DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues the following on pages 4-6 of the instant remarks:
Gosavi et al. (US 2019/0386202 A1; hereinafter “Gosavi”), and further in view of Eom et al. (US 2020/0203601 A1; hereinafter “Eom”) rely on an “improper combination based on lack of equivalents “.
The prior art fails to teach “the absence of an external magnetic field”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with these arguments. In regard to argument A, the applicant argues “Mn3GaN and Mn3Sn have different crystal systems (cubic antiperovskite vs. hexagonal) and different symmetries of their magnetic structures” and “Mn3GaN and Mn3Sn cannot be regarded as equivalents with respect to the specific functionality of zero-field switching”. Gosavi teaches chiral AFM based SOC electrode 222 comprises chiral AFM such as Mn--3X class of materials, where ‘X’ is one of Ge, Sn, Ga, Ir, Rh, or Pt (emphasis added). The Mn.sub.3X materials exhibit a non-collinear AFM order which, to avoid geometrical frustration, forms planes of Mn moments that are arranged in a Kagome-type lattice. This provides evidence that any teachings in Gosavi can be applied to Eom. Further, the Examiner notes in paragraph 66 of the instant application teaches although the above embodiments are directed to Mn--3Sn as an example of canted antiferromagnets exhibiting a magnetic spin Hall effect, typical substances that can be employed herein include canted antiferromagnets with composite formula Mn--3X (where X is Sn, Ge, Ga, Rh, Pt, Ir, or the like) exhibiting a large anomalous Hall effect. Therefore, Mn3GaN and Mn3Sn are equivalent in regards to the teachings of the instant application.
In regard to argument B, the applicant asserts Gosavi and Eom both fail to teach the limitation “the magneto-resistive element being configured to allow a spin current generated in the antiferromagnetic layer to exert a spin-orbit torque on the perpendicular magnetization, thereby causing reversal of the perpendicular magnetization in the absence of an external magnetic field”. As evident in Nakatsuji, S. et al. (Large anomalous Hall effect in a non-collinear antiferromagnet at room temperature. Nature 527, 212–215 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15723 (Year: 2015); hereinafter “Nakatsuji”), the magneto-resistive element causing reversal of the perpendicular magnetization in the absence of an external magnetic field is an inherent property of the material of the magneto-resistive element. Therefore, since discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer (see for example MPEP 2112), the claim is met by a prior art containing Mn3Sn or an equivalent material such as Mn3GaN. Both of which are found to be used in the teachings Gosavi and Eom. Further, the examiner notes that Gosavi teaches spin toque is considered an external field used to break symmetry (paragraph 22 and 67). While Gosavi labels spin torque as an external field it is not an external magnetic field.
Applicant’s arguments in regard to claim 9 filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C 112(d) rejection of claim 9 has been withdrawn.
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, 5-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosavi et al. (US 2019/0386202 A1; hereinafter “Gosavi”), and further in view of Eom et al. (US 2020/0203601 A1; hereinafter “Eom”) and Nakatsuji, S. et al. (Large anomalous Hall effect in a non-collinear antiferromagnet at room temperature. Nature 527, 212–215 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15723 (Year: 2015); hereinafter “Nakatsuji”).
In regard to claim 1, Gosavi teaches a spintronics element (memory device) (Fig.2A-2C and paragraphs 46-49), comprising: an antiferromagnetic layer (222) made of a canted antiferromagnet having a canted magnetic moment within Kagome lattice layers stacked in [0001] direction of the canted antiferromagnet parallel to an out-of-plane direction of the antiferromagnetic layer (AFM (antiferromagnetic) material Mn.sub.3Sn based SOC electrode 222 is considered canted with canted moments due to the Kagome lattice having a non-collinear AFM, further Mn3Sn is known to have a Kagome lattice layer stacked in the [0001] which would be an out of plane direction for the SOC electrode 222) (Fig. 2C and paragraphs 60 and 63-64), and a magneto-resistive element (221a) stacked on the antiferromagnetic layer and containing a ferromagnet (CFGG) with a perpendicular magnetization (perpendicular magnetization is a result of thickness of the ferromagnetic layer 221a shown in equivalent structure in Fig. 4A) aligned with the out-of-plane direction that is a stacking direction (+Z) (Fig. 2A and paragraphs 48-50), the magneto-resistive element being configured to allow a spin current generated in the antiferromagnetic layer to exert a spin-orbit torque on the perpendicular magnetization (paragraph 48), thereby causing reversal of the perpendicular magnetization (reversal of magnetization shown in equivalent structure shown in Figs. 5A-5B), the antiferromagnetic layer has a spin structure (non-collinear spin structure) that allows reversal of a spin polarization direction of the spin current either by reversing an antiferromagnetic spin structure through spin torque effects or reversal of an in-plane magnetic field, or by reversing the electric current flowing in the in-plane direction (paragraph 63).
In regard to the limitation stating “the magneto-resistive element being configured to allow a spin current generated in the antiferromagnetic layer to exert a spin-orbit torque on the perpendicular magnetization, thereby causing reversal of the perpendicular magnetization in the absence of an external magnetic field“
Applicant admits in paragraph 36 that this manner of using is known as the "Hall Effect". Accordingly, even though the Gosavi reference discloses such a limitation, that limitation has no patentable weight for the following reasons (See MPEP 2112.01 and MPEP 2114 et seq., which discuss why a manner of operating structure is not a patentable limitation narrowing structure). Also see 2106.05 which discusses that natural phenomenon are not patentable.
In regard to the limitations stating the antiferromagnetic layer has a spin structure that allows reversal of a spin polarization direction of the spin current either by reversing an antiferromagnetic spin structure through spin torque effects or reversal of an in-plane magnetic field, or by reversing the electric current flowing in the in-plane direction.
Applicant admits in paragraph 29 that the Mn3Sn has a non-collinear spin structure and the Examiner notes intended use and other types of functional language 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 to performing the intended use, and then it meets the claim. Therefore an the Examiner takes official notice that the a non-collinear AFM order of Mn3Sn present in Gosavi allows for reversal of a spin polarization direction of the spin current either by reversing an antiferromagnetic spin structure through spin torque effects or reversal of an in-plane magnetic field, or by reversing the electric current flowing in the in-plane direction (See MPEP 2112.01 and MPEP 2114 et seq., which discuss why a manner of operating structure is not a patentable limitation narrowing structure).
However, Gosavi does not explicitly teach that the antiferromagnetic layer is configured to allow an electric current flowing in one direction parallel to an in-plane direction of the antiferromagnetic layer to induce spin accumulation in which spins of electrons are polarized obliquely to the out-of-plane direction, wherein the canted antiferromagnet has a spin order of a cluster magnetic octupole and has a source and drain of a fictitious magnetic field as a Berry curvature in momentum space.
Eom teaches a spintronics element (spintronics device) (Fig. 1C and paragraph 17) comprising: an antiferromagnetic layer (layer containing Mn3Sn) configured to allow an electric current flowing (JC) in one direction parallel to an in-plane direction of the antiferromagnetic layer to induce spin accumulation in which spins of electrons are polarized obliquely to an out-of-plane direction of the antiferromagnetic layer (the oblique polarization is given evidence by the anti-damping torque being non-zero which means the damping torque would be non-zero thus resulting in obliquely polarized spins) (Figs. 1C, 3A and paragraphs 19, 27 and 34-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify the teachings of Gosavi with the teachings of Eom to have the electric current flowing in one direction parallel to an in-plane direction of the antiferromagnetic layer to induce spin accumulation in which spins of electrons are polarized obliquely to an out-of- plane direction of the antiferromagnetic layer since the unconventional spin structure of ferromagnets having a non-collinear spin structure allows for the manipulation of the magnetization magnetized ferromagnets, which is used for high-density memory and logic devices as taught by Eom (paragraph 19).
Gosavi teaches the claimed invention but does not explicitly teach the canted antiferromagnet (Mn3Sn used in AFM based SOC electrode 222) has a spin order of a cluster magnetic octupole and has a source and drain of a fictitious magnetic field as a Berry curvature in momentum space. Nakatsuji shows that Mn3Sn has an equivalent structure that is known in the art to have a spin order of a cluster magnetic octupole (Figs. 1b, 1c and [ col.2 and ln. 18-29]). Also, as stated by the applicant a large anomalous Hall effect in an antiferromagnet originates from a fictitious magnetic field (Berry curvature) (see paragraph 32 of instant application’s specification). Nakatsuji describes Mn3Sn exhibiting a large anomalous Hall effect which concepts were understood using Berry-phase concepts (col. 1 and lns.1-28), and therefore shows Mn3Sn would have a source and drain of a fictitious magnetic field as a Berry curvature in momentum space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Gosavi in view of Eom with the teachings of Nakatsuji because these two materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious for the Mn3Sn to be a canted antiferromagnet with a spin order of a cluster magnetic octupole and have a source and drain of a fictitious magnetic field as a Berry curvature in momentum space. (Nakatsuji Figs. 1b, 1c, [col. 1 and lns.1-28 ] and [ col.2 and ln. 18-29]).
In regard to claim 5, Gosavi teaches wherein the canted antiferromagnet exhibits an anomalous Hall effect (due to Mn3Sn in AFM based SOC electrode 222 anomalous Hall effect would be exhibited). Applicant admits in paragraphs 34 that this manner of using is known as the "anomalous Hall effect". Accordingly, even though the Gosavi reference discloses such a limitation, that limitation has no patentable weight for the following reasons (See MPEP 2112.01 and MPEP 2114 et seq., which discuss why a manner of operating structure is not a patentable limitation narrowing structure). Also see 2106.05 which discusses that natural phenomenon are not patentable.
In regard to claim 6, Gosavi teaches wherein a composition formula of the canted antiferromagnet is expressed as Mn3X where X is Sn, Ge, Ca, Rh, Pt, or Ir (Mn3Sn used in AFM based SOC electrode 222 as described in paragraph 60).
In regard to claim 8, Gosavi teaches a magnetic memory device (300) comprising a plurality of memory cells (200) arranged in a matrix (plurality of memory cell circuits 200 arranged in a matrix shown in Fig. 10) (Fig. 10 and paragraph 107), wherein each of the plurality of memory cells includes the spintronics element according to claim 1 and is connected to a bit line and a word line (the magnetic memory cell circuit 200 includes a magnetoresistance effect element 100 constituted of one bit of memory cell, a pair of bit lines BL1 and BL2, a word line WL as shown in Fig. 9) (Fig. 9 and paragraph 98).
In regard to claim 9, Gosavi teaches, a method of writing for a magnetic memory device comprising the spintronics element as recited in claim 1 (device having a Type-II multiferroic material), the method comprising: reversing the perpendicular magnetization of the magneto-resistive element by causing a write current (write current IW) to flow in the in-plane direction of the antiferromagnetic layer thereby causing reversal of the perpendicular magnetization in the absence of an external magnetic field (the write electrode comprises spin Hall effect (SHE) or SOC material (or spin orbit torque (SOT) material), where the SHE material converts charge current IW (or write current) to spin polarized current IS, which exerts spin torque and thereby causes the reversal of the magnetization without an external magnetic field) (Fig. 2A and paragraphs 22, 46, 85 and 88-89).
In regard to claim 10, Gosavi teaches a method of reading for a magnetic memory device (memory device of FIG. 2A device) (Fig. 2A and paragraph 46), the method comprising:
reading out a storage state corresponding to the spintronics element as recited in claim 1 (a state of the memory device is read as described in paragraph 68), based on a measured value obtained by causing a current to flow through the magneto-resistive element (the applied current Iw is converted into spin current Is by SHE Interconnect 222 which switches the direction of magnetization of the free layer and thus changes the charge polarity of the Type-II multiferroic material 221b, where a sensing mechanism is needed to sense the charge polarity change) (paragraph 68).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosavi in view Eom and Nakatsuji as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Manipatruni et al. (US 2019/0304525 A1; hereinafter “Manipatruni”).
In regard to claim 7, Gosavi teaches wherein the magneto-resistive element (221 a-c) comprises: a ferromagnetic free layer (221a) stacked on the antiferromagnetic layer and allowing the reversal of the perpendicular magnetization (Fig. 2A and paragraph 49); an insulating barrier layer (multiferroic material 221b can be made from a dielectric material) stacked on the ferromagnetic free layer (Fig. 2A and paragraphs 73-74).
However, Gosavi in view of Eom and Nakatsuji does not explicitly teach a ferromagnetic fixed layer stacked on the insulating barrier layer and having a fixed magnetization aligned with the out-of-plane direction.
Manipatruni teaches spintronics element (a mechanism for switching an out-of-plane MTJ memory device) (Fig. 5A and paragraph 9), wherein the magneto-resistive element comprises: a ferromagnetic fixed layer (421C) stacked on an insulating barrier layer (dielectric layer 221b) and having a fixed magnetization (556) aligned with the out-of-plane direction (Fig. 5A-5C and paragraphs 67 and 92).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Gosavi in view of Eom and Nakatsuji with the teachings of Manipatruni to have a ferromagnetic fixed layer stacked on the insulating barrier layer and having a fixed magnetization aligned with the out-of-plane direction since this layout improves overall device reliability due to providing results in lower write error rates which enable faster MRAM as taught by Manipatruni (paragraph 37).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL whose telephone number is (571)270-0078. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 7:30AM-3:30 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SEYON ALI-SIMAH PUNCHBEDDELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893