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 .
Acknowledgment
Response filed on 23 July 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-25 are pending with 22-25 previously withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 23 July 2025 have been considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that combination of Karnik with Kim would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and Kim is not analogous art due to not disclosing spin-to-charge conversion. While Kim does not reference spin conversion, the magnetic superlattice of Kim provides an enhancement to the magnetic energy density, which is reasonably pertinent to the problem identified by the instant application for increased output voltage to support a cascade to adjacent MESO devices, thus providing motivation to for the use of a superlattice within the "stack of layers" to increase spin conversion within the MESO device disclosed by Karnik. Kim further discloses within the variable resistance pattern that may contain a superlattice "a free layer having a magnetization direction changeable to be parallel or anti-parallel to the magnetization direction of the pinned layer" (Kim ¶26), a fundamental concept to spintronics.
Previous rejection for claims 1-22 maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9, 12-16, and 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnik et al. WO 2019005176 A1 (hereinafter Karnik) in view of Kim et al. US 20220102427 A1 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Karnik discloses (figs. 2A-7) an apparatus, comprising:
a magnet (201 or 207, ¶41-42); and
a structure (202b-204b and 206a-210a, and 211b, fig. 2A, ¶41, 75), comprising:
a conductive trace (211b, ¶50) coupled to an output voltage terminal (fig. 2A).
Karnik discloses a spin-to-charge conversion (¶29) stack of layers (202-204, ¶41) coupled to the magnet (201 or 207) and the conductive trace (211b) and the stack of layers is to convert a spin current on the magnet into an output charge current on the conductive trace.
Karnik does not disclose the stack of layers within the structure as a superlattice structure comprising one or more topological insulator materials.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses (fig. 1) a superlattice structure (VR) comprising one or more topological insulator materials (Kim¶26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the superlattice comprising one or more topological insulator materials disclosed by Kim in the spin-to-charge conversion stack of layers in the apparatus of Karnik, improving performance by increasing spin-to-charge conversion efficiency.
Regarding claim 2, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the apparatus of Claim 1.
Karnik discloses wherein the structure (2202b-204b and 206a-210a, and 211b, fig. 2A, Karnik ¶41) is a first structure and the conductive trace (211b) is a first conductive trace, and wherein the apparatus further comprises:
a second structure (202a-204a and 206b-210b, and 211a, Karnik fig. 2A, ¶41), comprising:
a second conductive trace (211a, Karnik ¶50) coupled to an input voltage terminal (fig. 2A); and a magnetoelectric material (206b, Karnik ¶54) coupled to the second conductive trace (211a) and the magnet (201 or 207, Karnik ¶41-42), wherein the magnetoelectric material is to convert an input charge current on the second conductive trace into the spin current on the magnet.
Regarding claim 3, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the apparatus of Claim 2,
wherein the superlattice structure (VR, Kim ¶26) further comprises a plurality of alternating layers (Kim ¶26), wherein the plurality of alternating layers alternate between a plurality of materials wherein the plurality of materials comprises: the one or more topological insulator materials; and one or more metals. (Kim discloses metals such as silver and titanium and topological insulating materials containing bismuth, antimony, tellurium, etc., Kim ¶26, "the variable resistance pattern VR may include a compound that includes Te or Se (e.g., chalcogen elements) and Ge, Sb, Bi, Pb, Sn, Ag, As, S, Si, In, Ti, Ga, P, 0, or C. The variable resistance pattern VR may include, e.g., GeSbTe, GeTeAs, SbTeSe, GeTe, SbTe, SeTeSn, GeTeSe, SbSeBi, GeBiTe, GeTeTi, InSe, GaTeSe, or InSbTe, or may have a superlattice structure in which a layer including Ge and a layer not including Ge are alternately and repeatedly stacked").
Regarding claim 5, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the apparatus of Claim 3,
wherein: the one or more topological insulator materials have a high resistance; and the one or more metals have a low resistance (Kim ¶26, discloses topological insulating materials used in the variable resistive element, which would have a high resistance compared to metals which have lower resistance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a high resistance topological insulator material for the first sublayer in the superlattice paired with a low resistance material for the second sublayer, improving device performance with the increased diffusion length of carriers through the lower resistance layer while maintaining the high efficiency of the high resistance layer.
Regarding claim 6, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the apparatus of Claim 2.
Kim discloses wherein: the one or more topological insulator materials comprise a plurality of topological insulator materials (Kim¶26); and the superlattice structure further comprises a plurality of alternating layers, wherein the plurality of alternating layers alternate between the plurality of topological insulator materials wherein the plurality of topological insulator materials comprises: a first topological insulator material and a second topological insulator material (Kim ¶26).
While Kim does not disclose the resistances of the topological insulator materials listed, these materials are used in variable resistance structure and have tunable resistances based on elements added to the compound, such as bismuth, that increases resistance and common to many topological insulating materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a high resistance topological insulator material for the first sublayer in the superlattice paired with a lower resistance topological insulator material for the second sublayer, improving device performance with the increased diffusion length of carriers through the lower resistance layer while maintaining the high efficiency of the high resistance layer.
Regarding claim 9, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the apparatus of Claim 2,
wherein the magnetoelectric material (206, Karnik ¶75) comprises: bismuth, iron, and oxygen; lutetium, iron, and oxygen; bismuth, titanium, and oxygen; lanthanum, bismuth, iron, and oxygen; or terbium, manganese, and oxygen (Karnik ¶135, example 20).
Regarding claim 12, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the apparatus of Claim 2,
wherein the first structure further comprises: a third conductive trace (205, Karnik ¶54-55) coupled to a supply voltage terminal and the magnet (Karnik ¶50-53, figs. 2C-2D).
Regarding claim 13, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the apparatus of Claim 2,
wherein: the output voltage terminal comprises a plurality of differential output voltage terminals; the first conductive trace comprises a plurality of first conductive traces coupled to the plurality of differential output voltage terminals; the input voltage terminal comprises a plurality of differential input voltage terminals; and the second conductive trace comprises a plurality of second conductive traces coupled to the plurality of differential input voltage terminals (Karnik figs. 6-7 shows 601, 602, and 603, with a plurality of first and second conductive traces coupled to individual voltage terminals, ¶86-87).
Regarding claim 14, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the apparatus of Claim 2,
wherein the apparatus is a magnetoelectric spin-orbit (MESO) device, wherein the MESO device comprises the magnet, the first structure, and the second structure (Karnik fig. 2A, ¶28).
Regarding claim 15, Karnik discloses (figs. 2A-7, 10A-10B) an integrated circuit die, comprising:
a plurality of logic devices (601, 602, 603 ¶86-87), wherein each logic device comprises:
a magnet (201 or 207);
a first structure (202b-204b and 206a-210a, and 211b, fig. 2A, ¶41, 75), comprising:
a first conductive trace (211b, ¶50) coupled to an input voltage terminal (fig. 2A); and
a magnetoelectric material (206a, ¶54), coupled to the first conductive trace and the magnet (fig. 2A),
wherein the magnetoelectric material is to convert an input charge current on the first conductive trace into a spin current on the magnet; and
a second structure (202a-204a and 206b-210b, and 211a, fig. 2A, ¶41), and a second conductive trace (211a, ¶50), and
the second conductive trace coupled to an output voltage terminal wherein the input voltage terminal of at least some of the plurality of logic devices is coupled to the output voltage terminal of one or more other logic devices (figs. 6-7).
Karnik discloses a spin-to-charge conversion (¶29) stack of layers (202-204, ¶41) coupled to the magnet (201 or 207) and the second conductive trace (211a) and the stack of layers is to convert a spin current on the magnet into an output charge current on the conductive trace.
Karnik does not disclose the stack of layers within the structure as a second structure comprising: a superlattice structure comprising one or more topological insulator materials, wherein the superlattice structure is coupled to the magnet and wherein the superlattice structure is to convert the spin current on the magnet into an output charge current on the second conductive trace.
In the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses (fig. 1) a superlattice structure (VR) comprising one or more topological insulator materials (Kim¶26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the superlattice comprising one or more topological insulator materials disclosed by Kim in the spin-to-charge conversion stack of layers in the integrated circuit die of Karnik , improving performance by increasing spin-to-charge conversion efficiency.
Regarding claim 16, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the integrated circuit die of Claim 15,
wherein the superlattice structure (VR, Kim ¶26) further comprises a plurality of alternating layers (Kim ¶26), wherein the plurality of alternating layers alternate between a plurality of materials wherein the plurality of materials comprises: the one or more topological insulator materials; and one or more metals. (Kim discloses metals such as silver and titanium and topological insulating materials containing bismuth, antimony, tellurium, etc., Kim ¶26, "the variable resistance pattern VR may include a compound that includes Te or Se (e.g., chalcogen elements) and Ge, Sb, Bi, Pb, Sn, Ag, As, S, Si, In, Ti, Ga, P, 0, or C. The variable resistance pattern VR may include, e.g., GeSbTe, GeTeAs, SbTeSe, GeTe, SbTe, SeTeSn, GeTeSe, SbSeBi, GeBiTe, GeTeTi, InSe, GaTeSe, or InSbTe, or may have a superlattice structure in which a layer including Ge and a layer not including Ge are alternately and repeatedly stacked").
Regarding claim 18, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the integrated circuit die of Claim 15,
wherein: the one or more topological insulator materials comprise a plurality of topological insulator materials (Kim ¶26); and the superlattice structure further comprises a plurality of alternating layers, wherein the plurality of alternating layers alternate between the plurality of topological insulator materials (Kim ¶26).
Claims 4, 7-8, 17, 19, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnik in view of Kim and Guo US PGPUB No. 20210273157 (hereinafter Guo).
Regarding claim 4, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the apparatus of Claim 3,
wherein: the one or more topological insulator materials comprise: bismuth and selenium; bismuth, antimony, and tellurium; or antimony and tellurium (Kim¶26).
Karnik in view of Kim does not disclose the one or more metals comprise platinum, tantalum, or tungsten.
In the same field of endeavor, Guo discloses platinum as a "magnetic super lattice pinning layer" (Guo, Abstract) and as Spin Orbit Torque layer (Guo ¶2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use platinum as the alternate layer in the superlattice of Karnik modified by Kim, improving storage capacity while maintaining the low power consumption provided by the topological insulating layers of the superlattice.
Regarding claim 7, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the apparatus of Claim 6,
wherein: the first topological insulator material comprises: bismuth and selenium; bismuth, antimony, and tellurium; or antimony and tellurium (Kim ¶26). Karnik does not explicitly disclose the second topological insulator material comprises bismuth and antimony.
In the same field of endeavor, Guo discloses bismuth antimonide (BiSb) topological insulator (Guo ¶2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use BiSb as the second topological insulator material, providing the lower resistance layer within the superlattice, improving storage performance when paired with a high resistance first topological insulating material.
Regarding claim 8, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the apparatus of Claim 2.
Karnik in view of Kim does not disclose wherein the first structure further comprises: a tunnel layer between the magnet and the superlattice structure, wherein the tunnel layer is to tunnel the spin current from the magnet to the superlattice structure, wherein the tunnel layer comprises: magnesium and oxygen; aluminum and oxygen; or silicon and oxygen.
In the same field of endeavor, Guo discloses (fig. 1, ¶5-6) a tunnel barrier (17) between the magnet (14) and the storage layer (18) wherein the tunnel layer comprises: magnesium and oxygen; aluminum and oxygen; or silicon and oxygen (Guo ¶5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the tunnel barrier layer in of Guo apparatus of Karnik modified by Kim, improving storage performance by providing spin filtered tunneling to the superlattice.
Regarding claim 17, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the integrated circuit die of Claim 16,
wherein: the one or more topological insulator materials comprise: bismuth and selenium; bismuth, antimony, and tellurium; or antimony and tellurium (Kim¶26).
Karnik in view of Kim does not disclose the one or more metals comprise platinum, tantalum, or tungsten.
In the same field of endeavor, Guo discloses platinum as a "magnetic super lattice pinning layer" (Guo Abstract) and as Spin Orbit Torque layer (Guo ¶2). It would have been obvious… use platinum as the alternate layer in the superlattice of Karnik modified by Kim, improving storage capacity while maintaining the low power consumption provided by the topological insulating layers of the superlattice.
Regarding claim 19, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the integrated circuit die of Claim 18,
wherein the plurality of topological insulator materials comprises a first topological insulator material and a second topological insulator material (Kim ¶26), wherein:
the first topological insulator material comprises: bismuth and selenium; bismuth, antimony, and tellurium; or antimony and (Kim ¶26). Karnik does not explicitly disclose the second topological insulator material comprises bismuth and antimony.
In the same field of endeavor, Guo discloses bismuth antimonide (BiSb) topological insulator (Guo ¶2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use BiSb as the second topological insulator material, providing the lower resistance layer within the superlattice, improving storage performance when paired with a high resistance first topological insulating material.
Regarding claim 21, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the integrated circuit die of Claim 15,
wherein the second structure further comprises:
a tunnel layer between the magnet and the superlattice structure, wherein the tunnel layer is to tunnel the spin current from the magnet to the superlattice structure.
In the same field of endeavor, Guo discloses (fig. 1, ¶5-6) a tunnel barrier (17) between the magnet (14) and the storage layer (18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the tunnel barrier layer in of Guo apparatus of Karnik modified by Kim, improving storage performance by providing spin filtered tunneling to the superlattice.
Claims 10-11 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnik in view of Kim and Shiokawa et al. US PGPUB No. 20230077612 (hereinafter Shiokawa).
Regarding claim 10, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the apparatus of Claim 2.
Karnik in view of Kim does not disclose wherein the magnet comprises a first magnet and a second magnet coupled via a dielectric layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Shiokawa discloses (fig. 6) the magnet comprises a first magnet (1, Shiokawa ¶94) and a second magnet (20, Shiokawa ¶94) coupled via a dielectric layer(30, Shiokawa ¶94). It would have been obvious to use a first and second magnet coupled via a dielectric layer as disclosed by Shiokawa in the apparatus of Karnik modified by Kim, improving storage reliably by increasing magnetic anisotropy (Shiokawa ¶4).
Regarding claim 11, Karnik in view of Kim and Shiokawa discloses the apparatus of Claim 10,
wherein: the first magnet and the second magnet comprise: cobalt, iron, or nickel; lanthanum, strontium, manganese, and oxygen; or calcium, titanium, and oxygen (Shiokawa ¶55, 107); and the dielectric layer comprises: magnesium and oxygen; aluminum and oxygen; titanium and oxygen; silicon and oxygen; silicon and nitrogen; or hafnium and oxygen (Shiokawa ¶110).
Regarding claim 20, Karnik in view of Kim discloses the integrated circuit die of Claim 15.
Karnik in view of Kim does not disclose wherein the magnet comprises a first magnet and a second magnet coupled via a dielectric layer.
In the same field of endeavor, Shiokawa discloses (fig. 6) the magnet comprises a first magnet (1, Shiokawa ¶94) and a second magnet (20, Shiokawa ¶94) coupled via a dielectric layer(30, Shiokawa ¶94). It would have been obvious to use a first and second magnet coupled via a dielectric layer as disclosed by Shiokawa in the apparatus of Karnik modified by Kim, improving storage reliably by increasing magnetic anisotropy (Shiokawa ¶4).
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karnik in view of Kim, Guo, and Shiokawa.
Regarding claim 22, Karnik in view of Kim and Guo discloses the integrated circuit die of Claim 21,
wherein: the first magnet and the second magnet comprise: cobalt, iron, or nickel; lanthanum, strontium, manganese, and oxygen; or calcium, titanium, and oxygen (Shiokawa ¶55, 107); and the dielectric layer comprises: magnesium and oxygen; aluminum and oxygen; titanium and oxygen; silicon and oxygen; silicon and nitrogen; or hafnium and oxygen (Shiokawa ¶110). It would have been obvious to use a first and second magnet coupled via a dielectric layer as disclosed by Shiokawa in the apparatus of Karnik modified by Kim, improving storage reliably by increasing magnetic anisotropy (Shiokawa ¶4).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Seth Lawson whose telephone number is (703)756-5675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Yara Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/Seth D Lawson/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893