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 .
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong’215 (US 2018/0006215) in view of Jeong (US 2022/0037586).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong’215 discloses, in FIG. 4B and in related text, a magnetic memory device comprising:
a pinned layer pattern (MP1);
a free layer pattern (MP2) including boron (B) (CoFeB);
a tunnel barrier layer (TBP) pattern between the pinned layer pattern and the free layer pattern (see Jeong’215, [0029], [0032], [0057]);
an oxide layer pattern (134p) spaced apart from the tunnel barrier layer pattern with the free layer pattern therebetween, the oxide layer pattern including a metal borate (tantalum boron oxide) (see Jeong’215, [0045], [0057]).
Jeong’215 does not explicitly disclose:
a capping layer pattern spaced apart from the free layer pattern with the oxide layer pattern therebetween, the capping layer pattern including a metal boride,
wherein a difference between a boron concentration of the free layer pattern and a boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is 10 at% or less, and
wherein a difference between the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern and a boron concentration of the capping layer pattern is 10 at% or less.
Jeong teaches a capping layer pattern (180) spaced apart from the free layer pattern (150) with the oxide layer pattern (160) therebetween, the capping layer pattern including a metal boride (see Jeong, FIG. 5, [0046], [0058], [0060]).
Jeong’215 and Jeong are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Jeong’215 with the features of Jeong because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jeong’215 to include a capping layer pattern spaced apart from the free layer pattern with the oxide layer pattern therebetween, the capping layer pattern including a metal boride, as taught by Jeong, to prevent or inhibit diffusion of atoms when a temperature increases over 400° C (see Jeong, [0060]).
Jeong’215 discloses that a boron concentration of the free layer pattern is 15 at % (see Jeong’215, [0032]). Jeong’215 discloses that the oxide layer pattern is metal borate (see discussion above), that is, a boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is greater than 0 at %.
Jeong teaches that a boron concentration of the capping layer pattern (180) is 5 at % (see Jeong, [0060]).
Jeong’215 and Jeong do not explicitly disclose or teach wherein a difference between a boron concentration of the free layer pattern and a boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is 10 at% or less, and wherein a difference between the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern and a boron concentration of the capping layer pattern is 10 at% or less, that is Jeong and Jeong’215 do not explicitly disclose or teach that a boron concentration of the oxide layer is between 5 at % at and 15 at %.
However, the limitation would have been found obvious since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2022/0037586) in view of Oikawa (US 2021/0074908).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses, in FIG. 5 and in related text, a magnetic memory device comprising:
a pinned layer pattern (130);
a free layer pattern (150) including boron (B);
a tunnel barrier layer pattern (140) between the pinned layer pattern and the free layer pattern;
an oxide layer pattern (160) spaced apart from the tunnel barrier layer pattern with the free layer pattern therebetween; and
a capping layer pattern (180) spaced apart from the free layer pattern with the oxide layer pattern therebetween, the capping layer pattern including a metal boride, (see Jeong, [0046], [0055], [0058], [0060]).
Jeong does not explicitly disclose:
the oxide layer pattern including a metal borate,
wherein a difference between a boron concentration of the free layer pattern and a boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is 10 at% or less, and
wherein a difference between the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern and a boron concentration of the capping layer pattern is 10 at% or less.
Oikawa teaches the oxide layer pattern (32) including a metal borate, wherein a difference between a boron concentration of the free layer pattern (33) and a boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is 10 at% or less (see Oikawa, FIGS. 5-6, [0051], [0054]-[0055], [0060]: oxide layer contains magnesium oxide and boron, that is, a metal borate of magnesium boron oxide; the content of boron monotonically decreases from free layer 33 to oxide layer 32, thus the boron concentration difference at the interface between free layer 33 and oxide layer 32 is zero).
Jeong and Oikawa are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Jeong with the features of Oikawa because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jeong to include the oxide layer pattern including a metal borate, wherein a difference between a boron concentration of the free layer pattern and a boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is 10 at% or less, as taught by Oikawa, because boron is diffused from free layer to oxide layer during annealing process (see Oikawa, [0084]).
Jeong discloses that a boron concentration of the capping layer pattern (180) is 5 at % (see Jeong, [0060]). Oikawa teaches that the oxide layer pattern including a metal borate (see discussion above), that is, the boron concentration of the oxide layer is greater than 0 at %.
Jeong and Oikawa do not explicitly disclose or teach wherein a difference between the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern and a boron concentration of the capping layer pattern is 10 at% or less. That is, Jeong and Oikawa do not explicitly disclose or teach a boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is between greater than 0 at % and 15 at %.
However, the limitation would have been found obvious since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 2, Jeong in view of Oikawa teaches the device of claim 1.
Jeong discloses the free layer pattern being CoFeB (see Jeong, [0050]), that is, a non-zero boron concentration of the free layer pattern.
Jeong does not explicitly disclose wherein the boron concentration of the free layer pattern is 10 to 30 at%.
However, it is well known that crystallization and magnetic properties of CoFeB magnetic layer can be controlled by boron concentration (see, for example, Kim et al., Control of crystallization and magnetic properties of CoFeB by boron concentration, Scientific Reports, (2022) 12:4549). In other words, the boron concentration of the free layer pattern is a result effective variable for varying.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention to have the claimed range/value through routine experimentation and optimization. Also, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range is for a particular unobvious purpose, produces an unexpected result, or otherwise critical. See MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, Jeong in view of Oikawa teaches the device of claim 1.
Oikawa teaches wherein the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern (32) is equal to or smaller than the boron concentration of the free layer pattern (33) (see Oikawa, FIG. 6, [0060]: boron content monotonically decreases from free layer toward oxide layer), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Jeong in view of Oikawa teaches the device of claim 1.
Oikawa teaches that boron diffuses into oxide layer and boron content monotonically decreases from free layer toward oxide layer (see Oikawa, FIG. 6, [0055], [0060]), that is, the oxygen content relative to the whole oxide layer is lowered toward the interface to the free layer, thus Oikawa teaches wherein an oxygen concentration of the oxide layer pattern decreases from the capping layer pattern toward the free layer pattern, with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Jeong in view of Oikawa teaches the device of claim 1.
Jeong discloses the boron concentration (5 at %) of the capping layer pattern. Oikawa teaches non-zero boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern (see discussion on claim 1).
Jeong and Oikawa do not explicitly disclose or teaches wherein the boron concentration of the capping layer pattern is equal to or greater than the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern, that is, boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is equal to or less than 5 at %.
However, the limitation would have been found obvious since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Jeong in view of Oikawa teaches the device of claim 1.
Jeong discloses wherein the pinned layer pattern (130) comprises synthetic anti-ferromagnet (SAF) (see Jeong, [0051]-[0053]).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong in view of Oikawa teaches the device of claim 1.
Jeong discloses wherein the free layer pattern (150, CoFeB) further comprises at least one of cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), and nickel (Ni) (see Jeong, [0055]).
Regarding claim 9, , Jeong in view of Oikawa teaches the device of claim 1.
Oikawa teaches wherein the metal borate comprises at least one of TaBO, MgBO, FeBO, CoBO, CoFeBO, IrBO, RuBO, MoBO, HfBO, and ZrBO (see Oikawa, [0054]-[0055]), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Jeong in view of Oikawa teaches the device of claim 1.
Jeong discloses wherein the metal boride comprises at least one of TaB, MgB, CoFeB, IrB, RuB, MoB, HfB, and ZrB (see Jeong, [0060]).
Claims 11-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2022/0037586) in view of Oikawa (US 2021/0074908).
Regarding claim 11, Jeong in FIG. 5 and in related text, a magnetic memory device comprising:
a pinned layer pattern (130);
a free layer pattern (150, CoFeB) including boron (B) and at least one of cobalt (Co), iron (Fe) and nickel (Ni);
a tunnel barrier layer pattern (140) between the pinned layer pattern and the free layer pattern;
an oxide layer pattern (160) spaced apart from the tunnel barrier layer pattern with the free layer pattern therebetween; and
a capping layer pattern (180) spaced apart from the free layer pattern with the oxide layer pattern therebetween, the capping layer pattern including at least one of TaB, MgB, CoFeB, IrB, RuB, MoB, HfB, and ZrB (see Jeong, [0046], [0055], [0058], [0060]).
Jeong does not explicitly disclose:
the oxide layer pattern including at least one of TaBO, MgBO, FeBO, CoBO, CoFeBO, IrBO, RuBO, MoBO, HfBO, and ZrBO,
wherein a difference between a boron concentration of the free layer pattern and a boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is 10 at% or less, and
wherein a difference between the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern and a boron concentration of the capping layer pattern is 10 at% or less.
Oikawa teaches the oxide layer pattern (32) including at least one of TaBO, MgBO, FeBO, CoBO, CoFeBO, IrBO, RuBO, MoBO, HfBO, and ZrBO, wherein a difference between a boron concentration of the free layer pattern (33) and a boron concentration (32) of the oxide layer pattern is 10 at% or less (see Oikawa, FIGS. 5-6, [0051], [0054]-[0055], [0059]-[0060]: oxide layer contains magnesium oxide and boron, that is, magnesium boron oxide; the content of boron monotonically decreases from free layer 33 to oxide layer 32, thus the boron concentration difference at the interface between free layer 33 and oxide layer 32 is zero).
Jeong and Oikawa are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Jeong with the features of Oikawa because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jeong to include the oxide layer pattern including at least one of TaBO, MgBO, FeBO, CoBO, CoFeBO, IrBO, RuBO, MoBO, HfBO, and ZrBO, wherein a difference between a boron concentration of the free layer pattern and a boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is 10 at% or less, as taught by Oikawa, because boron is diffused from free layer to oxide layer during annealing process (see Oikawa, [0084]).
Jeong discloses that a boron concentration of the capping layer pattern (180) is 5 at % (see Jeong, [0060]). Oikawa teaches that the oxide layer pattern (32) is MgBO (see Oikawa, [0054]-[0055], and discussion above), that is, boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is greater than 0 at %.
Jeong and Oikawa do not explicitly disclose or teach wherein a difference between the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern and a boron concentration of the capping layer pattern is 10 at% or less, that is, Jeong and Oikawa do not explicitly disclose or teach the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is between greater than 0 at % and 15 at %.
However, the limitation would have been found obvious since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Jeong in view of Oikawa teaches the device of claim 11.
Oikawa teaches wherein the difference between the boron concentration of the free layer pattern (33) and the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern (32) is 5 at% or less (see Oikawa, FIG. 6, [0060]: boron content monotonically decreases from free layer toward oxide layer, that is, differences at the interface between the free layer pattern 33 and oxide layer pattern 32 is zero), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 11.
Jeong discloses that boron concentration of the capping layer pattern (180) is 5 at % (see Jeong, [0060]). Oikawa teaches that boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is greater than 0 at % (see discussion above).
Jeong and Oikawa do not explicitly disclose or teach wherein the difference between the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern and the boron concentration of the capping layer pattern is 5 at% or less, that is, boron concentration of the capping layer is between greater than 0 at % and 10 at %.
However, the limitation would have been found obvious since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 13, Jeong in view of Oikawa teaches the device of claim 11.
Oikawa teaches wherein the difference between the boron concentration of the free layer pattern and the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is 1 at% or less (see Oikawa, FIG. 6, [0060]: boron content monotonically decreases from free layer toward oxide layer, that is, differences at the interface between the free layer pattern 33 and oxide layer pattern 32 is zero), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 11.
Jeong discloses that boron concentration of the capping layer pattern (180) is 5 at % (see Jeong, [0060]). Oikawa teaches boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is greater than 0 at % (see discussion above).
Jeong and Oikawa do not explicitly disclose or teach wherein the difference between the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern and the boron concentration of the capping layer pattern is 1 at% or less, that is boron concentration of the capping layer is between 4 at % and 6 at %.
However, the limitation would have been found obvious since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Jeong in view of Oikawa teaches the device of claim 11.
Oikawa teaches wherein the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern (32) is equal to or smaller than the boron concentration of the free layer pattern (33) (see Oikawa, FIG. 6, [0060]), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, Jeong in view of Oikawa teaches the device of claim 11.
Jeong discloses that boron concentration of the capping layer pattern (180) is 5 at % (see Jeong, [0060]). Oikawa teaches that boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is greater than 0 at % (see discussion above).
Jeong and Oikawa do not explicitly disclose or teach wherein the boron concentration of the capping layer pattern is equal to or greater than the boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern, that is, boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern is less than 5 at %.
However, the limitation would have been found obvious since generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 17, Jeong in view of Oikawa teaches the device of claim 11.
Jeong discloses wherein the free layer pattern (150) comprises a CoFeB film, wherein the capping layer pattern (180) comprises a TaB film (see Jeong, [0055], [0060).
Jeong discloses that the oxide layer pattern (160) comprises a TaO film (see Jeong, [0058]).
Oikawa teaches that boron diffuses into oxide layer patter during annealing (see Oikawa, [0084]), thus Oikawa together with Jeong teaches wherein the oxide layer pattern comprises a TaBO film, with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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.
Claims 18 and 20-22 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, Jeong, discloses a capping metal layer, wherein the capping metal layer includes the metal boride. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “wherein the capping layer pattern includes a first non-magnetic capping layer, a capping metal layer, and a second non-magnetic capping layer which are sequentially stacked on the oxide layer pattern, wherein the first non-magnetic capping layer and the second non-magnetic capping layer each include a non-magnetic metal” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 6.
The prior art of record, Jeong, discloses a magnetic memory device comprising: a seed layer pattern on a substrate; a pinned layer pattern on an upper surface of the seed layer pattern; a tunnel barrier layer pattern on an upper surface of the pinned layer pattern; a free layer pattern including boron (B), on an upper surface of the tunnel barrier layer pattern; an oxide layer pattern including a metal oxide, on an upper surface of the free layer pattern; a capping layer pattern on an upper surface of the oxide layer pattern, a capping metal layer, wherein the capping metal layer includes a metal boride. The prior art of record, Oikawa, teaches an oxide layer pattern including a metal borate, wherein a difference between a boron concentration of the free layer pattern, a boron concentration of the oxide layer pattern, and a boron concentration of the capping metal layer is 10 at% or less. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “wherein the capping layer pattern includes a first non-magnetic capping layer, a capping metal layer, and a second non-magnetic capping layer that are sequentially stacked on the oxide layer pattern, wherein each of the first non-magnetic capping layer and the second non-magnetic capping layer includes a non-magnetic metal” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIH TSUN A CHOU whose telephone number is (408)918-7583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-16:00 Arizona Time.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/SHIH TSUN A CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811