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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “ a first width of the first free layer is substantially larger than a second width of the second free layer, wherein the first width and the second width are measured in a direction orthogonal to a top surface of the substrate” (claim 15) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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.
The term “high exchange stiffness ” in claims 1, 15, & 19 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3,10,12,13,& 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ying (US Pub no. 2021/0036055 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ying et al discloses A memory device, comprising:
a substrate(110)[0028]; a reference layer (250)disposed on the substrate(110)[0046-0047] fig. 4; a tunneling layer(260) disposed on the reference layer(250)[0046-0047]; a film stack(270) formed over the tunneling layer (260)and on the substrate(110) [0046-0047] fig. 3h/fig. 4, wherein the film stack(270) comprises a first free layer(270- Fe-B), a spacer ( MgO of 270) with high exchange stiffness constant )(same material in claim 2)and a second free layer(Co-Fe-B of 270)[0047], the first free layer (270- Fe-B)is in contact with the tunneling layer (260)and the film stack(270)[0046-0047], the spacer ( MgO or Mg of 270) with high exchange stiffness constant is sandwiched between the first free layer(270- Fe-B) and the second free layer(Co-Fe-B of 270)[0047], and the spacer ( MgO or Mg of 270) with high exchange stiffness is a material comprising metal elements with relatively low atomic weight, selected from one of magnesium (Mg)(same material in claim 2); and a capping layer (280)disposed on and electrically connected to the film stack(170)[0047] fig. 4.
Regarding claim 2, Ying et al discloses wherein the spacer with high exchange stiffness constant is a material including Mg[0047].
Regarding claim 3, Ying et al discloses wherein the thickness of the spacer(Mg or MgO) in the film stack (270)is between 0.2 nm to 0.4 nm[0047].
Regarding claim 10, Ying et al discloses wherein the width of the first free
layer(270- Fe-B) is substantially larger than the width of the second free layer(Co-Fe-B of 270) fig. 4(Examine notes since the structure 270 has slanted sides , the second free layer width will have a smaller width than the first free layer).
Regarding claim 12, Ying et al discloses further comprises:
an auxiliary line(SHEL(n)) [0050], disposed on the capping layer(280); and
a selector(S(m.n)), disposed on the auxiliary line(SHEL(n) ) and electrically connected to a bit line(Bl(m)) and the film stack(270), wherein the selector(S(m.n)) is one of threshold-type selector and exponential type selector[0022] fig. 4.
Regarding claim 13, Ying et al discloses further comprising:
a buffer layer (210)located on top of the substrate(110)[0046]; and
a seed layer(220) located in between the buffer layer(210) and the reference layer(250)[0046].
Regarding claim 14, Ying et al discloses further comprising:
a buffer layer(210) located on top of the substrate(110) [0046] fig. 4/fig. 3h; and
a seed layer(220) located in between the buffer layer (210)and the spacer ( MgO or Mg of 270) with high exchange stiffness constant[0047](same material in claim 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
Claim(s)15, 18, & 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ying (US Pub no. 2021/0036055 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Ying et al discloses A method of fabricating a memory device, comprising: providing a plurality of transistors(TR1/TR2) disposed on a substrate(110)[0017][0028] fig. 2; forming a plurality of conductive vias (C2)electrically coupled to the plurality of transistors(TR1/TR2)[0034] fig. 3d ;
forming a reference layer(250) disposed on the substrate (110)and electrically coupled to the plurality of conductive vias(C2)[0046-0047][0034]; forming a tunneling layer(260) disposed on the reference layer(250) [0046-0047]; forming a film stack (270)formed over the tunneling layer(260) and on the substrate(110)[0046-0047], wherein the film stack(270) comprises a first free layer(270- Fe-B), a spacer( MgO of 270) and a second free layer(Co-Fe-B of 270)[0047], the first free layer(270- Fe-B) is in contact with the tunneling layer(260) and the film stack(270)[0047], the spacer( MgO or Mg of 270) is sandwiched between the first free layer (270- Fe-B)and the second free layer (Co-Fe-B of 270)[0047], a first width of the first free layer(270- Fe-B) is substantially larger than a second width of the second free layer (Co-Fe-B of 270)[0047], wherein the first width and the second width are measured in a direction orthogonal to a top surface of the substrate(110)fig. 4-[0047](Examine notes since the structure 270 has slanted sides , the second free layer width will have a smaller width than the first free layer); forming a capping layer(280) disposed on and electrically connected to the film stack(270)[0047]; and forming a connecting via(S(m,n)) disposed on and electrically connected to the film stack(270) fig3h/fig. 4.
Ying et al fails to teach a high exchange stiffness constant. However, Ying et al teaches the same material (Mg or MgO[0047]) as applicant's invention[0070][0083] "and therefore would necessarily possess the characteristics of having a high exchange stiffness constant, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433))
Regarding claim 18, Ying et al discloses further comprising: forming a repeated film stack structure(270), wherein the thickness of the spacer(Mg or MgO) is smaller than the thickness of the first free layer(Fe-B)[0046-0047].
Regarding claim 19, Ying et al discloses A method of fabricating a memory device, comprising: providing a plurality of transistors(TR1/TR2) disposed on a substrate(110)[0017][0028] fig. 2;forming a plurality of conductive vias (C2)electrically coupled to the plurality of transistors()TR1/TR2)[0034] fig. 3d;
forming a buffer layer(210) disposed on the substrate(110) [0046]; forming a seed layer (220)disposed on the buffer layer(210) [0046] fig. 4; forming a film stack (270)formed over the seed layer(220) and on the substrate(110)[0046], wherein the film stack (270)comprises a first free layer(270- Fe-B), a spacer (MgO of 270) and a second free layer(Co-Fe-B of 270)[0047], the first free layer(270) is in contact with the seed layer(220) and the film stack(C(m,n))[0046], the spacer (MgO of 270) is sandwiched between the first free layer (270- Fe-B)and the second free layer(Co-Fe-B of 270)[0047], and the spacer( MgO of 270)with high exchange includes Mg and its oxides with predetermined composition[0047]; forming a tunneling layer(260) disposed on the film stack(270)[0046-0047]; forming a reference layer (250)disposed on the tunneling layer(260)[0046-0047]; forming a capping layer (280)disposed on and electrically connected to the reference layer(250) [0046] fig. 4; and forming a connecting via (S(m,n))disposed on and electrically connected to the film stack(270) fig. 3H.
Ying et al fails to teach a high exchange stiffness constant Ying et al fails to teach a high exchange stiffness constant.
However, Ying et al teaches the same material (Mg or MgO[0047]) as applicant's invention[0070][0083] "and therefore would necessarily possess the characteristics of having a high exchange stiffness constant, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433))
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) 1,3,4, 8, 9, & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (US Patent 9,865,801 B1) in view of Yamane (US Pub no. 2018/0123027 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Yamane et al(‘801) discloses A memory device, comprising:
a substrate (12) (col. 4, lines 16-17); a reference layer (50)disposed on the substrate(12)(col. 5. , lines 46-47); a tunneling layer (52)disposed on the reference layer(50)(col. 5, lines 46-47); a film stack(60) formed over the tunneling layer (52)and on the substrate(12) , wherein the film stack(60) comprises a first free layer (62), a spacer(64) with high exchange stiffness constant and a second free layer(66), the first free layer(62) is in contact with the tunneling layer(52) and the film stack(60), and the spacer (64-same material in claim 2 col. 7, lines 25-28; col. 8, lines 14-16 Examiner notes that Yamane et al teaches the same material (Ta (col. 7, lines 25-28; col. 8, lines 14-16) )as applicant’s invention[0070] "and therefore would necessarily possess the characteristics claimed, In re Best 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433)) with high exchange stiffness constant is sandwiched between the first free layer (62)and the second free layer(66); and a capping layer(56) disposed on and electrically connected to the film stack (60).
Yamane et al(‘801) fails to teach a material comprising metal elements with relatively low atomic weight, selected from one of magnesium (Mg), aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), calcium (Ca), cobalt (Co) and nickel (Ni);
However, Yamane et al (‘027) discloses a composite free layer having an comprising a non-magnetic spacer layer including Al [0067][0071] but fails to teach high exchange stiffness constant. Since Yamane et al (‘027) teaches same material and thickness as applicant’s invention[0084], the characteristics of high exchange stiffness and having a relatively low atomic weight is necessarily present, In re Best 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamane et al(‘801) with the teachings of Yamane et al (‘027) because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).)
Regarding claim 3, Yamane et al (‘801) discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the thickness of the spacer in the film stack is between 0.2 nm to 0.4 nm.
However, Yamane et al (‘027) teaches a thickness of a metal coupling layer (spacer)between 0.05 nm to 1 [0067] but fails to teach between 0.2 nm to 0.4 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a thickness between 0.2 nm to 0.4 nm through routine experimentation. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, Yamane et al (‘027) teaches a thickness of a metal coupling layer (spacer)between 0.05 nm to 1 [0067] but fails to teach between 0.2 nm to 0.5 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a thickness between 0.2 nm to 0.4 nm through routine experimentation. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 8, Yamane et al discloses wherein the memory device further forms a repeated structure of the film stacks (60)and wherein the thickness of the spacer(64) is smaller than the thickness of the first free layer(62) fig. 4.
Regarding claim 9, Yamane et al discloses , wherein the repeated number of the repeated structure of the film stacks (60) is predetermined for adjusting the thermal retention factor(col. 7, lines 35-42).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (US Patent 9,865,801 B1) in view of Yamane (US Pub no. 2018/0123027 A1) as applied to claim 4 and further in view of Smith (US Pub no. 2019/0386209 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Yamane et al(‘801) as modified by Yamane et al (‘027) discloses the film stack(60) but fails to teach the thickness of the film stack is smaller than or equal to 1 nm.
Smith et al discloses a thickness of free magnetic layer (105) intervening metal coupling layer (202) and second free magnetic layer (205) having a thickness [0035]but fails to teach smaller than or equal to 1 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve a thickness smaller than or equal to 1 nm through routine experimentation. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Yamane et al (801) & Yamane et al (027)with the teaching of Smith et al to increase the overall interfacial perpendicular anisotropy.
.
Claim(s) 6, 7& 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane (US Patent 9,865,801 B1) in view of Yamane (US Pub no. 2018/0123027 A1)as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Gosavi (US Pub no. 2019/0386205 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yamane et al(‘801) as modified by Yamane et al (‘027) discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the spacer sandwiched between the first free layer and the second free layer is removed and then the memory device further comprises a free layer pair structure.
Gosavi et al teaches removing the spacer sandwiched between the first free layer and the second free layer[0031]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Yamane et al (‘801) and Yamane et al (‘027) with the teachings of Gosavi et al since a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Regarding claim 7, Gosavi et al discloses wherein the memory device
forms a repeated free layer pair structure(221a/c), and wherein the thickness of the first
free layer is substantially the same as the thickness of the second free layer[0066][0114]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Yamane et al & Smith et al with the teachings of Gosavi et al to optimize magnetization direction to the plane of the magnetic layer.
Regarding claim 11, Gosavi et al discloses wherein both the first free
layer (821aa)and the second free layer (821ab)have a plurality of monolayers[0114].
Claim(s) 16, 17 & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying (US Pub no. 2021/0036055 A1) in view of in view of Gosavi (US Pub no. 2019/0386205 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Ying et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 15 and further teaches forming the film stack(270) comprises sequentially forming the first free layer(Fe-B of 270), the spacer(Mg or MgO) with high exchange stiffness constant and the second free layer(Co-Fe-B of 270)[0047], the first free layer (Fe-B of 270)is in contact with the tunneling layer (260)and the film stack(270), and wherein the film stack (270)is patterned together as a pillar structure standing on the tunneling layer (260)so that sidewalls of the film stack(270) are aligned fig. 4; but fails to teach removing the spacer sandwiched between the first free layer and the second free layer, and providing a free layer pair structure.
However, Gosavi et al discloses removing the spacer sandwiched between the first free layer and the second free layer, and providing a free layer pair structure[0031].It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Ying et al with the teachings of Gosavi et al since a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Regarding claim 17, Gosavi et al forming a repeated structure of a repeated free layer pair structure, wherein the thickness of the first free layer and second free layer pair structure [0031] [(821aa/821ab)0114]but fails to teach is smaller than or equal to 1 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve thickness smaller than or equal to 1 nm through routine experimentation. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 20, Ying et al discloses all the claim limitation of claim 19 but fails to teach further comprising: removing the spacer sandwiched between the first free layer and the second free layer; providing a first free layer and second free layer pair structure after removing the spacer; forming a repeated film stack structure, wherein the thickness of each film stack is smaller than or equal to 1 nm.
However, Gosavi et al discloses further comprising: removing the spacer sandwiched between the first free layer and the second free layer; providing a first free layer and second free layer pair structure after removing the spacer; forming a repeated film stack structure, wherein the thickness of each film stack[0031] [(821aa/821ab)0114]but fails to teach is smaller than or equal to 1 nm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve thickness smaller than or equal to 1 nm through routine experimentation. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify Ying et al with the teachings of Gosavi et al since a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Nilssen, 851 F.2d 1401, 7 USPQ2d 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813