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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s application 18/150,816 filed on March 16 2026 in which claims 1 to 20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on January 06 2023 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed on January 06 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein has been considered by the Examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of paper submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) which has been placed of record in the file.
Notation
References to patents will be in the form of (C: L) where C is the column number and L is the line number. References to pre-grant patent publications will be to the paragraph number in the form of (¶ XXXX).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on march 16, 2026 is acknowledged. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 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.
(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.
(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 and 3 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li (US 2010/0219493 A1; hereinafter “Li’).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) structure (1000, Fig.10; ¶ 0070) comprising:
an L-shape MTJ stack (806; Fig.10; ¶ 0070), the L-shaped MTJ stack (2700, Fig.27) including an L-shaped (L-shape MTJ stack, Fig.10) reference layer (2708; Fig.27; ¶ 0103); an L-shaped tunnel barrier layer (2706; Fig.27; ¶ 0104) conformally on the L-shaped reference layer (2706); and an L-shaped(L-shape MTJ stack, Fig.10) free layer (2704; Fig.27; ¶ 0104) conformally on the L-shaped tunnel barrier layer (2706),
wherein a vertical portion of the L-shaped MTJ stack (left side vertical portion of the MTJ; Fig.10) is adjacent to a sidewall of a metal stud (1050; “electrode is treated as a metal stud; Fig.10; ¶ 0067), the metal stud (1050) being directly on top of a metal wire (827; Fig.10; ¶ 0067) in a dielectric layer (932; Fig.10; ¶0067).
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches a first electrode (816, Fig.10; ¶ 0067) being in contact with a horizontal portion of the L-shaped capping layer (808); a conductive stair (1050; 1050 and 827 have different width so following treated as stairs; Fig.10) being horizontally in contact with a vertical portion of the L-shaped capping layer (1050 with 806; Fig.10); and a second electrode (828) being in contact (828 is in electrical contact with MTJ) with the vertical portion of the L- shaped capping layer through the conductive stair (vertical portion of the MTJ).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 2010/0219493 A1; hereinafter “Li’) and in view of Lui et al. (US 2015/0028440 A1; hereinafter “Liu”) and further in view of Oguz et al. (US 2019/0304524 A1; hereinafter “Oguz”).
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches L-shaped capping layer (808; Fig.10; ¶ 0067) on top of the L-shaped MTJ stack (806) of the MTJ device (1000);
wherein a vertical portion of the L-shaped MTJ stack (left side vertical portion of the MTJ; Fig.10) is adjacent to a sidewall of a metal stud (1050; “electrode is treated as a metal stud; Fig.10; ¶ 0067), the metal stud (1050) being directly on top of a metal wire (827; Fig.10; ¶ 0067) in a dielectric layer (932; Fig.10; ¶0067).
Li does not teach an L-shaped performance enhancing layer and does not teach an L-shaped spin-orbit coupling layer
However, Liu teaches a spin-orbit coupling layer (220, Fig, 2B; ¶ 0082) on top of the free layer (204, Fig.2B; ¶0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have a spin-orbit coupling layer on top of the free layer in the device of Li as taught by Liu to have an effective field that may induced when passing a current through the insertion structure (¶ 0033).
However, Oguz teaches a reference layer (110, Fig.2; ¶ 0043) on the performance enhancing layer (108, ¶ 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have a performance enhancing layer under the preference layer in the device of Li and Liu as taught by Oguz for purpose the improves thermal stability of the MTJ device (¶ 0043).
Regarding claim 9, Li teaches a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) structure (1000, Fig.10; ¶ 0070) comprising:
An L-shape MTJ stack (806; Fig.10; ¶ 0070), the L-shaped MTJ stack (2700, Fig.27) including an L-shaped (L-shape MTJ stack, Fig.10) reference layer (2708; Fig.27; ¶ 0103) on an L-shape (L-shape MTJ stack, Fig.10) layer (3112; Fig.31; ¶ 0017)
an L-shaped tunnel barrier layer (2706; Fig.27; ¶ 0104) conformally on the L-shaped reference layer (2706); and an L-shaped (L-shape MTJ stack, Fig.10) free layer (2704; Fig.27; ¶ 0104) conformally on the L-shaped tunnel barrier layer (2706) and an L-shaped capping layer (808; Fig.10; ¶ 0067) on top of the L-shaped MTJ stack (806) of the MTJ device (1000);
wherein a vertical portion of the L-shaped MTJ stack (left side vertical portion of the MTJ; Fig.10) is adjacent to a sidewall of a metal stud (1050; “electrode is treated as a metal stud; Fig.10; ¶ 0067), the metal stud (1050) being directly on top of a metal wire (827; Fig.10; ¶ 0067) in a dielectric layer (932; Fig.10; ¶0067).
Li does not teach an L-shaped performance enhancing layer and does not teach an L-shaped spin-orbit coupling layer
However, Liu teaches a spin-orbit coupling layer (220, Fig, 2B; ¶ 0082) on top of the free layer (204, Fig.2B; ¶0080).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have a spin-orbit coupling layer on top of the free layer in the device of Li as taught by Liu to have an effective field that may induced when passing a current through the insertion structure (¶ 0033).
However, Oguz teaches a reference layer (110, Fig.2; ¶ 0043) on the performance enhancing layer (108, ¶ 0043).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to have a performance enhancing layer under the preference layer in the device of Li and Liu as taught by Oguz for purpose the improves thermal stability of the MTJ device (¶ 0043).
Regarding claim 10, Li teaches a first electrode (816, Fig.10; ¶ 0067) being in contact with a horizontal portion of the L-shaped capping layer (808); a conductive stair (1050; 1050 and 827 have different width so following treated as stairs; Fig.10) being horizontally in contact with a vertical portion of the L-shaped capping layer (1050 with 806; Fig.10); and a second electrode (828) being in contact (828 is in electrical contact with MTJ) with the vertical portion of the L- shaped capping layer through the conductive stair (vertical portion of the MTJ).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 11-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 4 is objected to because the prior art does not teach the following limitations: “… the MTJ device is a first MTJ device and the metal stud is a first metal stud, further comprising a second MTJ device, the second MTJ device comprising: an L-shaped MTJ stack that, from a bottom to a top thereof, includes an L-shaped performance enhancing layer, an L-shaped reference layer, an L-shaped tunnel barrier layer; and an L-shaped free layer; and an L-shaped spin-orbit coupling layer and an L-shaped capping layer on top of the L- shaped MTJ stack of the second MTJ device, wherein a vertical portion of the L-shaped MTJ stack of the second MTJ device is adjacent to a sidewall of a second metal stud, the second metal stud being horizontally aligned with the first metal stud and separated from the first metal stud by a dielectric layer” with the rest of the limitations of claims 3 AND 2 AND 1.
Claim 11 is objected to because the prior art does not teach the following limitations: “… the MTJ device is a first MTJ device and the metal stud is a first metal stud, further comprising a second MTJ device, the second MTJ device comprising: an L-shaped MTJ stack that, from a bottom to a top thereof, includes an L-shaped performance enhancing layer, an L-shaped reference layer, an L-shaped tunnel barrier layer; and an L-shaped free layer; and an L-shaped spin-orbit coupling layer and an L-shaped capping layer on top of the L- shaped MTJ stack of the second MTJ device, wherein a vertical portion of the L-shaped MTJ stack of the second MTJ device is adjacent to a sidewall of a second metal stud, the second metal stud being horizontally aligned with the first metal stud and separated from the first metal stud” with the rest of the limitations of claims 9 AND 10.
Claim 14 is objected to because the prior art does not teach the following limitations: “…an L-shaped MTJ stack that, from a bottom to a top thereof, includes an L-shaped performance enhancing layer, an L-shaped reference layer, an L-shaped tunnel barrier layer; and an L-shaped free layer; and an L-shaped spin-orbit coupling layer and an L-shaped capping layer on top of the L- shaped MTJ stack of the second MTJ device, wherein a vertical portion of the L-shaped MTJ stack of the second MTJ device is adjacent to a second sidewall of the metal stud, the second sidewall being opposite to the first sidewall of the metal stud” with the rest of the limitations of claims 9 AND 10.
Claims 5 to 8 are object to because the following claims are dependent on claim 4.
Claims 12 and 13 are objected to because the claims are dependent on claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mounir S Amer whose telephone number is (571)270-3683. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. 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.
/Mounir S Amer/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818