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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/23/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the language “when a voltage is applied, induce a polarization in the magnetoelectric layer and the ferromagnetic layer based on the applied voltage” in lines 4-6 and “when a current is applied through the ferromagnetic layer and the spin-orbit coupling layer, a voltage is induced on the one or more output electrodes” in lines 8-10 which is considered functional language; however it is unclear what specific structure accomplishes the stated functions. While functional language is permissible in claim limitations, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). In the present case, any specific structure required to “induce a polarization in the magnetoelectric layer and the ferromagnetic layer based on the applied voltage” and “a voltage is induced on the one or more output electrodes” to make either outside of that already claimed is not specifically identified by the Applicant, therefore the use of functional language in the claims fails "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and is thus indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP §2173.05(g). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the language as being met if all previously established structural features are present in the prior art. Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, the language “when a voltage is applied, induces a polarization in the magnetoelectric layer and the ferromagnetic layer based on the applied voltage” in lines 4-6 and “when a current is applied through the ferromagnetic layer and the spin-orbit coupling layer, a voltage is induced on the one or more output electrodes” in lines 8-10 which is considered functional language; however it is unclear what specific structure accomplishes the stated functions. While functional language is permissible in claim limitations, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). In the present case, any specific structure required to “induce a polarization in the magnetoelectric layer and the ferromagnetic layer based on the applied voltage” and “a voltage is induced on the one or more output electrodes” to make either outside of that already claimed is not specifically identified by the Applicant, therefore the use of functional language in the claims fails "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and is thus indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). See MPEP §2173.05(g). For purposes of compact prosecution, the Examiner will interpret the language as being met if all previously established structural features are present in the prior art. Claims 15-16 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8-13, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gosavi et al. [US 2023/0353157 A1], “Gosavi”.
Regarding claim 1, Gosavi discloses a die (Fig. 1A, 100) comprising:
a magnetoelectric layer (122);
a ferromagnetic layer (110a);
one or more input electrodes (102 a/b), wherein the one or more input electrodes, when a voltage is applied, induce a polarization in the magnetoelectric layer and the ferromagnetic layer based on the applied voltage (¶[0036]);
a spin-orbit coupling layer (134); and
one or more output electrodes (104 a/b), wherein, when a current is applied through the ferromagnetic layer and the spin-orbit coupling layer, a voltage is induced on the one or more output electrodes (¶[0033]-¶[0034]),
wherein the ferromagnetic layer (110a) is a first perovskite, wherein the spin-orbit coupling layer (134) is a second perovskite (¶[0049] teaches the MESO device of FIG. 1A is a perovskite-based MESO device in that perovskite materials are used for the magnetoelectric layer (122), the ferromagnets (110a-b) and the spin-orbit coupling layer (134)).
Regarding claim 8, Gosavi discloses claim 1, Gosavi discloses the ferromagnetic layer comprises strontium, iron, molybdenum, and oxygen (¶[0051]).
Regarding claim 9, Gosavi discloses claim 1, Gosavi discloses the magnetoelectric layer is a third perovskite (¶[0052]).
Regarding claim 10, Gosavi discloses claim 9, Gosavi discloses the magnetoelectric layer comprises bismuth, iron, and lanthanum (¶[0052]).
Regarding claim 11, Gosavi discloses claim 1, Gosavi discloses the magnetoelectric layer is lattice matched to the ferromagnetic layer, wherein the ferromagnetic layer is lattice matched to the spin-orbit coupling layer (¶[0022]).
Regarding claim 12, Gosavi discloses claim 1, Gosavi discloses a majority gate, wherein the majority gate (Fig. 1A, 100) comprises the magnetoelectric layer (122), the ferromagnetic layer (110a), the one or more input electrodes (102 a/b), the spin-orbit coupling layer (134), and the one or more output electrodes (104 a/b) (See Fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 13, Gosavi discloses claim 1, Gosavi discloses a processor comprising the die of claim 1 (¶[0098] and Fig. 1A and 11).
Regarding claim 17, Gosavi discloses a die (Fig. 1A, 100) comprising:
a spin-orbit coupling layer (134); and
a ferromagnetic layer (110b) located on the spin-orbit coupling layer (134); and
wherein the ferromagnetic layer is lattice matched to the spin-orbit coupling layer (¶[0022]/[0071]).
Regarding claim 20, Gosavi discloses claim 17, Gosavi discloses the ferromagnetic layer comprises strontium, iron, molybdenum, and oxygen (¶[0051]).
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.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gosavi et al. [US 2023/0353157 A1], “Gosavi” as applied in claim 7 and further in view of Debashis et al. [US 2024/0147867 A1], “Debashis”.
Regarding claim 7, Gosavi discloses claim 1, Gosavi disclose the ferromagnetic layer comprises strontium, iron, molybdenum, and oxygen (¶[0051]). Gosavi does not disclose strontium, calcium, ruthenium, and oxygen.
However, Debashis disclose an apparatus comprising a first ferromagnetic layer comprises strontium, calcium, ruthenium, and oxygen (¶[0123]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a suitable ferromagnetic material comprising strontium, calcium, ruthenium, and oxygen as taught in Debashis in the device of Gosavi because using a suitable ferromagnetic material would allow for the MEMTJ devices may allow a computing device to retain at least part of its state after being powered down (¶[0030] of Debashis). Further, Further, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (see MPEP 2144.07).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. Claims 15-16 would be allowable by virtue of their dependency on claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lin et al. [US 2023/0086080 A1] discloses a die (Fig. 1, 100) comprising: a magnetoelectric layer (122); a ferromagnetic layer (110a); one or more input electrodes (102 a/b), wherein the one or more input electrodes, when a voltage is applied, induce a polarization in the magnetoelectric layer and the ferromagnetic layer based on the applied voltage (¶[0023]); a spin-orbit coupling layer (134); and one or more output electrodes (104 a/b), wherein, when a current is applied through the ferromagnetic layer and the spin-orbit coupling layer, a voltage is induced on the one or more output electrodes (¶[0032]), wherein the ferromagnetic layer is a first perovskite (¶[0052] teaches Co-doped or Fe-doped perovskite oxide). Lin discloses the spin-orbit coupling later can be a superlattice with materials such as bismuth (Bi), selenium (Se), antimony (Sb), and/or tellurium (Te), such as BiSe, BiSbTe, and/or SbTe, BiSb (¶[0046] - ¶[0047]). Lin does not disclose the spin-orbit coupling layer is a second perovskite.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRIYA M RAMPERSAUD whose telephone number is (571)272-3464. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Wed 9am-6pm.
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, Chad Dicke can be reached at (571)270-7996. 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.
PRIYA M. RAMPERSAUD
Examiner
Art Unit 2897
/PRIYA M RAMPERSAUD/Examiner, Art Unit 2897