DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Amendment filed September 9, 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 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 1-8 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 1, it is not clear what the limitation “a low resistance part made of a material having electric resistance lower than electric resistance of the pure spin current generation part (emphasis added)” recited on lines 10-12 suggests, because (a) as has been well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art, a resistance R is defined as follows;
PNG
media_image1.png
110
326
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
(b) in other words, a resistance not only depends on a material property, i.e. a resistivity, but also on a plurality of physical dimensions, i.e. a length and a cross sectional area, (c) however, the phrase “a material having electric resistance” in the limitation cited above appears to suggest that the electric resistance is solely a material property that is singlehandedly determined by the material of the low resistance part, which is compared with the “electric resistance of the pure spin current generation part”, and (d) therefore, it is not clear how the claimed “electric resistance” of the material that constitutes the low resistance part can be unambiguously determined.
(2) Also regarding claim 1, it is not clear how the “electric resistance” of the material of the low resistance part and the “electric resistance of the pure spin current generation part” recited on lines 10-12 can be unambiguously determined, because (a) as discussed above, an “electric resistance” is determined by numerous parameters, (b) claim 1 is directed to the embodiment shown in Fig. 12 of current application, where the claimed low resistance part should refer to the composite structure of 42D, 42E and 42F, and the claimed pure spin current generation part should refer to the structure of 41 shown in Fig. 12 of current application, (c) therefore, there are numerous values of the claimed “electric resistance” that can be measured especially for the claimed low resistance part due to its complex shape, (d) even for the claimed pure spin current generation part 41, there are numerous values of the claimed “electrical resistance” that can be measured for the claimed pure spin generation part 41 since an electric resistance measured between the top and bottom surface of the pure spin generation part 41 would be different from an electric resistance measured between the left and right side surfaces of the pure spin generation part 41, see the formula of a resistance above, both of which would be different from an electric resistance measured between the two surfaces into and out of page direction, see also the formula of the resistance above, and (d) therefore, without Applicants’ specifically claiming how the “electric resistance” of the low resistance part and the “electric resistance of the pure spin current generation part” are determined, even a single spin-orbit torque wiring may or may not meet the claimed comparison of the two electric resistances recited in claim 1.
(3) Further regarding claim 1, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements, see MPEP § 2172.01, and the omitted elements are: the component layers or structural features that render a “magnetoresistance effect element” into the claimed “spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element”, because (a) Applicants argue that the magnetoresistance effect element disclosed by Choi et al. is not the claimed “spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element” in the REMARKS filed September 9, 2025, (b) however, as has already been discussed during the prosecution of the parent application of current application, i.e. patent application 15/778,174, Applicants claim structural elements and features that are directed to a magnetoresistance effect element with the claimed spin-orbit torque wiring comprising a common material or common materials used for a bit line of a magnetoresistance effect element in semiconductor industry, (c) even though Applicants claim material compositions of the low resistance part and the pure spin current generation part on lines 21-27 of the amended claim 1, the pure spin current generation part and the low resistance part can respectively be formed of, for example, tungsten and copper, and in this case, the claimed spin-orbit torque wiring is merely a bilayer structure of two metals, which would not necessarily render a “magnetoresistance effect element” into the claimed “spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element” since such a bilayer electrode/wiring structure has been common in semiconductor industry, and (d) therefore, it still appears that the claimed “spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element” lacks a critical or essential feature to build a “spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element” if the limitation “spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element” is not directed to an intended use of “magnetoresistance effect element”.
Claims 2-8 depend on claim 1, and therefore, claims 2-8 are also indefinite.
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, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2015/0311253) in view of Manipatruni et al. (US 10,333,523)
In the below prior art rejection, the claim limitations “spin current magnetization rotational” and “pure spin current generation” specify intended uses or fields of use, and are treated as non-limiting 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 claim 1, Choi et al. disclose a spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element (Fig. 5), because (a) as discussed above, the limitation “spin current magnetization rotational” is directed to an intended use of a magnetoresistance effect element, especially when Applicants do not specifically claim any structural feature that is only germane to the claimed “spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element”, and (b) if the magnetoresistance effect element MTJ disclosed by Choi et al. is not “a spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element”, then claim 1 would be further indefinite for Applicants not having claimed a critical and/or essential feature to the practice of the claimed invention as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections after Applicants made allegations that the magnetoresistance effect element disclosed by Choi et al. is not the claimed spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element, comprising: a magnetoresistance effect element (MTJ) including a first ferromagnetic metal layer (MS1 or MS2 in Fig. 3A or 3B) ([0061]) in which a direction of magnetization is fixed, a second ferromagnetic metal layer (MS2 or MS1) configured for a direction of magnetization to be changed, and a nonmagnetic layer (TBR) provided between the first ferromagnetic metal layer and the second ferromagnetic metal layer; and a spin-orbit torque wiring (composite structure of upper electrode TE and bit line BL) ([0056] and [0060]) extending in a first direction intersecting a lamination direction of the magnetoresistance effect element and joined to the second ferromagnetic metal layer, wherein, the spin-orbit torque wiring contains a pure spin current generation part (upper electrode TE) made of a material that generates a pure spin current, which is directed to an intended use of the upper electrode TE, and a low resistance part (BL) made of a material having electric resistance lower than electric resistance of the pure spin current generation part, because (a) as discussed above under 35 USC 112(b) rejections, an “electric resistance” would vary depending on how the electric resistance is measured, (b) therefore, some arbitrary portions of the upper electrode TE or the pure spin current generation part and some arbitrary portions of the bit line BL or the low resistance part can be measured to satisfy the claim limitation, and (c) the bit line BL is formed of aluminum or copper ([0111]), which is a low resistance metal material commonly employed in a semiconductor device, and which is the material composition recited on line 21 of the amended claim 1, at least a part of the pure spin current generation part (upper electrode TE) is in contact with the second ferromagnetic metal layer (uppermost layer of MTJ), the pure spin current generation part is coated with the low resistance part (BL), the low resistance part has a first convex shape portion (circled portion illustrated below) projecting in a thickness direction of the low resistance part, because (a) Applicants do not specifically claim with respect to which element the claimed “first convex shape portion” projects, and (b) the circled bit line BL portion illustrated below projects from the upper electrode TE in the thickness direction of the low resistance part, the first convex shape portion is provided on a position which is superimposed on at least the magnetoresistance effect element (MTJ) in a plan view from the lamination direction of the magnetoresistance effect element, and the low resistance part (BL) is made of aluminum, silver, copper, or gold ([0111]).
PNG
media_image2.png
458
460
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Choi et al. differ from the claimed invention by not showing that the pure spin current generation part is made of a material which includes 90% or more and 100% or less in terms of molar ratio of a nonmagnetic metal having an atomic number of 39 or higher having a d electron or an f electron in an outermost shell, a material made of an antiferromagnetic metal selected from a group consisting of IrMn and PtMn, or a material made of a topological insulator selected from a group consisting of SnTe, Bi1.5Sb0.5Te1.7Se1.3, TIBiSe2, Bi2Te3, and (Bi1-xSbx)2Te3.
Manipatruni et al. disclose a spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element (Title and Fig. 3 or 4), comprising a spin-orbit torque wiring (composite structure of 302 and 303a/303b in Fig. 3, or composite layer of 401, 404 and 406 in Fig. 4), comprising a pure spin current generation part (302 or 401) made of a material that inherently generates a pure spin current, because tantalum (Ta), tungsten (W) and/or platinum (Pt) disclosed by Manipatruni et al. satisfies the limitation “a nonmagnetic metal having an atomic number of 39 or higher having a d electron or an f electron in an outermost shell” recited on lines 23-24 of the amended claim 1, and a low resistance part made of copper (303a/303b or 404/406) recited on line 21 of the amended claim 1.
Since both Choi et al. and Manipatruni et al. teach a (spin current magnetization rotational) magnetoresistance effect element, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the (spin current magnetization rotational) magnetoresistance effect element disclosed by Choi et al. can comprise Ta, W and/or Pt disclosed by Manipatruni et al. as the top electrode TE material shown in Fig. 5 of Choi et al., because (a) Ta, W and/or Pt have been commonly employed electrode materials in manufacturing magnetic semiconductor devices due to their stability and compatibility with the magnetic materials, and (b) it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case, Choi et al. in view of Manipatruni et al. disclose the claimed spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element, because Choi et al. in view of Manipatruni et al. disclose all the claimed structural and materials limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Choi et al. further disclose that the low resistance part (BL) has second convex shape portions (circled portions illustrated below) projecting in the thickness direction of the low resistance part (bit line BL), because it appears that the claimed second convex shape portions projecting in the thickness direction of the low resistance part refer to the portions 42D and 42E shown in Fig. 12 of current application, which are similar to the circled portions illustrated below, and in a plan view from the lamination direction of the magnetoresistance effect element, each of the second convex shape portions is provided on both ends of the first convex shape portion (middle portion corresponding to 152 in Fig. 5) in the first direction.
PNG
media_image3.png
458
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Manipatruni et al. further disclose for the spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element according to claims 1 and 2 that the spin-orbit torque wiring (composite structure of 302 and 303a/303b in Fig. 3, or composite layer of 401, 404 and 406 in Fig. 4) includes a nonmagnetic metal (Ta, W and/or Pt) having an atomic number of 39 or higher having a d electron or an f electron in an outermost shell.
Regarding claim 5, Choi et al. further disclose a magnetic memory (Fig. 5) comprising a plurality of spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect elements according to Claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicants’ arguments stating that the 35 USC 112(b) rejections are overcome on the first page of the REMARKS are not persuasive, because (a) Applicants do not claim a resistivity, but rather claim a resistance, (b) depending on where the two probes for measuring the claimed resistance are located, the measured electric resistances of the low resistance part and the pure spin current generation part would be different from each other according to the formula mentioned above, and (c) for example, the following three measurements illustrated below, where the two arrows indicate where the two probes for the measurement of the electric resistance of the low resistance part are located, would result in distinct electric resistance values.
PNG
media_image4.png
378
570
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
378
570
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
378
570
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Applicants’ arguments in the REMARKS traversing the prior art rejection by alleging that the magnetoresistance effect element disclsoed by Choi et al. is not a spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element are not persuasive, because (a) as discussed before and again above, the limitation “spin current magnetization rotational” magnetoresistance effect element is directed to an intended use of a magnetoresistance effect element, (b) Applicants simply claim a magnetoresistance effect element structure without any specific or special feature that would render the magnetoresistance effect element into the claimed spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element, (c) the magnetoresistance effect element having a spin orbit torque effect disclosed by Manipatruni et al. appears similar to the magnetoresistance effect element disclosed by Choi et al., and (d) if a top electrode made of a material which includes 90% or more and 100% or less in terms of molar ratio of a nonmagnetic metal having an atomic number of 39 or higher having a d electron or an f electron in an outermost shell as recited on lines 22-24 of the amended claim 1 is the only requirement for forming the claimed spin current magnetization rotational magnetoresistance effect element, then the combined teachings of Choi et al. and Manipatruni et al. would read on claim 1 as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimizu et al. (US 7,869,265)
Araki (US 10,658,021)
Braganca et al. (US 9,768,229)
Byun et al. (US 7,523,543)
Yoda et al. (US 6,797,536)
Applicants' amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are 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 at (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 October 22, 2025