applicant it would have been obvious that a stacked memory layer structure of Muller using the material of Yoo would have obvious have this same characteristic. This is because, as stated, based upon Applicant’s disclosure because the oxygen vacancies can freely float through the memory structure there will obviously be some memory portions which have more oxygen vacancies than other portions. Therefore, this limitation is obvious as under MPEP 2112 something old does not become patentable based upon the discovery of a new property.).
Regarding claims 31-32, the combination of prior art teaches:
The amount of oxygen vacancies in the each of the layers is a result effective variables. By optimizing the oxygen vacancies in each of the layers one can adjust the hysteresis of the resulting device. See figure 8.
Regarding claim 33,
Claim 33 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 21 above.
Regarding claim 34, Yoo teaches at least in figure 5:
wherein the first electrode layer (210) directly contacts the memory layer (220),
wherein the first electrode layer (210) comprises a material configured to attract oxygen from the remanent-polarizable material of the memory layer (¶ 0049, where the same materials disclosed by Applicant in ¶ 0124 are disclosed).
Regarding claim 35, Yoo teaches at least in figure 5:
wherein the material comprises at least one of: lanthanum, titanium, and tantalum (¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 36, Yoo teaches at least in figure 5:
herein the second electrode layer (230) comprises at least one of platinum (Pt), iridium (Ir), rhenium (Re), rhodium (Rh), ruthenium (Ru), titanium (Ti), osmium (Os), molybdenum (Mo), chromium (Cr), tungsten (W), aluminum (Al), gold (Au), and cobalt (Co) (¶ 0049).
Regarding claim 37, Yoo teaches at least in figure 5:
wherein the functional layer (222b) comprises an oxygen absorbing layer or an oxygen diffusion barrier layer (as stated in claim 1 the prior art teaches the same material as Applicant therefore, it teaches these same characteristics).
Regarding claim 40, Yoo teaches at least in figure 5:
wherein the remanent-polarizable material (224a) comprises hafnium oxide, zirconium oxide, or a mixture of hafnium oxide with zirconium oxide (¶ 0052).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 26 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 26,
The prior art does not teach the grain sizes of the ion conductor portions or the remanent-polarizable material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT WALL whose telephone number is (571)272-9567. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday at 7:30am to 2:30pm PST. Interviews can be scheduled on Tuesday thru Thursday at 10am PST or 2pm PST.
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.
/VINCENT WALL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights