DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed July 5, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made over Stainer et al. (US 20210110023) in view of Song et al. (US 20200106002).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the 33:31 anomalous Hall effect patterns as described in the specification ([0071]-[0072]). Fig. 13 repeats Fig. 12 and shows a pattern result of 32:32 instead of the required 33:31 result. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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
Claims 2-6, 22-26, and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. It appears that independent claims 1, 21, and 27 are directed to a final product, but claims 2, 22, and 28 are directed to an intermediate product. For independent claims 1, 21, and 27, a magnetization direction of the ferromagnetic layer is randomly distributed and no longer demagnetized (see Figs. 9-10, [0037]-[0038] and [0066]-[0067] describe that the random distribution of the magnetic domain is after demagnetization, and having a magnetization direction means that it is no longer demagnetized). However, for claims 2, 22, and 28, Fig. 6 and para. [0061]-[0067] describe an intermediate process of demagnetization and cooling that occurs before the randomly distributed magnetization direction is measured.
Claims 3-6, 23-26, and 29-31, because they are dependent on claims 2, 22, and 28, inherit the deficiency of these claims.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 7-8, 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stainer et al. (US 20210110023) in view of Song et al. (US 20200106002).
Regarding claim 1, Stainer teaches, in Fig. 1, a magnetic memory device (10) based on perpendicular exchange bias ([0044]), the magnetic memory device comprising:
a non-magnetic layer (22, [0035]);
a ferromagnetic layer (23, [0032]) bonded on the non-magnetic layer (22) ([0021]-[0022], [0044], and [0064] suggest or imply that a magnetization direction of ferromagnetic layer 23 can be randomly distributed; “Due to the randomness of process induced variabilities” ([0021], “[t]he MLU device can thus be configured …. “for generating physical unclonable functions” ([0022]); para. [0064] explains that the reference magnetization 230 of the different MLU cells 10 can switch at different magnitudes of the read magnetic field 44, which suggests that this is an example of randomness of process induced variabilities that generates PUFs); and
an anti-ferromagnetic layer (24, [0044]) bonded on the ferromagnetic layer (23), wherein perpendicular exchange bias between the anti-ferromagnetic layer (24) and the ferromagnetic layer (23) pins the randomly distributed magnetization direction ([0044], after the device cools down, 24 pins the reference magnetization 230).
Stainer does not explicitly teach that a magnetization direction of the ferromagnetic layer is randomly distributed in a substantially equal ratio of up and down orientations.
In a similar field of endeavor, Song teaches, in Fig. 14, that a magnetization direction of the ferromagnetic layer (20, [0037]-[0038]) is randomly distributed in a substantially equal ratio of up and down orientations (see Fig. 14, [0067]), in order to make physically unclonable devices that can be used as a security feature ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ferromagnetic layer of Stainer with the randomly distributed magnetization direction of Song, in order to make physically unclonable devices that can be used as a security feature ([0067]).
Regarding claim 7, Stainer in view of Song teaches the limitations of claim 1. Song further teaches that the ferromagnetic layer (24) comprises CoFeB or a CoFe alloy ([0038], either).
Regarding claim 8, Stainer in view of Song teaches the limitations of claim 1. Song further teaches that the non-magnetic layer (10) comprises Pt or Ta ([0034], either).
Regarding claim 21, Stainer teaches, in Fig. 1, a magnetic memory device (10) based on perpendicular exchange bias ([0044]), the magnetic memory device comprising:
a non-magnetic layer (22, [0035]);
a ferromagnetic layer (23, [0032]) bonded on the non-magnetic layer (22) ([0021]-[0022], [0044], and [0064] suggest or imply that a magnetization direction of ferromagnetic layer 23 can be randomly distributed; “Due to the randomness of process induced variabilities” ([0021], “[t]he MLU device can thus be configured …. “for generating physical unclonable functions” ([0022]); para. [0064] explains that the reference magnetization 230 of the different MLU cells 10 can switch at different magnitudes of the read magnetic field 44, which suggests that this is an example of randomness of process induced variabilities that generates PUFs); and
an anti-ferromagnetic layer (24, [0044]) bonded on the ferromagnetic layer (23).
Stainer does not teach that a magnetization direction of the ferromagnetic layer is randomly distributed in a substantially equal ratio of up and down orientations.
In a similar field of endeavor, Song teaches, in Fig. 14, that a magnetization direction of the ferromagnetic layer (20, [0037]-[0038]) is randomly distributed in a substantially equal ratio of up and down orientations (see Fig. 14, [0067]), in order to make physically unclonable devices that can be used as a security feature ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ferromagnetic layer of Stainer with the randomly distributed magnetization direction of Song, in order to make physically unclonable devices that can be used as a security feature ([0067]).
Regarding claim 27, Stainer teaches, in Fig. 1, a magnetic memory device (10) based on perpendicular exchange bias ([0044]), the magnetic memory device comprising:
a non-magnetic layer (22, [0035]);
a ferromagnetic layer (23, [0032]) bonded on the non-magnetic layer (22) ([0021]-[0022], [0044], and [0064] suggest or imply that a magnetization direction of ferromagnetic layer 23 can be randomly distributed; “Due to the randomness of process induced variabilities” ([0021], “[t]he MLU device can thus be configured …. “for generating physical unclonable functions” ([0022]); para. [0064] explains that the reference magnetization 230 of the different MLU cells 10 can switch at different magnitudes of the read magnetic field 44, which suggests that this is an example of randomness of process induced variabilities that generates PUFs); and
an anti-ferromagnetic layer (24, [0044]) bonded on the ferromagnetic layer (23), wherein perpendicular exchange bias between the anti-ferromagnetic layer (24) and the ferromagnetic layer (23) pins the randomly distributed magnetization direction ([0044], after the device cools down, 24 pins the reference magnetization 230).
Stainer does not explicitly teach that that a magnetization direction of the ferromagnetic layer is randomly distributed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Song teaches, in Fig. 14, that a magnetization direction of the ferromagnetic layer (20, [0037]-[0038]) is randomly distributed (see Fig. 14, [0067]), in order to make physically unclonable devices that can be used as a security feature ([0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ferromagnetic layer of Stainer with the randomly distributed magnetization direction of Song, in order to make physically unclonable devices that can be used as a security feature ([0067]).
Claims 2-5, 22-25, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stainer et al. (US 20210110023) in view of Song et al. (US 20200106002), and further in view of Parkin et al. (US 20240371424).
Regarding claim 2, Stainer in view of Song teaches the limitations of claim 1. Stainer in view of Song does not teach that the ferromagnetic layer is demagnetized.
In a similar field of endeavor, Parkin teaches that the ferromagnetic layer (claims 1-2) is demagnetized ([0020], “When a magnetic field is applied to a magnetic material at a temperature above the blocking temperature, this field, if large enough, can cause the magnetization to be aligned along the magnetic field direction but when the field is reduced to zero the magnetization will also go to zero”), in order to “provide a reliable and reproducible switching and setting—specifically permanent setting—of the magnetic configuration of a magnetic material” ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ferromagnetic layer of Stainer in view of Song with the demagnetized ferromagnetic layer of Parkin, in order to “provide a reliable and reproducible switching and setting—specifically permanent setting—of the magnetic configuration of a magnetic material” ([0045]).
Regarding claim 3, Stainer in view of Song and Parkin teaches the limitations of claim 2. Song further teaches that the ferromagnetic layer (24) has perpendicular anisotropy ([0038], 24 can be a thin layer of CoFeB, which is known in the art for having perpendicular anisotropy).
Regarding claim 4, Stainer in view of Song and Parkin teaches the limitations of claim 3. Song further teaches that the ferromagnetic layer (24) comprises CoFeB or a CoFe alloy ([0038], either).
Regarding claim 5, Stainer in view of Song and Parkin teaches the limitations of claim 4. Song further teaches that the non-magnetic layer (10) comprises Pt or Ta ([0034], either).
Regarding claim 22, Stainer in view of Song teaches the limitations of claim 21. Stainer in view of Song does not explicitly teach that the ferromagnetic layer is demagnetized.
In a similar field of endeavor, Parkin teaches that the ferromagnetic layer (claims 1-2) is demagnetized ([0020], “When a magnetic field is applied to a magnetic material at a temperature above the blocking temperature, this field, if large enough, can cause the magnetization to be aligned along the magnetic field direction but when the field is reduced to zero the magnetization will also go to zero”), in order to “provide a reliable and reproducible switching and setting—specifically permanent setting—of the magnetic configuration of a magnetic material” ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ferromagnetic layer of Stainer in view of Song with the demagnetized ferromagnetic layer of Parkin, in order to “provide a reliable and reproducible switching and setting—specifically permanent setting—of the magnetic configuration of a magnetic material” ([0045]).
Regarding claim 23, Stainer in view of Song and Parkin teaches the limitations of claim 22. Song further teaches that the ferromagnetic layer (24) has perpendicular anisotropy ([0038], 24 can be a thin layer of CoFeB, which is known in the art for having perpendicular anisotropy).
Regarding claim 24, Stainer in view of Song and Parkin teaches the limitations of claim 23. Song further teaches that the ferromagnetic layer (24) comprises CoFeB or a CoFe alloy ([0038], either).
Regarding claim 25, Stainer in view of Song and Parkin teaches the limitations of claim 24. Song further teaches that the non-magnetic layer (10) comprises Pt or Ta ([0034], either).
Regarding claim 28, Stainer in view of Song teaches the limitations of claim 27. Song further teaches that the ferromagnetic layer (24) has perpendicular anisotropy ([0038], 24 can be a thin layer of CoFeB, which is known in the art for having perpendicular anisotropy).
Stainer in view of Song does not explicitly teach that the ferromagnetic layer is demagnetized.
In a similar field of endeavor, Parkin teaches that the ferromagnetic layer (claims 1-2) is demagnetized ([0020], “When a magnetic field is applied to a magnetic material at a temperature above the blocking temperature, this field, if large enough, can cause the magnetization to be aligned along the magnetic field direction but when the field is reduced to zero the magnetization will also go to zero”), in order to “provide a reliable and reproducible switching and setting—specifically permanent setting—of the magnetic configuration of a magnetic material” ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ferromagnetic layer of Stainer in view of Song with the demagnetized ferromagnetic layer of Parkin, in order to “provide a reliable and reproducible switching and setting—specifically permanent setting—of the magnetic configuration of a magnetic material” ([0045]).
Regarding claim 29, Stainer in view of Song and Parkin teaches the limitations of claim 28. Stainer further teaches that the ferromagnetic layer (23) comprises CoFeB or a CoFe alloy ([0032], either).
Regarding claim 30, Stainer in view of Song and Parkin teaches the limitations of claim 29. Song further teaches that the non-magnetic layer (10) comprises Pt or Ta ([0034], either).
Claims 6, 9, 26, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stainer et al. (US 20210110023) in view of Song et al. (US 20200106002) and Parkin et al. (US 20240371424), and further in view of Xing et al. (US 20230124011).
Regarding claim 6, Stainer in view of Song and Parkin teaches the limitations of claim 5. Stainer in view of Song and Parkin does not teach that the anti-ferromagnetic layer comprises IrMn or PtMn.
In a similar field of endeavor, Xing teaches that the anti-ferromagnetic layer (102, Fig. 1, [0034], [0037]) comprises IrMn or PtMn ([0008], [0038], PtMn), in order to have “a highly reliable and reconfigurable characteristic of random switching of resistance states under the condition of no external magnetic field and a room temperature” ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the anti-ferromagnetic layer material of Stainer in view of Song and Parkin with the anti-ferromagnetic layer material of Xing, in order to have “a highly reliable and reconfigurable characteristic of random switching of resistance states under the condition of no external magnetic field and a room temperature” ([0018]).
Regarding claim 9, Stainer in view of Song teaches the limitations of claim 1. Stainer in view of Song does not teach that the anti-ferromagnetic layer comprises IrMn or PtMn.
In a similar field of endeavor, Xing teaches that the anti-ferromagnetic layer (102, Fig. 1, [0034], [0037]) comprises IrMn or PtMn ([0008], [0038], PtMn), in order to have “a highly reliable and reconfigurable characteristic of random switching of resistance states under the condition of no external magnetic field and a room temperature” ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the anti-ferromagnetic layer material of Stainer in view of Song with the anti-ferromagnetic layer material of Xing, in order to have “a highly reliable and reconfigurable characteristic of random switching of resistance states under the condition of no external magnetic field and a room temperature” ([0018]).
Regarding claim 26, Stainer in view of Song and Parkin teaches the limitations of claim 25. Stainer in view of Song and Parkin does not teach that the anti-ferromagnetic layer comprises IrMn or PtMn.
In a similar field of endeavor, Xing teaches that the anti-ferromagnetic layer (102, Fig. 1, [0034], [0037]) comprises IrMn or PtMn ([0008], [0038], PtMn), in order to have “a highly reliable and reconfigurable characteristic of random switching of resistance states under the condition of no external magnetic field and a room temperature” ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the anti-ferromagnetic layer material of Stainer in view of Song and Parkin with the anti-ferromagnetic layer material of Xing, in order to have “a highly reliable and reconfigurable characteristic of random switching of resistance states under the condition of no external magnetic field and a room temperature” ([0018]).
Regarding claim 31, Stainer in view of Song and Parkin teaches the limitations of claim 30. Stainer in view of Song and Parkin does not teach that the anti-ferromagnetic layer comprises IrMn or PtMn.
In a similar field of endeavor, Xing teaches that the anti-ferromagnetic layer (102, Fig. 1, [0034], [0037]) comprises IrMn or PtMn ([0008], [0038], PtMn), in order to have “a highly reliable and reconfigurable characteristic of random switching of resistance states under the condition of no external magnetic field and a room temperature” ([0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the anti-ferromagnetic layer material of Stainer in view of Song and Parkin with the anti-ferromagnetic layer material of Xing, in order to have “a highly reliable and reconfigurable characteristic of random switching of resistance states under the condition of no external magnetic field and a room temperature” ([0018]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIKA HEERA SON whose telephone number is 703-756-4644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12:30-9 PM ET.
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 on 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.
/ERIKA H SON/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
