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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8 and 14-20) in the reply filed on 11/24/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
The claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 7 and 15: it appears that “two electrical contracts of the four electrical contracts” in line(s) 1-2 was meant to be -- two electrical contacts of the four electrical contacts --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 of this title, 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) 1, 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al. (US 2016/0225981 ‒hereinafter Deshpande) in view of Bozovic (US 2002/0084453).
Regarding claim 1, Deshpande discloses a device, comprising:
cobalt (a first magnetic region including cobalt; fig. 1A-1I para 0011);
a platinum layer (a second magnetic region including platinum; fig. 1A-1I para 0011) disposed on the cobalt (the second magnetic region of platinum is shown vertically disposed on the first magnetic region of cobalt; fig. 1A-1I, further fig. 2A-2C);
an aluminum layer (an encapsulation layer including aluminum; para 0051) disposed on the platinum layer (the encapsulation layer of aluminum is shown vertically disposed on the second magnetic region of platinum; fig. 2B, further after processing, is considered horizontally disposed on the second magnetic region of platinum; fig. 2C), wherein the aluminum layer (i.e. the encapsulation layer) disposed on the platinum layer encapsulates the cobalt (the encapsulation layer of aluminum, disposed on the second magnetic region of platinum, is shown encapsulating the first magnetic region of cobalt; fig. 2B, further after processing, is considered to horizontally encapsulate the first magnetic region of cobalt; fig. 2C); and
a plurality of electrical contacts (electrically conductive electrodes of magnetoresistive stacks; fig. 1A-1I, 14) in electrical communication (i.e. provide electrical contact) with the cobalt (i.e. the first magnetic region of cobalt), wherein the plurality of electrical contacts are configured to receive a write-current (the electrically conductive electrodes may be connected to write conductors configured to receive write signal or one or more current pulses; para 0006, 0050).
Deshpande does not expressly disclose a thin film; two electrical contacts are configured to receive a current therebetween, and wherein four electrical contacts of the plurality of electrical contacts are configured for reading a 4-point resistance.
Bozovic discloses a thin film (thin film deposition or grown, i.e. in MRAM devices including cobalt; para 0012, 0030-0031); two electrical contacts (electrical contacts 1 and 3; fig. 4A) are configured to receive a write-current therebetween (for writing, a current flows between electrical contacts 1 and 3; fig. 4A para 0054), and wherein four electrical contacts (electrical contacts 1-4; fig. 4A) of the plurality of electrical contacts are configured for reading a 4-point resistance (four-point contact resistance measurement; para 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Deshpande is modifiable as taught by Bozovic for the purpose of improving accessing schemes of devices having a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) stack/structure by non-destructive read-out and control of write-current (para 0053-0055 of Bozovic), which is common and well known in the art to secure integrity of data storage.
Regarding claim 4, Bozovic discloses the device, wherein the plurality of electrical contacts includes eight (8) electrical contacts (fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Deshpande is modifiable as taught by Bozovic for the purpose of improving accessing schemes of devices having magnetic material by using non-destructive read-out and control of write-current (para 0053-0055 of Bozovic), which is common and well known in the art to secure integrity of data storage.
Regarding claim 5, Bozovic discloses the device, wherein the plurality of electrical contacts is gold (para 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Deshpande is modifiable as taught by Bozovic for the purpose of improving accessing schemes of devices having magnetic material by using non-destructive read-out and control of write-current (para 0053-0055 of Bozovic), which is common and well known in the art to secure integrity of data storage.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al. (US 2016/0225981 ‒hereinafter Deshpande) in view of Bozovic (US 2002/0084453), and further in view of Bauer et al. (US 2017/0249990 ‒hereinafter Bauer).
Regarding claim 2, Deshpande does not expressly disclose the device, wherein the thin film of cobalt is 0.8 nm, the aluminum layer is 2 nm, and the platinum layer is 2 nm.
Deshpande discloses the aluminum layer (i.e. encapsulation layer including aluminum is between 0.5-50 Angstroms; para 0004).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Deshpande is modifiable as taught, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, i.e. “aluminum layer is 2 nm” is considered equivalent to 20 Angstrom, being between 0.5-50 Angstroms as taught, involves only routine skill in the art. Such a conclusion is reasonably expected since workable ranges are common and well known in the prior art and can be interpreted broadly; it has been held that without a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or a critical reason why the invention requires the particular limitation, the dimension as disclosed by Deshpande makes the limitation obvious for the purpose of facilitating manufacturing of the device, without compromising particular layers of the device during processing (para 0051), which may avoid points of failure that could otherwise hinder a complex system.
Bauer discloses thin film of cobalt is nm (0.9 nm; para 0180) and the platinum layer is nm (3 nm; para 0180).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Deshpande is modifiable as taught by Bauer, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, i.e. “thin film of cobalt is 0.8 nm and the platinum layer is 2 nm,” involves only routine skill in the art. Such a conclusion is reasonably expected since workable ranges are common and well known in the prior art and can be interpreted broadly; it has been held that without a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or a critical reason why the invention requires the particular limitation, the dimension as disclosed by Bauer makes the limitation obvious for the purpose of improving the overall performance by controlling accessing schemes (para 0082-0083 of Bauer), which may to avoid points of failure that could otherwise hinder a complex system.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al. (US 2016/0225981 ‒hereinafter Deshpande) in view of Bozovic (US 2002/0084453), in view of Bauer et al. (US 2017/0249990 ‒hereinafter Bauer), and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2007/0253244 ‒hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 3, Deshpande does not expressly disclose the device, wherein the thin film of cobalt is square shaped with a lateral dimension of 25 microns.
Bauer discloses the device, wherein the thin film of cobalt (cobalt thin film; para 0172) is shaped with a lateral dimension (i.e. a shape with lateral dimension corresponding to a lateral resistance; fig. 5A/5B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Deshpande is further modifiable as taught by Bauer for the purpose of improving the overall performance by controlling accessing schemes (para 0082-0083 of Bauer), which may to avoid points of failure that could otherwise hinder a complex system.
Wu discloses disclose square shaped of microns (i.e. at particular portions of thin film layer 202 is considered square shaped, having 100 microns in a horizontal and vertical dimension; fig. 2 para 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Deshpande is further modifiable as taught by Wu, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, i.e. “being square shaped with a lateral dimension of 25 microns,” involves only routine skill in the art. Such a conclusion is reasonably expected since workable ranges are common and well known in the prior art and can be interpreted broadly; it has been held that without a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or a critical reason why the invention requires the particular limitation, the dimensions as disclosed by Wu makes the limitation obvious for the purpose of improving the overall integrity of the device by improving accessing speeds in highly integrated devices (para 0024 of Wu), which is common and well known in the art to avoid points of failure that could otherwise hinder a complex system.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al. (US 2016/0225981 ‒hereinafter Deshpande) in view of Bozovic (US 2002/0084453), and further in view of Dupuis et al. (US 4,829,476 ‒hereinafter Dupuis).
Regarding claim 6, Deshpande, as modified, does not expressly disclose the device, wherein the write-current is 10 milliamp.
Dupuis discloses write-current is 10 milliamp (current in writing of 10 mA; column/line(s): 9/8-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Deshpande is further modifiable as taught by Dupuis for the purpose of facilitating data accessing schemes by selectively providing bias to the device to enhance performance operations (column/line(s): 4/11-19 of Dupuis).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deshpande et al. (US 2016/0225981 ‒hereinafter Deshpande) in view of Bozovic (US 2002/0084453), in view of Dupuis et al. (US 4,829,476 ‒hereinafter Dupuis), and further in view of Bauer et al. (US 2017/0249990 ‒hereinafter Bauer).
Regarding claim 7, Deshpande, as modified, does not expressly disclose the device, wherein two electrical contracts of the four electrical contracts of the plurality of electrical contacts are configured to receive a read-current therebetween and another two electrical contracts of the four electrical contacts of the plurality of electrical contacts are configured for reading a resistivity thereacross.
Bozovic discloses two electrical contacts and another two electrical contacts (any two and another two of electrical contacts 1-8; fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Deshpande is further modifiable as taught by Bozovic for the purpose of improving accessing schemes of devices having magnetic material by using non-destructive read-out and control of write-current (para 0053-0055 of Bozovic), which is common and well known in the art to secure integrity of data storage.
Bauer discloses wherein contracts of the four electrical contracts of the plurality of electrical contacts are configured to receive a read-current therebetween (i.e. in a read path, terminals 522 and 524 can be used to drive a current between electrical contacts 522 and 524; para 0080, 0083, 0087) and the four electrical contacts of the plurality of electrical contacts are configured for reading a resistivity thereacross (i.e. read a lateral resistance of a lateral resistive state; para 0017, 0087, 0092).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Deshpande is further modifiable as taught by Bauer for the purpose of improving the overall performance by controlling accessing schemes (para 0082-0083 of Bauer), which may to avoid points of failure that could otherwise hinder a complex system.
Regarding claim 8, Deshpande, as modified, does not expressly disclose the device of claim, wherein the read-current is 0.1 milliamp.
Dupuis discloses reading current is milliamp (a read current of 2 to 3.5 milliamp; column/line(s): 10/3-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Bauer is further modifiable as taught by Dupuis, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, i.e. “read-current is 0.1 milliamp,” involves only routine skill in the art. Such a conclusion is reasonably expected since workable ranges are common and well known in the prior art and can be interpreted broadly; it has been held that without a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or a critical reason why the invention requires the particular limitation, the dimensions as disclosed by Dupuis makes the limitation obvious for the purpose of facilitating data accessing schemes by selectively providing bias to the device to enhance performance operations (column/line(s): 4/11-19 of Dupuis), which is common and well known in the art to avoid points of failure that could otherwise hinder a complex system.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 2017/0249990 ‒hereinafter Bauer).
The disclosure of fig(s). 5A/5B of Bauer is incorporated into an embodiment as considered below, since elements are analogous and similarly referenced (para 0087). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the figure(s) with the embodiment as taught for the purpose of improving the overall performance by controlling accessing schemes (para 0082-0083).
Regarding claim 14, Bauer discloses a device comprising:
a memristive film (i.e. electrically conductive material layer 506/526, i.e. film, of memristive switching device 500/528; para 0074, 0087, further cobalt thin film; para 0172);
and a plurality of electrical contacts (502, 504; fig. 5A, further 522, 524, 530, 532; fig. 5B) in electrical communication (i.e. provide electrical contact) with the memristive film (506/526),
wherein two electrical contacts (522, 524) of the plurality of electrical contacts are configured to receive a write-current therebetween (i.e. in a write path, terminals 522 and 524 can be used to drive a current between electrical contacts 522 and 524; para 0080, 0083, 0087), and
wherein four electrical contacts (530, 532 and further including the two 522, 524) of the plurality of electrical contacts are configured for reading a 4-point resistance (i.e. in a four-point measurement configuration to read a lateral resistance of a lateral resistive state; para 0017, 0087, 0092).
Claim(s) 15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 2017/0249990 ‒hereinafter Bauer) and further in view of Bozovic (US 2002/0084453).
The disclosure of fig(s). 5A/5B of Bauer is incorporated into an embodiment as considered below, since elements are analogous and similarly referenced (para 0087). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the figure(s) with the embodiment as taught for the purpose of improving the overall performance by controlling accessing schemes (para 0082-0083).
Regarding claim 15, Bauer discloses the device, wherein contracts of the four electrical contracts of the plurality of electrical contacts are configured to receive a read-current therebetween (i.e. in a read path, terminals 522 and 524 can be used to drive a current between electrical contacts 522 and 524; para 0080, 0083, 0087) and the four electrical contacts of the plurality of electrical contacts are configured for reading a resistivity thereacross (i.e. read a lateral resistance of a lateral resistive state; para 0017, 0087, 0092).
Bauer does not expressly disclose two electrical contacts and another two electrical contacts.
Bozovic discloses two electrical contacts and another two electrical contacts (any two and another two of electrical contacts 1-8; fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Bauer is modifiable as taught by Bozovic for the purpose of improving accessing schemes of devices having magnetic material by using non-destructive read-out and control of write-current (para 0053-0055 of Bozovic), which is common and well known in the art to secure integrity of data storage.
Regarding claim 18, Bozovic discloses the device, wherein the plurality of electrical contacts includes eight (8) electrical contacts (fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Bauer is modifiable as taught by Bozovic for the purpose of improving accessing schemes of devices having magnetic material by using non-destructive read-out and control of write-current (para 0053-0055 of Bozovic), which is common and well known in the art to secure integrity of data storage.
Regarding claim 19, Bozovic discloses the device, wherein the plurality of electrical contacts is gold (para 0034).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Bauer is modifiable as taught by Bozovic for the purpose of improving accessing schemes of devices having magnetic material by using non-destructive read-out and control of write-current (para 0053-0055 of Bozovic), which is common and well known in the art to secure integrity of data storage.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 2017/0249990 ‒hereinafter Bauer) in view of in view of Bozovic (US 2002/0084453), and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2007/0253244 ‒hereinafter Wu).
The disclosure of fig(s). 5A/5B of Bauer is incorporated into an embodiment as considered below, since elements are analogous and similarly referenced (para 0087). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the figure(s) with the embodiment as taught for the purpose of improving the overall performance by controlling accessing schemes (para 0082-0083).
Regarding claim 16, Bauer discloses the device, wherein the memristive film (fig. 5A/5B) comprises a film of cobalt (para 0074, further cobalt thin film; para 0172) being shaped with a lateral dimension (i.e. a shape with lateral dimension corresponding to a lateral resistance; fig. 5A/5B).
Bauer, as modified, does not expressly disclose square shaped of 25 microns.
Wu discloses disclose square shaped of microns (i.e. at particular portions of thin film layer 202 is considered square shaped, having 100 microns in a horizontal and vertical dimension; fig. 2 para 0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Bauer is further modifiable as taught by Wu, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, i.e. “being square shaped with a lateral dimension of 25 microns,” involves only routine skill in the art. Such a conclusion is reasonably expected since workable ranges are common and well known in the prior art and can be interpreted broadly; it has been held that without a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or a critical reason why the invention requires the particular limitation, the dimensions as disclosed by Wu makes the limitation obvious for the purpose of improving the overall integrity of the device by improving accessing speeds in highly integrated devices (para 0024 of Wu), which is common and well known in the art to avoid points of failure that could otherwise hinder a complex system.
Regarding claim 17, Bauer, as modified, does not expressly disclose the device of claim, wherein the read-current is 0.1 milliamp.
Wu discloses reading current is milliamp (a small read current of 1 milliamp; para 0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Bauer is further modifiable as taught by Wu, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges, i.e. “read-current is 0.1 milliamp,” involves only routine skill in the art. Such a conclusion is reasonably expected since workable ranges are common and well known in the prior art and can be interpreted broadly; it has been held that without a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or a critical reason why the invention requires the particular limitation, the dimensions as disclosed by Wu makes the limitation obvious for the purpose of improving the overall integrity of the device by improving accessing speeds in highly integrated devices (para 0024 of Wu), which is common and well known in the art to avoid points of failure that could otherwise hinder a complex system.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauer et al. (US 2017/0249990 ‒hereinafter Bauer) in view of Dupuis et al. (US 4,829,476 ‒hereinafter Dupuis).
The disclosure of fig(s). 5A/5B of Bauer is incorporated into an embodiment as considered below, since elements are analogous and similarly referenced (para 0087). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the figure(s) with the embodiment as taught for the purpose of improving the overall performance by controlling accessing schemes (para 0082-0083).
Regarding claim 20, Bauer does not expressly disclose the device, wherein the write-current is 10 milliamp.
Dupuis discloses write-current is 10 milliamp (current in writing of 10 mA; column/line(s): 9/8-12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to recognize that the device of Bauer is modifiable as taught by Dupuis for the purpose of facilitating data accessing schemes by selectively providing bias to the device to enhance performance operations (column/line(s): 4/11-19 of Dupuis).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UYEN SMET whose telephone number is (571) 272-2267. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9 AM-5 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, Richard Elms can be reached on (571) 272-1869. 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.
/UYEN SMET/
[AltContent: connector] Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824