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 .
Claims 1-16 are pending in this application. Claims 1-6, 9-11, and 13 are amended and claims 14-16 are new by applicant’s amendment filed 19 January 2026.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites “the injected second harmonic of the intrinsic frequency of the array.” These terms lack antecedent basis because there has been no previous mention of an injected second harmonic or an intrinsic frequency of the array.
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 1-2, 6-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, Tianshi, Leon Wu, and Jaijeet Roychowdhury (“New computational results and hardware prototypes for oscillator-based Ising machines,” Proceedings of the 56th Annual Design Automation Conference 2019; hereinafter “Wang”) in view of Chen, Tingsu, et al. (“Spin-torque and spin-Hall nano-oscillators,” Proceedings of the IEEE 104.10 (2016): 1919-1945; hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 1, Wang teaches a spin oscillator based Ising machine (Abstract) comprising
at least one array of spin oscillators (fig. 1; section 3 also describes a grid of coupled oscillators, which is a form of an array,
a tuning unit arranged to affect the characteristics of at least one individual spin oscillator of the array (section 3, first paragraph—capacitors tune a capacitance, which affects the oscillation frequency of at least one oscillator); and
a spin oscillator read-out unit arranged to detect and transfer a state of at least one individual spin oscillators of the array (section 3—an Arduino module controls reading of oscillator states to read back a solution from the Ising machine).
Wang does not specifically teach that the spin oscillators are spin Hall nano-oscillators, each spin Hall nano-oscillator of the array of spin Hall nano-oscillators comprising a nano-constriction region. However, Chen teaches:
spin Hall nano-oscillators each comprising a nano-constriction region (fig. 2(g); p. 1926, section IV D—one of several architectures of spin-Hall nano-oscillators comprises a nano-constriction region);
a tuning unit arranged to affect the characteristics of at least one individual spin Hall nano-oscillator (p. 1927, section IV E—output characteristics can be tuned via the application of a tilted magnetic field); and
a SHNO read-out unit arranged to detect and transfer a state of at least one individual spin Hall nano-oscillators (p. 1926, section IV D—an MTJ element performs readout).
All of the claimed elements were known in Wang and Chen and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the spin Hall nano-oscillators of Chen with the Ising machine and array of spin oscillators of Wang to yield the predictable result of a spin Hall nano-oscillator based Ising machine comprising at least one array of spin Hall nano-oscillators (SHNO), each spin Hall nano-oscillator of the array of spin Hall nano-oscillators comprising a nano-constriction region, a tuning unit arranged to affect the characteristics of at least one individual spin Hall nano-oscillator of the array; and a SHNO read-out unit arranged to detect and transfer a state of at least one individual spin Hall nano-oscillators of the array. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving properties of the oscillators, such as easier fabrication, lower required dc, and smaller radiation losses (Chen, p. 1935, section VI B).
Regarding Claim 2, Wang/Chen teaches wherein at least a portion of the spin Hall nano-oscillators are provided with one or more individual SHNO-based units arranged on or in close proximity to the individual SHNOs (pp. 1926-1927, sections IV D and E—an MTJ element and electrodes are SHNO-based units).
Regarding Claim 6, Wang/Chen teaches wherein at least a portion of the spin Hall nano-oscillators are provided with an individual SHNO read-out unit arranged on, or in close proximity to, the individual SHNO, wherein the SHNO read-out unit is arranged to detect and transfer information of a state of the individual SHNO (Chen, p. 1926, section IV D—a readout unit is described in connection with an individual SHNO).
Regarding Claim 7, Wang/Chen teaches wherein the SHNO read-out unit comprises a magnetic tunnel junction (Chen, p. 1926, section IV D—MJT = magnetic tunnel junction, as listed on p. 1920).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang/Chen teaches wherein the SHNO read-out unit comprises an optical detector (Chen, p. 1926, section IV D—direct optical access to the oscillating region is described).
Regarding Claim 9, Wang/Chen teaches a method of operating a spin Hall nano-oscillator based Ising machine according to claim 1 (Wang, Abstract), the method comprising:
-a) defining a combinatorial optimization (CO) problem suitable for computing with the Ising IM machine (Wang, Abstract and section 1—many optimization problems are defined, including 54 problems in the G-set);
-b) mapping, by the tuning unit, the CO problem as variables defined by a phase state of the SHNOs and a coupling strength of the SHNOs (Wang, sections 1 and 2—the G-set problems are mapped to Ising problems as variables that include phase state and coupling coefficients of the oscillators);
-c) annealing the SHNO based Ising machine (Wang, section 4);
-d) engaging the SHNO read-out unit to read out one or more SHNOs of the array (Wang, section 3—reading back results is described. The presentation of results in section 4 implies a read-out unit that is engaged to read out results from the oscillators); and
-e) calculating an Ising Hamiltonian using read out states as one possible solution for the CO problem aiming to minimize the Ising Hamiltonian (Wang, sections 1 and 2).
Regarding Claim 10, Wang/Chen teaches repeating the annealing, the engaging, and the calculating for a limited number of iterations to obtain statistical information regarding solution occurrence (Wang, section 3, last paragraph—the process was repeated for 20 different Ising problems {i.e. a limited number of iterations} to measure distances to optimal solutions, i.e. to obtain statistical information regarding solution occurrence).
Regarding Claim 12, Wang teaches use of an array of spin oscillators in a computational Ising machine (fig. 1; Abstract and section 3—a grid of spin oscillators form an array which is used in a computational Ising machine). Wang does not specifically teach that the spin oscillators are spin Hall nano-oscillators. However, Chen teaches spin Hall nano-oscillators (fig. 2(g); p. 1926, section IV D).
All of the claimed elements were known in Wang and Chen and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the spin Hall nano-oscillators of Chen with the Ising machine and array of spin oscillators of Wang to yield the predictable result of use of an array of spin Hall nano-oscillators in a computational Ising machine. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving properties of the oscillators, such as easier fabrication, lower required dc, and smaller radiation losses (Chen, p. 1935, section VI B).
Regarding Claim 13, Wang/Chen teaches “a method comprising the use of an array of spin Hall nano-oscillators, a tuning unit arranged to affect the characteristics of at least one individual spin Hall nano-oscillator (SHNO) of the array, and a SHNO read-out unit arranged to detect and transfer a state of at least one individual spin Hall nano-oscillator of the array, in an computational Ising machine” in the same manner as described for claims 1 and 12.
Claims 3, 4, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Chen, as applied to claims 1 and 13, above, and further in view of Spicer, Timothy M., et al. (“Spatial mapping of torques within a spin Hall nano-oscillator,” Physical Review B 98.21 (2018): 214438; hereinafter “Spicer”).
Regarding Claim 3, Wang/Chen does not specifically teach wherein the SHNO-based units comprise a voltage gate for electrically influencing the nano-constriction region of the SHNO. However, Spicer teaches SHNO-based units that comprise a voltage gate for electrically influencing the nano-constriction region of a SHNO (section I and fig. 2—the mechanism that injects current IRF to generate mixing voltage Vmix can be considered a voltage gate for electrically influencing the nano-constriction region of a SHNO).
All of the claimed elements were known in Wang/Chen and Spicer and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the voltage gate of Spicer with the SHNOs of Wang/Chen to yield the predictable result of wherein the SHNO-based units comprise a voltage gate for electrically influencing the nano-constriction region of the SHNO. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of facilitating use of the SHNOs within a circuit.
Regarding Claim 4, Wang/Chen/Spicer teaches wherein the SHNO-based units comprise a conductor that is arranged over the nano-constriction region of each SHNO and arranged to control a voltage over the SHNO (section I and figs. 1 and 2—injecting current implies a conductor).
Regarding Claim 15, Wang/Chen/Spicer teaches wherein at least a portion of the spin Hall nano-oscillators are provided with one or more individual SHNO-based units arranged on or in close proximity to the individual SHNOs, and the SHNO-based units comprise a voltage gate for electrically influencing the nano-constriction region of the SHNO (Spicer, section I and fig. 2—the mechanism that injects current IRF to generate mixing voltage Vmix can be considered a SHNO-based unit that comprises a voltage gate for electrically influencing the nano-constriction region of a SHNO).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Chen, as applied to claim 1, above, and further in view of Farkhani, Hooman, et al. (“Spin- Torque-Nano-Oscillator based neuromorphic computing assisted by laser,” 2019 14th International Conference on Design & Technology of Integrated Systems In Nanoscale Era (DTIS). IEEE, 2019; hereinafter “Farkhani”).
Regarding Claim 5, Wang/Chen does not specifically teach wherein the SHNO- based units comprise memristor gate arranged on top of the nano-constriction of the SHNOs. However, Farkhani teaches STNO-based units that comprise a memristor gate arranged on top of the nano-constriction of the STNOs (section II and fig. 2).
All of the claimed elements were known in Wang/Chen and Farkhani and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the memristors of Farkhani with the SHNO-based units of Wang/Chen to yield the predictable result of wherein the SHNO-based units comprise memristor gate arranged on top of the nano-constriction of the SHNOs. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of reducing power consumption and improving speed by reducing a recovery step to a very short time (Farkhani, section II).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Chen, as applied to claim 9, above, and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2021/0367143, hereinafter “Lee”).
Regarding Claim 11, Wang/Chen does not specifically teach wherein the annealing is performed by one, or a combination of: i) altering a global drive current, ii) altering a global external applied field magnitude and/or angle, and iii) altering a strength of the injected second harmonic of the intrinsic frequency of the array. However, Lee teaches wherein annealing is performed by one, or a combination of: i) altering a global drive current, ii) altering a global external applied field magnitude and/or angle, and iii) altering a strength of the injected second harmonic of the intrinsic frequency of the array (¶ [0085]—a spin hall device is annealed in the presence of a global magnetic field of variable magnitude).
All of the claimed elements were known in Wang/Chen and Lee and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the magnetic field of Lee with the annealing of Wang/Chen to yield the predictable result of wherein the annealing is performed by one, or a combination of: i) altering a global drive current, ii) altering a global external applied field magnitude and/or angle, and iii) altering a strength of the injected second harmonic of the intrinsic frequency of the array. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving performance of the SHNO devices.
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Chen, as applied to claims 1 and 13, above, and further in view of Manipatruni et al. (U.S. 2017/0163275, hereinafter “Manipatruni”).
Regarding Claims 14 and 16, Wang/Chen does not specifically teach wherein the tuning unit affects characteristics of at least one individual spin Hall nano-oscillator of the array by altering an auto-oscillating frequency of a SHNO of the array to adjust coupling to an adjacent SHNO. However, Manipatruni teaches wherein a tuning unit affects characteristics of at least one individual spin Hall oscillator of an array by altering an auto-oscillating frequency of a spin Hall oscillator of the array to adjust coupling to an adjacent spin Hall oscillator (¶ [0058]—a coupling coefficient can be adjusted to change oscillation frequencies to synchronize spin Hall oscillators, i.e. to adjust coupling of adjacent spin Hall oscillators).
All of the claimed elements were known in Wang/Chen and Manipatruni and could have been combined by known methods with no change in their respective functions. It therefore would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing of the applicant’s invention to combine the coupling adjustment of Manipatruni with the spin Hall nano-oscillators of Wang/Chen to yield the predictable result of wherein the tuning unit affects characteristics of at least one individual spin Hall nano-oscillator of the array by altering an auto-oscillating frequency of a SHNO of the array to adjust coupling to an adjacent SHNO. One would be motivated to make this combination for the purpose of enabling integration into a chip without having external field application circuitry (Manipatruni, ¶ [0022]).
Response to Arguments
The amendments to the claims are accepted as overcoming most of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Note the remaining rejection of claim 11, detailed above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Zahedinejad, Mohammad, et al. (“Two-dimensional mutual synchronization in spin Hall nano-oscillator arrays,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.09630 (2018)) teaches arrays of spin Hall nano-oscillators with constriction regions
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 HAL W SCHNEE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1918. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
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, Michael Huntley can be reached at 303-297-4307. 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.
/HAL SCHNEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2129