DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed November 3, 2025.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the newly added limitation “a current flowing in an extending direction of the spin-orbit torque wiring, and a pure spin current is induced in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the current flows (emphases added)” recited on lines 25-27 should be amended, because the newly added limitation is not grammatically correct, i.e. the verbs “flowing” and “is” do not agree with each other, since it appears that the grammatically correct pair of verbs should be “flowing” and “being” or “flows” and “is”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 17, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 3, Applicant originally disclosed in paragraph [0072] of current application that “The spin-orbit torque wiring 40 is made of a material in which a pure spin current is generated by a spin Hall effect when a current flows”, that “As such a material, any material may be sufficient as long as it has a configuration in which a pure spin current is generated in the spin-orbit torque wiring 40”, that “Therefore, it is not limited to a material formed of a single element, but a material formed of a part configured with a material from which a pure spin current is generated and a part configured with a material from which no pure spin current is generated, or the like may be used.” Applicant further originally disclosed in paragraph [0073] of current application that “The spin Hall effect is a phenomenon in which a pure spin current is induced in a direction perpendicular to a current direction on the basis of spin-orbit interaction when a current flows in a material.” In addition, Applicant originally disclosed in paragraph [0083] of current application that “In contrast, since the nonmagnetic metal with a high electron number having d electrons and f electrons in an outermost shell has a large spin-orbit interaction, a movement direction of electrons depends on a spin direction of electrons due to the spin Hall effect and the pure spin current Js is easily generated.” However, Applicant did not originally disclose that “the spin-orbit torque wiring having a spin-orbit interaction controls the direction of magnetization of the second ferromagnetic metal layer by an effect of the spin-orbit torque (emphasis added)” as recited on lines 22-24 of claim 3 and on lines 26-27 of claim 24, because (a) what controls the direction of magnetization of the second ferromagnetic metal layer is actually the direction of magnetization of the first ferromagnetic metal layer, an external magnetic field applied if any, how an electrical current flows in the spin-orbit torque wiring, etc. rather than the spin-orbit torque wiring itself since the spin-orbit torque wiring itself is a nonmagnetic material layer as recited on lines 18-19 of claim 3 and on lines 21-23 of claim 24, and (b) even for the same spin-orbit torque wiring, other parameters would be able to control the direction of magnetization of the second ferromagnetic metal layer. Claims 17 and 23 depend on claim 3, and therefore, claims 17 and 23 also fail to comply with the written description requirement.
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 3, 17 and 23 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.
(1) Regarding claim 3, it is not clear what the limitation “a current flowing in an extending direction of the spin-orbit torque wiring, and a pure spin current is induced in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the current flows (emphasis added)” recited on lines 25-27 suggests, and whether the limitation is directed to a measurable or observable phenomenon, because (a) Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the verb to “induce” as “to cause the formation of”, and therefore, the verb to “induce” has a connotation of an ephemeral phenomenon of formation, generation or creation rather than an event or phenomenon that occurs for a prolonged period of time, (b) in other words, even if arguendo the pure spin current is induced in the claimed direction, the pure spin current does not necessarily have to flow in the claimed direction right after the pure spin current is induced, in which case, it is not clear how one can determine whether the pure spin current is induced in the claimed direction right at the moment the pure spin current is induced since the induction phenomenon would be very brief, (c) in addition, after a pure spin current is induced, the first spin S1 and the second spin S2 shown in Fig. 2 of current application would propagate in the same direction, i.e. the x-direction of Fig. 2 of current application, and therefore, when the pure spin current is induced, the pure spin current would be substantially zero,
PNG
media_image1.png
320
478
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(d) furthermore, if arguendo Applicant’s drawing of Fig. 2 of current application is correct, there should be an infinite number of pure spin currents as illustrated below, i.e. if the Js illustrated in Fig. 2 of current application is the pure spin current, there should be an infinite number of pure spin currents in the z-direction as the first spin S1 and the second spin S2 propagate in the x-direction, which does not appear to be the case in an actual spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element,
PNG
media_image2.png
320
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(e) also, the infinite number of pure spin currents illustrated above should disappear once the first spin S1 and the second spin S2 propagate to another set of locations in the x-direction just like Js should also disappear as the first spin S1 and the second spin S2 propagate, (f) therefore, when the pure spin current is induced, the pure spin current would be (substantially) zero, and then once the first spin S1 and the second spin S2 propagate to another set of locations, the pure spin current should disappear, which does not appear to be the case, and (g) finally, the limitation cited above appears to be contradictory to what Applicant claims on lines 31-33 of the new claim 24 where Applicant claims that “the second ferromagnetic metal layer and the cap layer are configured such that the pure spin current flow from the spin-orbit torque wiring diffuses into the second ferromagnetic metal layer, via the cap layer and the diffusion prevention layer, to change the direction of magnetization of the second ferromagnetic metal layer (emphasis added)” recited on lines 30-33; in other words, while Applicant claims that “a current flowing in an extending direction of the spin-orbit torque wiring, and a pure spin current is induced in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the current flows” on lines 25-27 of claim 3, Applicant also claims that “the second ferromagnetic metal layer and the cap layer are configured such that the pure spin current flow from the spin-orbit torque wiring diffuses into the second ferromagnetic metal layer, via the cap layer and the diffusion prevention layer, to change the direction of magnetization of the second ferromagnetic metal layer” on lines 28-31 of the amended claim 3 and on lines 30-33 of the new claim 24.
(2) Also regarding claim 3, it is not clear whether the limitation “a current flowing in an extending direction of the spin-orbit torque wiring, and a pure spin current is induced in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the current flows (emphases added)” recited on lines 25-27 suggests that one pulse of a current corresponds to one pure spin current, because (a) it is not clear what “a current” refers to, and whether “a current” implies a single pulse of a current since (i) it appears that Fig. 2 of current application shows a continuous current, but there is only one pair of the first spin S1 and the second spin S2 created at one end of the spin-orbit torque wiring, and (ii) if there is a continuous current, a plurality of pairs of, if not a substantially infinite number of pairs of, a first spin and a second spin should be generated throughout the spin-orbit torque wiring, (b) however, when the plurality of pairs of a first and second spin are generated, some of them may cancel each other throughout the spin-orbit torque wiring, and (c) therefore, it is not clear what the limitation cited above suggests, and it is not clear what “a current” refers to.
(3) Further regarding claim 3, it is not clear whether the limitation “a current flowing in an extending direction of the spin-orbit torque wiring, and a pure spin current is induced in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the current flows (emphases added)” recited on lines 25-27 is directed to a measurable or observable phenomenon, because (a) even though Applicant originally disclosed in paragraph [0073] of current application that “The spin Hall effect is a phenomenon in which a pure spin current is induced in a direction perpendicular to a current direction on the basis of spin-orbit interaction when a current flows in a material”, and in paragraph [0160] of current application that “The pure spin current Js is induced in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the current I2 flows” describing Fig. 2 of current application illustrated below,
PNG
media_image3.png
330
482
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(b) however, it appears that the drawing of Fig. 2 of current application is erroneous since both the first spin S1 and the second spin S2 also have a vector component of their movements in the x-direction as well as in the z-direction as illustrated below,
PNG
media_image4.png
330
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(c) it appears that the direction of Js shown in Fig. 2 of current application is based on Applicant’s assumption that the first spin S1 and the second spin S2 propagate in the z-direction and -z-direction, respectively, and (d) in other words, it is not clear how the vector component of the movement of the first spin S1 in the x-direction and the vector component of the movement of the second spin S2 in the x-direction can be cancelled such that “a current flowing in an extending direction of the spin-orbit torque wiring, and a pure spin current is induced in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the current flows” as recited on lines 25-27.
Claims 17 and 23 depend on claim 3, and therefore, claims 17 and 23 are also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3 and 23, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hayakawa et al. (US 8,743,593)
In the below prior art rejection, the claim limitations “spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect” recited on lines 1-2 of clam 3, “diffusion prevention” recited on line 5 of claim 3, “spin-orbit torque” recited on line 8 of claim 3, and “the magnetoresistance effect element is configured to generate a spin-orbit torque from a pure spin current flow, …, to change the direction of magnetization of the second ferromagnetic metal layer” recited on lines 20-31 of claim 3 specify intended uses or fields of use, and are treated as non-limiting when the prior art references teach all the other claimed structural and material composition limitations since it has been held that in device claims, intended use must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 3 and 23, Hayakawa et al. disclose a spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element (Fig. 5) (col. 1, lines 37-43), which is directed to an intended use of a magnetoresistance effect element when the magnetoresistance effect element satisfies all the other structural and materials limitations recited in claim 3 as discussed above, comprising: a magnetoresistance effect element (i) including a first ferromagnetic metal layer (ferromagnetic layer 3100, ferromagnetic pinned layer 300, or composite layer of 3100 and 300) (col. 7, lines 34 and 38) in which a direction of magnetization is fixed or pinned, a nonmagnetic layer (301; insulation layer) (col. 7, lines 45-46), a second ferromagnetic metal layer (ferromagnetic free layer 302) (col. 7, lines 34-35) configured for a direction of magnetization to be changed or free, which is also directed to an intended use of the ferromagnetic free layer 302, a diffusion prevention layer (3102; ferromagnetic layer) (col. 7, line 40), because (a) Applicant does not specifically claim what the diffusion prevention layer refers to, what it does, and what it is formed of, (b) Applicant does not specifically claim which element(s) diffuses, where the claimed diffusion prevention layer works against the diffusion of the unspecified element(s), and how effectively and efficiently the claimed diffusion prevention layer functions, (c) therefore, the ferromagnetic layer 3102 or a portion of it would function as a diffusion prevention layer against a diffusion of an arbitrary element to a certain degree in comparison to a device structure without the ferromagnetic layer 3102, and (d) the term “diffusion prevention” is directed to an intended use of any material layer as discussed above, and a cap layer (402; protective film or portion of it) (col. 4, line 41) and (ii) laminated in an order of the listed sequence from the first ferromagnetic metal layer to the cap layer; and a spin-orbit torque wiring (501) (col. 4, line 44), which is also directed to an intended use of a wiring, extending in a direction transverse to a lamination direction of the magnetoresistance effect element and joined to the cap layer, wherein the cap layer inherently has spin conductivity, because (a) Applicant does not specifically claim how effective and/or efficiently spin can be conducted by the cap layer, and (b) the cap layer having the claimed material composition would inherently have spin conductivity as discussed below, the cap layer (402; protective film or portion of it) includes one or more substances selected from a cap layer group consisting of Ag, Mg, Al, Si, Ge, and GaAs as a major component (col. 5, lines 44-46), because the protective film 402 formed of a stack of MgO/Ta, MgO/Ta/Ru or MgO/Ru/Ta, or the MgO layer of the protective film 402 includes Mg as a major component, the diffusion prevention layer (3102) has an element selected from a diffusion prevention layer group consisting of a magnetic element and an element having an atomic number equal to or higher than an atomic number of yttrium, which is 39 (Pt layer of Co/Pt, CoFe/Pt or Fe/Pt multilayered film, which has an atomic number of 78, or Pd layer of Co/Pd multilayered film, which has an atomic number of 46, because the limitation “a diffusion prevention layer group consisting of a magnetic element and an element having an atomic number equal to or higher than an atomic number of yttrium” does not necessarily suggest that the diffusion prevention layer group consists of elements that are magnetic with an atomic number equal to or higher than an atomic number of yttrium, the element selected from the diffusion prevention layer group is dispersed in the diffusion prevention layer (Pt or Pd layer), the spin-orbit torque wiring (501) includes a nonmagnetic metal having an atomic number of 39 or higher having a d electron or an f electron in the periodic table in an outermost shell (W; atomic number 74) (col. 6, lines 18-19), the magnetoresistance effect element is inherently configured to generate a spin-orbit torque from a pure spin current flow, which is directed to an intended use of the claimed magnetoresistance effect element, the spin-orbit torque wiring having a spin-orbit interaction inherently controls the direction of magnetization of the second ferromagnetic metal layer (302) by an effect of the spin-orbit torque under certain conditions together with other parameters as discussed above under 35 USC 112(a) rejection, the spin-orbit torque wiring is inherently configured to generate the pure spin current flow, which is directed to an intended use of the spin-orbit torque wiring, in the spin-orbit torque wiring (501), a current flowing in an extending direction of the spin-orbit torque wiring, and a pure spin current is induced in a direction perpendicular to a direction in which the current flows, which is directed to an intended us as discussed above, because this limitation is indefinite as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, and the second ferromagnetic metal layer (ferromagnetic free layer 302) and the cap layer (402) are inherently configured such that the pure spin current flow from the spin-orbit torque wiring (501) diffuses into the second ferromagnetic metal layer, via the cap layer and the diffusion prevention layer (3102), to change the direction of magnetization of the second ferromagnetic metal layer, which is also directed to an intended uses of the spin-orbit torque wiring and the cap layer, because (a) Hayakawa et al. disclose all the other claim limitations except for the functional languages of claim 3, and (b) if Hayakawa et al. do not disclose the limitations cited above, claim 3 would be indefinite for not claiming an essential or critical feature to the practice of the claimed invention (claim 3), wherein the cap layer (402) is arranged between the spin-orbit torque wiring (501) and the diffusion prevention layer (3102) (claim 23).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments in the REMARKS filed November 3, 2025 regarding the new matter issue of the limitation “the spin-orbit torque wiring having a spin-orbit interaction controls the direction of magnetization of the second ferromagnetic metal layer by an effect of the spin-orbit torque” as recited on lines 22-24 of claim 3 and on lines 26-27 of claim 24 are not persuasive, because (a) it is not clear what Applicants argue about, (b) “the spin-orbit torque wiring having a spin-orbit interaction” per se cannot control the direction of magnetization of the second ferromagnetic metal layer by the effect of the spin-orbit torque sine the term “the spin-orbit torque wiring having a spin-orbit interaction” is directed to a structural element rather than being directed to how the spin-orbit torque wiring is utilized, (c) as discussed before in the Non Final Office Action, and again above in current Office Action, there are numerous parameters that control the claimed direction of magnetization of the second ferromagnetic metal layer by the effect of the spin-orbit torque, and (d) Applicant further claims that “the second ferromagnetic metal layer and the cap layer are configured such that the pure spin current flow from the spin-orbit torque wiring diffuses into the second ferromagnetic metal layer, via the cap layer and the diffusion prevention layer, to change the direction of magnetization of the second ferromagnetic metal layer” on lines 28-31 of the amended claim 3 and on lines 30-33 of the new claim 24, and therefore, it does not appear that the spin-orbit torque wiring having the spin-orbit interaction cannot exactly control the direction of magnetization of the second ferromagnetic metal layer by the effect of the spin-orbit torque since the second ferromagnetic metal layer and the cap layer also play significant roles.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Eckern et al., “Room-temperature transport properties of spin-orbit coupled Fermi systems: Spin thermoelectric effects, phonon skew scattering,” arXiv: 1609.00561v1 (2016).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAY C KIM whose telephone number is (571) 270-1620. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM - 6:00 PM 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, Joshua Benitez can be reached on (571) 270-1435. 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.
/JAY C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815
/J. K./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2815 January 5, 2026