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 with respect to claims presented have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramamoorthy et al. (US11355643B2).
Regarding claim 1, Fig.3 of Ramamoorthy teaches a spin-orbit torque material, having a spin-orbit torque effect, wherein a chemical formula of the spin-orbit torque material is ABO2 (col.22, line 5, PtCoO.sub.2 ); and wherein A and B are different heavy metal atoms (wherein in A is platinum and Co is cobalt), O is an oxygen atom, and a ratio between numbers of A, B, and O atoms is 1: 1: 2 (col.22, line 5, wherein PtCoO.sub.2 has a ratio of 1:1:2 ), and wherein the A is platinum, and the B is any one of cobalt and chromium (wherein in A is platinum and Co is cobalt).
Regarding claim 3, Ramamoorthy further teaches the spin-orbit torque material according to claim 1, wherein A is platinum and B is cobalt (col.22, line 5, PtCoO.sub.2, wherein A corresponds to platinum and B corresponds to cobalt).
Regarding claim 4, Ramamoorthy further teaches the spin-orbit torque material according to claim 1, wherein the spin-orbit torque material is an ABO2 thin film which comprises a single-layered or multi-layered ABO2 atomic layer; and wherein each ABO2 atomic layer comprises an A atomic layer and a BO2 atomic layer, and the multi-layered ABO2 atomic layer is formed by A atomic layers and BO2 atomic layers which are stacked alternately (col.19, line 46-52, wherein one or both of the first and second conductive or semiconductive oxide electrodes 304, 300 comprise an oxide having a chemical formula represented by C.sub.(p-u)C′.sub.uD.sub.(q-v)D′.sub.vO.sub.w, wherein C and C′ occupy interchangeable atomic positions in the perovskite crystal structure, wherein D and D′ occupy interchangeable atomic positions in the perovskite crystal structure).
Regarding claim 5, Ramamoorthy further teaches the spin-orbit torque material according to claim 4, wherein the ABO2 thin film is a single crystal thin film or an amorphous thin film (col.21, lines 66 and col.22, lines 1-2, wherein the crystal structure of one or both of the first and second conductive or semiconductive oxide electrodes 304, 300 may be a delaffosite structure, a spinel structure or a cubic structure).
Regarding claim 6, Ramamoorthy further teaches the spin-orbit torque material according to claim 4, wherein a thickness of the ABO2 thin film is 8 nm to 150 nm (col.20, lines 45-47, first and second conductive or semiconductive oxide electrodes 304, 300 can have a thickness between about 10 nm, 10 and 15 nm, 15 and 20 nm, 20 and 25 nm, 25 and 30 nm, 30 and 35 nm, 35 and 40 nm, 40 and 45 nm, 45 and 50 nm).
Regarding claim 7, Ramamoorthy further teaches a spin-orbit torque device, comprising at least one spin-orbit torque material according to claim 1 (col.37, lines 17-20, wherein the semiconductor device of embodiment 78, wherein one or both of the first and second crystalline conductive or semiconductive oxide electrodes comprise one or more of PtCoO.sub.2).
Regarding claim 8, Ramamoorthy further teaches the spin-orbit torque device according to claim 7, comprising a spin-orbit torque generating layer which comprises the spin-orbit torque material (col.37, lines 17-20, wherein the semiconductor device of embodiment 78, wherein one or both of the first and second crystalline conductive or semiconductive oxide electrodes comprise one or more of PtCoO.sub.2).
Regarding claim 9, Ramamoorthy further teaches the spin-orbit torque device according to claim 7, wherein the spin-orbit torque device is a storage device, a logic device, or a sensor device (col.1, lines 16-21, wherein it is indicated that the disclosed technology generally relates to ferroelectric materials and semiconductor devices incorporating the same, and more particularly to semiconductor memory devices incorporating ferroelectric capacitors).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamoorthy et al. (US11355643B2) in view of Kim et al. (US20210119117A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ramamoorthy does not teach wherein the spin-orbit torque generating layer is configured to drive magnetization reversal, perturb magnetic moment, or excite magnetic resonance.
Fig.8A of Kim teaches wherein in the spin-orbit torque-based switching device, as the magnitude of an external magnetic field increases from 10 Oe to 150 Oe, the value of switching current (or current density) required for reversing magnetization decreases (para.0088).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the spin-orbit torque-based switching device of Kim in the teachings of Ramamoorthy because it helps in lowering the value of switching current (or current density) required for reversing magnetization (Kim, [para.0088]).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT KIPKEMOI RONO whose telephone number is (571)270-5977. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8am-5pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)272-1731. 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.
VINCENT KIPKEMOI. RONO
Examiner
Art Unit 2891
/V.K.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/TUCKER J WRIGHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights