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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/22/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6 & 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Specifically, the specification provides a laundry list of potential metal elements from the 3d,4d, and 5d, 4f, 5f periodic table columns or a combination of said elements to form the protective layer (as described in the specification on pp. 11 lines 18-28). The specification fails to provide any embodiments or working examples that describe the process parameters necessary to achieve the claimed invention. The specification clams the protective layer will be partially or totally oxidized to create oxygen vacancies to generate the 2DEG, but provides no parameters (e.g. temperature, pressure or deposition time) to achieve either state. Without guidance on how to form the protective layer or how to achieve the claimed results using the numerous varied metal elements listed, the specification does not provide the required instruction to enable the practice of the invention without undue experimentation. Therefore the specification is not enabling.
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 1-6 & 10-15 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.
With regards to claim 1 and claim 15, the limitation of: at least partially oxidized” is ambiguous because the specification fails to provide a measurable metric to distinguish a partially oxidized state by failing to define the minimum or the maximum threshold required to qualify as “partially oxidized”. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the metes and bounds of the invention. Furthermore, the limitation of “at least 80% of a reducing metal element” is also ambiguous. The claim fails to define the composition of the remaining 20%. By permitting an unrestricted combination of elements, the composition and the metes and bounds of the protective layer remain indeterminate. Providing these limitations fails to establish clear boundaries of the protective layer and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
The claim refers to both “a reducing metal element “and “the metallic element”. It is unclear if these terms refer to the same layer or if the metallic element is an additional component of the device. The Examiner interprets it as the same layer. Appropriate correction is required
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10,11,& 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mihajlovic (US Pub no. 2018/0358542 A1)(in light of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection)
Regarding claim 1, Mihajlovic et al discloses A device (100)for modifying at least the direction of magnetization of a magnetic layer(110)[0016-0017], the modifying device comprising: a ferroelectric layer (122)having a ferroelectric polarization, arranged on or under the magnetic layer(110) so as to define a stack including at least the magnetic layer and the ferroelectric layer(122) , a plane wherein the layers of the stack extend being defined (fig. 1); a generator apt to inject an electric current (126)into the stack along a direction parallel to the plane of the layers of the stack(MTJ)[0023][0059- means for generating electric current ];and a modification unit (from external voltage)adapted to modify the ferroelectric polarization of the
ferroelectric layer(122), for modifying, with the generator[0023][0059- means for generating electric current], the direction of magnetization of the magnetic layer(110)[0022-0023]. Mihajlovic et al teaches wherein the ferroelectric layer (122)is in contact with a protective layer(120-spin polarization layer)[0021] and wherein the protective layer is obtained by depositing at least 80% of a reducing metal
element from the columns 5d (Pt or W)of the periodic table [0021]but is silent to wherein the protective layer is configured to at least partially oxidize, creating oxygen
vacancies in the ferroelectric element and thereby generating a two-dimensional electron gas
at the interface between the metallic element. Since the ferroelectric layer of Mihajlovic et al is Hf.5Zr.5 O2[0020] and the protective layer (120-spin polarization layer) is a column 5d element tungsten[0021] which is the same materials with the same structural relationship as recited in the claim(applicant’s specification pp. 3 lines 9-11 and pp. 5 lines 27-29) , the Pt or W will necessarily act as a reducing agent and necessarily interact with the ferroelectric surface such that the physical characteristics “wherein the protective layer is configured to at least partially oxidize, creating oxygen vacancies in the ferroelectric element and thereby generating a two-dimensional electron gas at the interface between the metallic element” would necessarily result. Where the claimed prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)
Regarding claim 2, Mihajlovic et al discloses wherein the unit for modifying the ferroelectric polarization is a voltage source(external voltage) [0023].
Regarding claim 3, Mihajlovic et al discloses wherein the magnetic layer (110) is in contact with the ferroelectric layer (122)(Examiner notes that element 110 is in contact with element 122 by way of element 120 see fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Mihajlovic et al discloses wherein at least one amongst the ferroelectric layer (122) is nanostructured[0020] (Examiner notes that the ferroelectric layer(122) is less than 20 nm and would be considered nanostructured).
Regarding claim 5, Mihajlovic et al discloses wherein the stack includes an intermediate layer (120) interposed between the ferroelectric layer (122)and the magnetic layer (110), the intermediate layer (120) including a spin Hall effect material[0021-0022] fig. 1
Regarding claim 10, Mihajlovic et al discloses A spintronic system(70) comprising: a magnetic layer(106), a device for modifying at least the direction of magnetization of the magnetic layer(120), the modifying device being according to claim 1, and a unit for reading (read/write circuitry or 108) the magnetization of the magnetic layer (106) [0024][0042].
Regarding claim 11, Mihajlovic et al discloses wherein the spintronic system(700) is a memory[0016][0042].
Regarding claim 15, Mihajlovic et al discloses a method for modifying at least the direction of magnetization of a magnetic layer(110)[0018], the method comprising: a modifying the magnetization of the magnetic layer(110) by the modification of the ferroelectric(122) polarization of a ferroelectric layer (122) arranged on or under the magnetic layer (110)so as to define a stack including at least the magnetic layer(110) and the ferroelectric layer(122) [0022-0023], a plane wherein the layers of the stack extend being defined fig. 1, and injecting of an electric current (126)into the stack(100) along a direction parallel to the plane of the layers of the stack(100) fig. 1- Mihajlovic et al teaches wherein the ferroelectric layer (122)is in contact with a protective layer(120)[0021] and wherein the protective layer is obtained by depositing at least 80% of a reducing metal
element from the columns 5d (Pt or W)of the periodic table [0021]but is silent to wherein the protective layer is configured to at least partially oxidize, creating oxygen
vacancies in the ferroelectric element and thereby generating a two-dimensional electron gas at the interface between the metallic element . Because Mihajlovic et al discloses the same step of ferroelectric layer in contact with a protective layer having same materials as applicant’s invention( ferroelectric layer of Mihajlovic et al is Hf.5Zr.5 O2[0020] and the protective layer (120-spin polarization layer) is a column 5d element tungsten[0021] (applicant’s specification pp. 3 lines 9-11 and pp. 5 lines 27-29)), the Pt or W will necessarily act as a reducing agent and necessarily interact with the ferroelectric surface such that the physical characteristics “wherein the protective layer is configured to at least partially oxidize, creating oxygen vacancies in the ferroelectric element and thereby generating a two-dimensional electron gas at the interface between the metallic element” would necessarily result. Where the claimed prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihajlovic (US Pub no. 2018/0358542 A1) in view of Gosavi (US Pub no. 2019/0305216 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Mihajlovic et al discloses wherein the stack (100)includes an intermediate layer (120) interposed between the ferroelectric layer (122)and the magnetic layer(110) [0021-0022] fig. 1 but fails to teach the intermediate layer including a material selected from the following list, taken alone or in combination: a Weyl semimetal, a two-dimensional material, in particular graphene, a transition-metal dichalcogenide, and a topological insulator.
However, Gosavi et al discloses spin orbit torque materials including a material selected from the following list, taken alone or in combination: a Weyl semimetal, a two-dimensional material, in particular graphene, a transition-metal dichalcogenide, and a topological insulator[0040]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mihajlovic et al with the teachings of Gosavi et al because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)).)
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihajlovic (US Pub no. 2018/0358542 A1) in view of Quinsat (US Pub no. 2018/0269381 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Mihajlovic et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10 but fails to teach wherein the spintronic system is a shift register based on propagation of magnetic domain walls or of skyrmions
However, Quinsat et al teaches a magnetic memory device wherein the spintronic system is a shift register (13) based on propagation of magnetic domain walls[0069][0037]. Since incorporating a shift register in a magnetic memory device is one of finite solutions to provide stable operation as taught by Quinsat et al, it would have been obvious to try in Mihajlovic et al since a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007))
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihajlovic (US Pub no. 2018/0358542 A1) in view of Lin US Pub no. 2019/0386662 A1).
Regarding claim 13 , Mihalovic et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10 and the spintronic system is part of a logic device [0039] but fails to teach based on the propagation of magnetic domain walls or of skyrmions or of spin waves.
However, Lin et al discloses a logic device based on the propagation of magnetic domain walls or of spin waves in logic devices[0021]. Since propagation of magnetic domain walls in logic devices is one of finite solutions to switch magnetization , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to try in Mihajlovic et al because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense (KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007))
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihajlovic (US Pub no. 2018/0358542 A1) in view of Manipatruni (US Pub no. 2017/0163275 A1)
Regarding claim 14, Mihajlovic et al discloses all the claim limitations of claim 10 but fails to teach wherein the spintronic system is selected from: an oscillator, and a radio frequency transmitter or receiver.
However, Manipatruni et al discloses wherein the spintronic system is selected from: an oscillator, and a radio frequency transmitter or receiver[0022][0023]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mihajlovic et al with the teachings of Manipatruni et al to manufacture low power devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON whose telephone number is (571)270-3208. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Steven B Gauthier can be reached at (571)270-0373. 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.
/LATANYA N CRAWFORD EASON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2813
Prosecution Insights