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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “protective layer “and “electron gas“(claims 1 & 15 ); logic or neuromorphic device based on the propagation of magnetic domain walls or of skyrmions or of spin waves)(claim 13);the shift register with magnetic domain walls, skyrmion or spin waves (claim 12); oscillator and radio frequency transmitter or receiver(claim 14) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: element 20. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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
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 & 9-15 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.
With regards to claim 1, the protective layer is defined by its function(protecting the gas), and the “electron gas” is defined only by the relationship to the protective layer. The claim language is circular and describes the product being defined by an intended outcome rather than physical characteristics. The claims rely on these features to distinguish the invention over the prior art, neither the protective layer nor the electron gas is shown in the figures. Without a visual representation or a reference number showing where these elements sit in the stack it leaves one of ordinary skill in the art to speculate the metes and bounds of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 15 the claims are indefinite because term “enabling” is vague and ambiguous. It fails to recite a method step or a specific condition required to achieve the result. 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, 7-11,& 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mihajlovic (US Pub no. 2018/0358542 A1)
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] but is silent to “enabling the protection of an electron gas forming on the surface of the ferroelectric layer”. 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 physical characteristics “of enabling the protection of an electron gas formed on the surface of the ferroelectric layer” 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 9, Mihajlovic et al discloses wherein the protective layer(120) is obtained by depositing at least 80% of a reducing metal
element from the columns, 5d,of the periodic table [0021](W, Pt).
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] but is silent to “enabling the protection of an electron gas forming on the surface of the ferroelectric layer”. 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 process inherently results in the formation and protection of the recited electron gas. Where the claimed and prior art products are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues :
Mihajlovic does not describe the magnetic layer being in contact with the ferroelectric layer.
Mihajlovic does not describe the ferroelectric layer is in contact with a protective layer that protects an
electron gas forming on the surface of the ferroelectric layer.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the magnetic layer being in contact (in “direct or physical” contact )with the ferroelectric layer is not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner notes that the magnetic layer is in contact with the ferroelectric layer by way of the spin polarization layer 120. Furthermore, Mihajlovic et al discloses the spin polarization layer 120 is in contact with the ferroelectric layer 122. 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 are 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 physical characteristics “of enabling the protection of an electron gas formed on the surface of the ferroelectric layer” 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).Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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