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
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) 1, 2, 7, 8, 15, 19, 22-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hui-Lin Wang et al. (US 20240114803 A1) herein after referred to as “Wang”, and further in view of Ikhtiar et al. (US 20200158796 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Wang teaches
A magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) structure (Fig. 7 elements, 52), comprising:
a barrier layer(46);
a free layer (Fig. 2, 4, element 92, Para. [0013] 92 is the bottom most free layer of layer 48 ), disposed on the barrier layer(Fig 2, 4, 7, element 92 is on layer 46, Para. [0013]);
a metal oxide cap layer(Fig. 2, 4, element 96 of 48, Para. [0013]), disposed on the free layer(92), wherein the metal oxide cap layer has a first surface (bottom of 96) and a second surface (top of 96) opposite to the first surface, wherein the first surface of the metal oxide cap layer is in contact with the free layer (the bottom of 96 is in contact with 92), and wherein in a direction of a thickness of the metal oxide cap layer, both of an oxygen concentration at the first surface of the metal oxide cap layer and an oxygen concentration at the second surface of the metal oxide cap layer are higher than an oxygen concentration in a middle portion (Fig. 2 element 100) of the metal oxide cap layer. (Fig. 4 Para [0017]); and
a cap layer (82), disposed above the metal oxide cap layer, wherein the second surface of the metal oxide cap layer is interfaced with the cap layer(82). (interfaced even with an intervening layer)
Wang does teach other cap layers as being made of a metallic material (Para[0013]) but does not talk about the material for the cap layer (82) specifically and therefore is not relied upon to teach
a metallic cap layer
Ikhtiar teaches an MTJ stack
Wherein the cap layer is a metallic cap layer (Fig. 1 element 330 Para. [0046]),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang such that the cap layer is a metallic cap layer, as described in Ikhtiar because the modification allows for the metal elements with higher Gibbs free energy to act as a diffusion barrier because of the elements unlikely hood of forming an oxide even in high annealing temperatures. (Ikhtiar Para. [0053]))
Regarding Claim 2 Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The MTJ structure of claim 1,
wherein the metallic cap layer comprises a non-magnetic transition metal (Ikhtiar Para [0053])
Regarding Claim 7, Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The MTJ structure of claim 1, further comprises:
Wang further teaches
a reference layer (44), disposed below the barrier layer (46);
a bottom electrode (42), disposed below the reference layer (44); and
a top electrode (50), disposed above the cap layer (82).
Regarding Claim 8, Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The MTJ structure of claim 7,
Wang does not teach
a hard mask layer, disposed between the metallic cap layer and the top electrode.
Ikhtiar further teaches
further comprises: a hard mask layer, disposed between the metallic cap layer and the top electrode.(Para. [0067])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang such that a hard mask layer is disposed between the metallic cap layer and the top electrode, as described in Ikhtiar because the modification improves the pattering and dimension retention of the MTJ stack. (Para. [0067])
Regarding claim 15, Wang teaches
A memory cell (Para. 1), comprising:
a first electrode (Fig. 7 elements 42) and a second electrode (50);
a stack of a barrier layer (46), a free layer (92) disposed on (Fig. 2, 4, 7, Para. [0013]) the barrier layer, and a metal oxide cap layer (96) disposed on(Fig. 2, 4) the free layer (92)
and a cap layer (82), disposed above the metal oxide cap layer,
wherein the stack is disposed between the first electrode and the second electrode (Fig. 7), wherein, in a stacking direction of the stack, an oxygen concentration in the metal oxide cap layer decreases from a first surface (bottom of 96) of the metal oxide cap layer in contact with the free layer to a middle portion(100) of the metal oxide cap layer, and then increases from the middle portion of the metal oxide cap layer to a second surface (top of 96) of the metal oxide cap layer opposite to the first surface
and in contact (with an intervening layer) with the cap layer(82),
such that both of the oxygen concentration at the first surface of the metal oxide cap layer and the oxygen concentration at the second surface of the metal oxide cap layer are higher than the oxygen concentration in the middle portion of the metal oxide cap layer in a direction of a thickness (horizontally) of the metal oxide cap layer. (Fig. 4 Para [0017])
Wang does not teach the cap layer specifically being metallic and therefor is not relied upon to teach
and a metallic cap layer, wherein the metallic cap layer comprises Ta, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Zr, Nb, Mo, Tc, Ru, Rh, Hf, W, Re, Os, Ir, or a combination thereof.
Ikhtiar does teach
and a metallic cap layer (Fig. 1 element 330 Para. [0046]), wherein the metallic cap layer comprises Ta, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Zr, Nb, Mo (Ikhtiar Para. [0053]), Tc, Ru, Rh, Hf, W, Re, Os, Ir, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang such that the cap layer is a metallic cap layer that is one of Ta, Ti, V, Cr, Mn, Zr, Nb, Mo, Tc, Ru, Rh, Hf, W, Re, Os, Ir, or a combination thereof, as described in Ikhtiar because the modification allows for the metal elements with higher Gibbs free energy to act as a diffusion barrier because of the elements unlikely hood of forming an oxide even in high annealing temperatures. (Ikhtiar Para. [0053]).
Regarding claim 19, Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The memory cell of claim 15,
Wang further teaches
wherein the metal oxide cap layer has the oxygen concentration that gradually varies along the stacking direction (horizontally). (Fig. 4 Para [0017])
Regarding Claim 22, Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The MTJ structure of claim 2,
Wang further teaches (with a metal oxide layer (96) made of MgO (Para. [0013]) and teaches the importance of relative oxygen concentration (para[0026]) in the lower portion (98), middle portion (100), and upper portion (102). )
wherein the metal oxide cap layer (Fig. 2, 4, 7 element 96 of 48) comprises a lower portion(98), the middle portion(100) and an upper portion(102) arranged along the direction of the thickness of the metal oxide cap layer(96), the lower portion has the first surface(bottom of 96), the upper portion has the second surface(top of 96), and an average oxygen concentration of the lower portion and an average oxygen concentration of the upper portion is higher than an average oxygen concentration of the middle portion, (Fig. 4 Para [0017])
Wang does not explicitly teach
the thickness of these layers
Ikhtiar Teaches a metal oxide cap layer
With two layers of metal oxide 310 in size range 1A-6A and 320 in size range 1A-8A (para. [0052])Therefore the limitation
wherein a thickness of the lower portion is in a range from 2A to 5A, a thickness of the upper portion is in a range from 2A to 5A, and a thickness of the middle portion is in a range from 1A to 3A.
have thickness ranges that all fall within known parameters for the thickness of metal oxide layer portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang in view of Ikhtiar such that the thicknesses of the lower portion and upper portion are in range 2A-5A and the middle portion is in range 1A-3A , as described in Ikhtiar because the modification allows for the formation of a desired structure of the metal oxide cap layer and the control of the level of its resistivity (Ikhtiar Para. [0054]).
Regarding Claim 23, Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The MTJ structure of claim 1,
Wang further teaches
further comprising: a reference layer (44), wherein the barrier layer(46) is disposed between(Fig 2,7, Para.[0013]) the reference layer (44) and the metal oxide cap layer (96 of 48) and the free layer (92 of 48) is disposed between the metal oxide cap layer (96 of 48) and the barrier layer(46) (Fig. 2, 4, 7).
Regarding Claim 24, Wang teaches
A magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) structure (fig. 7 element 52), comprising:
a stack of a reference layer(44),
a free layer (Fig. 2, 4, 7 elements 92),
a metal oxide cap layer (96),
and a cap layer(82),
wherein the free layer is disposed between the metal oxide cap layer and the reference layer(Para. [0013] Fig. 2, 4, 7),
the metal oxide cap layer (96) connects the free layer (92) and the cap layer(82),
the metal oxide cap layer (Para. [0013]) has a first surface (bottom of 96) and a second surface (top of 96) opposite to the first surface, the first surface of the metal oxide cap layer is in contact with the free layer (bottom of 96 is in contact with 92 Fig. 2), and wherein in a direction of a thickness (horizontally) of the metal oxide cap layer, both of an oxygen concentration at the first surface of the metal oxide cap layer and an oxygen concentration at the second surface of the metal oxide cap layer are higher than an oxygen concentration in a middle portion (Fig. 2 element 100) of the metal oxide cap layer. (Fig. 4 Para [0017])
Wang does not explicitly teach
and a metallic cap layer, the metallic cap layer comprises a non-magnetic transition metal,
Ikhtiar teaches
a metallic cap layer (Fig. 1 element 330 Para. [0046]), the metallic cap layer comprises a non-magnetic transition metal,( Para. [0053])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang such that the cap layer is a metallic cap layer that is a non-magnetic transition metal, as described in Ikhtiar because the modification allows for the metal elements with higher Gibbs free energy to act as a diffusion barrier because of the elements unlikely hood of forming an oxide even in high annealing temperatures. (Ikhtiar Para. [0053]))
Regarding Claim 25, Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The MTJ structure of claim 24,
wherein the metal oxide cap layer (Wang Fig. 2 elements 96) comprises, from bottom to top, a lower portion (Wang 98), the middle portion (Wang 100), and an upper portion (Wang 102), an average oxygen concentration of the middle portion is lower than an average oxygen concentration of the lower portion and an average oxygen concentration of the upper portion (Wang Fig. 4 Para [0017]), the lower portion is interfaced with the free layer (bottom of 96 is in contact with 92 Fig. 2), and the upper portion is interfaced (with an intervening layer Fig 1 of Wang) with the metallic (Ikhtiar 330) cap layer. (Wang 82)
Claim(s) 3, 4, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claim 1 and 15 above, further in view of Ikhtiar and further in view of Lin Xue et al. (US 10468592 B1) herein after referred to as “Xue”.
Regarding Claim 3 Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The MTJ structure of claim 1,
Wang further teaches (with a metal oxide layer (96) made of MgO (Para. [0013]) and teaches the importance of relative oxygen concentration (para[0026]) in the lower portion (98), middle portion (100), and upper portion (102). )
wherein the metal oxide cap layer (Fig. 2, 4, 7 element 96 of 48) comprises a lower portion(98), the middle portion(100) and an upper portion(102) arranged along the direction of the thickness of the metal oxide cap layer(96), the lower portion has the first surface(bottom of 96), the upper portion has the second surface(top of 96), and an average oxygen concentration of the lower portion and an average oxygen concentration of the upper portion is higher than an average oxygen concentration of the middle portion, (Fig. 4 Para [0017])
Wang in view of Ikhtiar does not explicitly teach
the structure of the metal oxide and does not teach an explicit numerical range of oxygen concentration
Xue teaches an MTJ stack
wherein a material of the metal oxide cap layer (Fig. 1a element 122) comprises cubic crystalline MOy, (Col. 6 lines 59-63, Col. 12-13 lines 66-2, Col. 4 lines 64-65) where M is a metallic element , O is an oxygen element,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang in view of Ikhtiar such that the material of the metal oxide cap layer comprises cubic crystalline MOy, as described in the analogous prior art of Xue because the modification allows improved lattice matching creating a MTJ stack that can withstand high temperature processes during manufacture (Col.4 line 28-33)
Neither Wang in view of Ikhtiar nor Xue explicitly teach the Limitation
and y is in the range of 0.75 to 1 in the lower portion and the upper portion, while y is in the range of 0.5 to 0.75 in the middle portion.
Since Wang teaches, a metal oxide cap layer with an average oxygen concentration of the lower portion and an average oxygen concentration of the upper portion is higher than an average oxygen concentration of the middle portion; and Wang teaches, that this configuration of oxygen concentration allows for the device to more effectively prevent oxygen atoms in the lower barrier layer underneath from diffusing upward into the material layers above thereby affecting the performance of the device (Wang para. [0026]), it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach a concentration range that follows the teachings of Wang. Therefore, the concentration of oxygen is a result effective variable (a variable which achieves a recognized result); and this limitation will be considered as Routine Optimization. “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…” see MPEP § 2144.05 to learn more.
Regarding Claim 4, Wang in view of Ikhtiar in view of Xue teaches
The MTJ structure of claim 3,
Neither Wang or Xue explicitly teach the Limitation
wherein throughout the metal oxide cap layer, the average value of y in MOy is greater than 0.68 and less than 0.82.
However above in claim 3 it was determined that the concentration of oxygen is a result effective variable and narrowing the range of oxygen concentration does not affect that determination. Therefore, this limitation will be considered as Routine Optimization. See MPEP § 2144.05 to learn more.
Regarding Claim 16, Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The memory cell of claim 15,
Wang further teaches
wherein the metal oxide cap layer (96) comprises, from bottom to top, a lower portion(98), the middle portion(100) and an upper portion (102),
(with a metal oxide layer (96) made of MgO (Para. [0013]) and teaches the importance of relative oxygen concentration (para[0026]) in the lower portion, middle portion, and upper portion.)
Wang in view of Ikhtiar does not explicitly teach
the structure of the metal oxide and does not teach an explicit numerical range of oxygen concentration
Xue teaches an MTJ stack
wherein a material of the metal oxide cap layer (Fig. 1a element 122) comprises cubic crystalline MOy, (Col. 6 lines 59-63, Col. 12-13 lines 66-2, Col. 4 lines 64-65) where M is a metallic element , O is an oxygen element,
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang in view of Ikhtiar such that the material of the metal oxide cap layer comprises cubic crystalline MOy, as described in the analogous prior art of Xue because the modification allows improved lattice matching creating a MTJ stack that can withstand high temperature processes during manufacture (Col.4 line 28-33)
Neither Wang in view of Ikhtiar or Xue explicitly teach the Limitation
and y is in the range of 0.75 to 1 in the lower portion and the upper portion, while y is in the range of 0.5 to 0.75 in the middle portion.
However above in claim 3 it was determined that the concentration of oxygen is a result effective variable and putting the MTJ stack in a memory cell between the electrodes of claim 15 does not affect that determination. Therefore, this limitation will be considered as Routine Optimization. See MPEP § 2144.05 to learn more.
Regarding Claim 17, Wang in view of Ikhtiar in view of Xue teaches
The memory cell of claim 16,
Neither Wang in view of Ikhtiar or Xue explicitly teach the Limitation
wherein throughout the metal oxide cap layer, the average value of y in MOy is greater than 0.68 and less than 0.82.
However above in claim 3 it was determined that the concentration of oxygen is a result effective variable and narrowing the range of oxygen concentration does not affect that determination. Therefore, this limitation will be considered as Routine Optimization. See MPEP § 2144.05 to learn more.
Claim(s) 5, 21, 27, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Ikhtiar as applied to claim 1, 15, and 24 above, and further in view of Eiji Kariyada et al. (US 20230180628 A1) herein after referred to as Kariyada.
Regarding Claim 5 Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The MTJ structure of claim 1,
Wang further teaches (with a metal oxide layer (96) made of MgO (Para. [0013]) and teaches the importance of relative oxygen concentration (para[0026]) in the lower portion (98), middle portion (100), and upper portion (102). )
wherein the metal oxide cap layer (Fig. 2, 4, 7 element 96 of 48) comprises a lower portion(98), the middle portion(100) and an upper portion(102) arranged along the direction of the thickness of the metal oxide cap layer(96), the lower portion has the first surface(bottom of 96), the upper portion has the second surface(top of 96), and an average oxygen concentration of the lower portion and an average oxygen concentration of the upper portion is higher than an average oxygen concentration of the middle portion, (Fig. 4 Para [0017])
with a lower portion(98), the middle portion(100) and an upper portion (102), (in which the lower portion and the upper portion each occupy 14.3% to 20% of a total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer, while the middle portion occupies 60% to 71.4% of the total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer.) (Para. [0015])
Wang in view of Ikhtiar does not teach
wherein the lower portion and the upper portion each occupy 30% to 40% of a total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer, while the middle portion occupies 20% to 40% of the total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer.
Kariyada teaches an MTJ structure
wherein the lower portion and the upper portion each occupy 30% to 40% (Para [0079] [0065] Fig 1A,1B, 6. Elements 56a and 56c. Meaning the upper and lower portions are known to be 1-2nm ) of a total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer, while the middle portion occupies 20% to 40% (Para. [0073] Fig. 4A to 4F, 1A element 56b. meaning the middle portion is known to be 0.1-1nm) of the total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer. (fig. 1a, 1b, 4a-4f, 6, 9)(For example if the lower portion and upper portion is 1.05nm(35% of the total thickness each) and the middle portion is 0.9nm(30%))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang in view of Ikhtiar such that the lower portion and the upper portion each occupy 30% to 40% of a total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer, while the middle portion occupies 20% to 40% of the total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer., as described in Kariyada because the modification allows for increase or at least the control over the level of magnetoresistance (Fig.1b, 4a-9 Para.[0035],[0039]-[0050])
Regarding Claim 21, Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The MTJ structure of claim 1, further comprising:
a dielectric capping layer (Wang Fig. 7 element 56 Para.[0021]) , disposed on a sidewall of the barrier layer, a sidewall of the free layer, a side wall of the metal oxide cap layer. (Wang Fig.7)
and a side wall (Wang 56 is on the side of 82) of the metallic (Ikhtiar 330) cap layer; and a dielectric material layer(Wang 62 Para[0022]), disposed on the dielectric capping layer, wherein the dielectric capping layer (Wang 56) is laterally disposed between the metal oxide cap layer and the dielectric material layer (Wang Fig 7),
Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches the dielectric material and the metallic capping layer but is not relied upon to teach aligning the upper surfaces and therefor is not relied upon to teach
and an upper surface of the dielectric material layer is aligned with an upper surface of the metallic capping layer.
Kariyada teaches a similar device where
and an upper surface of the dielectric material layer (44 Para[0108])is aligned (Fig 12) with an upper surface of the metallic capping layer(57).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang in view of Ikhtiar such that the upper surfaces of the dielectric material and the metallic capping layer are aligned, as described in Kariyada because the modification allows for the dielectric material layer to isolate and cover the conductive portion that will be connected to the metallic capping layer while also using less material making the device thinner and more efficient (Kariyada para[0109])
Regarding Claim 27 Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The memory cell of claim 15, further comprising:
a dielectric capping layer (Wang Fig. 7 element 56 Para.[0021]), disposed on a sidewall of the stack; and
a dielectric material layer (Wang 62 Para[0022]), disposed on the dielectric capping layer, wherein the dielectric capping layer is laterally disposed between the stack and the dielectric material layer,
Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches the dielectric material and the metallic capping layer but is not relied upon to teach aligning the upper surfaces and therefor is not relied upon to teach
and an upper surface of the dielectric material layer is flush with an upper surface of the stack.
Kariyada teaches a similar device where
and an upper surface of the dielectric material layer(44 Para[0108]) is flush (Fig 12)with an upper surface of the stack.(top of 57)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang in view of Ikhtiar such that the upper surfaces of the dielectric material and the metallic capping layer of the upper surface of the stack are flush, as described in Kariyada because the modification allows for the dielectric material layer to isolate and cover the conductive portion that will be connected to the metallic capping layer while also using less material making the device thinner and more efficient (Kariyada para[0109])
Regarding Claim 28 Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The MTJ structure of claim 24, further comprising:
a dielectric capping layer, (Wang Fig. 7 element 56 Para.[0021]) disposed on a sidewall of the stack; and
a dielectric material layer (Wang 62 Para[0022]), disposed on the dielectric capping layer, wherein the dielectric capping layer is laterally disposed between the stack and the dielectric material layer,
Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches the dielectric material and the metallic capping layer but is not relied upon to teach aligning the upper surfaces and therefor is not relied upon to teach
and an upper surface of the dielectric material [layer] is flush with an upper surface of the stack.
Kariyada teaches a similar device where
and an upper surface of the dielectric material layer(44 Para[0108]) is flush (Fig 12)with an upper surface of the stack.(top of 57)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang in view of Ikhtiar such that the upper surfaces of the dielectric material and the metallic capping layer of the upper surface of the stack are flush, as described in Kariyada because the modification allows for the dielectric material layer to isolate and cover the conductive portion that will be connected to the metallic capping layer while also using less material making the device thinner and more efficient (Kariyada para[0109])
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Ikhtiar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shinto Ichikawa et al. (US 20220278271 A1) Herein after referred to a “Ichikawa”.
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Ikhtiar teaches
The MTJ structure of claim 1,
Wang further teaches
wherein the barrier layer(46) and the metal oxide cap layer(96) comprise a same metal oxide material,(para. [0012],[0013])
Wang in view of Ikhtiar does not teach
The average oxygen concentration level of the barrier layer and the metal oxide cap layer relative to each other.
Ichikawa teaches an MTJ
wherein an average oxygen concentration of the metal oxide material in the barrier layer (3) is higher than an average oxygen concentration of the metal oxide material in the metal oxide cap layer(4).(Para. [0065])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang such that the an average oxygen concentration of the metal oxide material in the barrier layer is higher than an average oxygen concentration of the metal oxide material in the metal oxide cap layer, as described in Ichikawa because the modification allows for the decrease of resistivity of the magnetoresistance effect on the device without decreasing the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (Para. [0134],[0092],[0065])
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Ikhtiar in view of Xue as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Kariyada.
Regarding Claim 18, Wang in view of Ikhtiar in view of Xue teaches
The memory cell of claim 16, (in which the lower portion(98) and the upper portion (102) each occupy 14.3% to 20% of a total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer(96), while the middle portion(100) occupies 60% to 71.4% of the total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer. )(Para. [0015])
Wang in view of Ikhtiar does not teach
wherein the lower portion and the upper portion each occupy 30% to 40% of a total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer, while the middle portion occupies 20% to 40% of the total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer.
Kariyada teaches an MTJ structure
wherein the lower portion and the upper portion each occupy 30% to 40% (Para [0079] [0065] Fig 1A,1B, 6. Elements 56a and 56c. Meaning the upper and lower portions are known to be 1-2nm ) of a total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer, while the middle portion occupies 20% to 40% (Para. [0073] Fig. 4A to 4F, 1A element 56b. meaning the middle portion is known to be 0.1-1nm) of the total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer. (fig. 1a, 1b, 4a-4f, 6, 9)(for example if the lower portion and upper portion is 1.05nm(35% of the total thickness each) and the middle portion is 0.9nm(30%))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Wang in view of Ikhtiar such that the lower portion and the upper portion each occupy 30% to 40% of a total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer, while the middle portion occupies 20% to 40% of the total thickness of the metal oxide cap layer., as described in Kariyada because the modification allows for increase or at least the control over the level of magnetoresistance (Fig.1b, 4a-9 Para.[0035],[0039]-[0050]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06-10-2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See detailed response below.
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., Metallic capping layer) are 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).
Regarding arguments pertaining to Claim 1
The feature of the metallic cap layer was not previously presented.
When applicant states “As indicated on page 13 of the Office Action, the Examiner maps the cap layer 82 in FIG. 7 of Wang to the claimed metal oxide cap layer.” Examiner believes applicant means 82 was mapped to the cap layer that is currently amended to the metallic cap layer as evidenced by the statement “Moreover, as acknowledged in the Office Action, Wang does not teach that the cap layer 82 is specifically metallic.”
Applicant argues that since there is an intervening layer between the cap layer 96 and the cap layer 82 that the 96 is structurally unusable in light of the amendment. Examiner disagrees since the term interface is too broad and does not restrict the two layer to be in direct physical contact.
Applicant then argues that a metallic cap layer from wang in view of Ikhtiar element 330 would not meet the limitation again because of the separation of layer 96 and 82 of Wang. For the same reasons above examiner politely disagrees.
Applicant then argues that even in view of Ikhtiar a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Wang since Ikhtiar allegedly does not disclose the claimed oxygen concentration. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive since the oxygen concentration levels are taught in Wang and the modification of making a cap layer a metallic cap layer would not change or effect the oxygen concentration and Ikhtiar provides a motivation to combine of metal elements with higher Gibbs free energy act as a diffusion barrier.
Applicant then argues that since the upper layer 56c and lower layer 56a of Kariyada never touch the free layer 55 or the cap layer 57 simultaneously and therefore do not meet the amended limitations. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive because this language was not previously stated in claim 1 nor is it currently stated. Examiner also does not believe this argument is supported by the figures or the specification.
Applicant then argues that since the middle portion 56b of Kariyada is made of Mo and not a metal oxide that it should not be considered as the middle portion of the metal oxide cap layer. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive since at least a portion of the metal oxide cap layer was taught to be a metal oxide (in both Wang (Para [0014]) and in Kariyada (Fig 1a element 56a and 56c)). Since at least a portion of the metal oxide cap layer is taught to be a metal oxide (and since there is no language requiring that the middle portion be a metal oxide) the limitation of metal oxide cap layer have been met.
Applicant then argues that Xue would not have been able to modify Wang since they allegedly don’t have the claimed oxygen concentration. This argument is unpersuasive since the argument does not pertain to a routine optimization of the oxygen concentration argument brought forth in the rejection. Further In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant then argues that Ichikawa that since the oxygen concentration of the middle portion relative to the upper and lower portions is not taught it cannot be relied upon. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Regarding arguments pertaining to Claim 15
Applicant argues “for the reasons discussed above” therefore see response above.
Regarding arguments pertaining to Claim 24
Applicant argues “for the reasons discussed above” therefore see response above.
Regarding arguments pertaining to Claim 5 and 18
Applicant then argues that since the middle portion 56b of Kariyada is made of Mo and not a metal oxide that it should not be considered as the middle portion of the metal oxide cap layer. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive since at least a portion of the metal oxide cap layer was taught to be a metal oxide (in both Wang (Para [0014]) and in Kariyada (Fig 1a element 56a and 56c)). Since at least a portion of the metal oxide cap layer is taught to be a metal oxide (and since there is no language requiring that the middle portion be a metal oxide) the limitation of metal oxide cap layer have been met.
Regarding arguments pertaining to Claim 21 and newly added claims 27-28
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., dielectric material) are 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).
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 JAIME LYNN SPRENGER whose telephone number is (571)272-8444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00a.m. - 5:00p.m. ET..
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, SUE PURVIS can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.
/JAIME LYNN SPRENGER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights