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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US 2013/0028013) in view of Yun (US 2019/0140163).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda discloses, in FIGS. 1 and 2A-2C and in related text, a magnetic memory device comprising:
an electrode (11, 13); and
a magnetoresistance effect element (41, 10 ,42) provided on the electrode,
wherein the electrode includes a first electrode portion (11) and a second electrode portion (13) provided between the magnetoresistance effect element and the first electrode portion and containing a metal element selected from molybdenum (Mo) and ruthenium (Ru) (see Ikeda, [0011], [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0032]).
Ikeda discloses a first electrode portion (11) containing tantalum (see Ikeda, [0027]).
Ikeda does not explicitly disclose a first electrode portion containing carbon (C).
Yun teaches that electrode material can be tantalum or carbon (see Yun, [0027]). Therefore, Yun teaches wherein the first electrode portion contains carbon (C).
Ikeda and Yun are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Ikeda with the features of Yun because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ikeda to include wherein the first electrode portion contains carbon (C), as taught by Yun, because it is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (as an electrode of a magnetic memory device; see MPEP § 2143), and to provide a low-energy electrode material (see Yun, [0027]).
Regarding claim 3, Ikeda in view of Yun teaches the device of claim 1.
Ikeda discloses a hard mask (cap layer 14) provided on the magnetoresistance effect element (41, 10 ,42) (see Ikeda, FIG. 1, [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Ikeda in view of Yun teaches the device of claim 1.
Ikeda discloses wherein the magnetoresistance effect element includes a first magnetic layer (42) having a variable magnetization direction (63), a second magnetic layer (41) having a fixed magnetization direction (62), and a nonmagnetic layer (10) provided between the first magnetic layer and the second magnetic layer (see Ikeda, FIGS. 2A-2C, [0027], [0029]-[0032]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Yun, and further in view of Chuang (US 2022/0157886).
Regarding claim 4, Ikeda in view of Yun teaches the device of claim 1.
Ikeda discloses the magnetoresistance effect element (41, 10, 42) and the (lower) electrode (11, 13) (see Ikeda, FIG. 1 and discussion on claim 1 above).
Ikeda does not explicitly disclose a sidewall insulating layer provided along a side surface of the magnetoresistance effect element and a side surface of the second electrode portion.
Chuang teaches a sidewall insulating layer (SiN layer 210) enclosing a magnetic memory element (190’) and its lower electrodes (180’) (see Chuang, FIG. 9, [0028], [0034], [0038]). Therefore, Chuang together with Ikeda teaches a sidewall insulating layer provided along a side surface of the magnetoresistance effect element and a side surface of the second electrode portion.
Ikeda and Chuang are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Ikeda with the features of Chuang because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Ikeda to include a sidewall insulating layer provided along a side surface of the magnetoresistance effect element and a side surface of the second electrode portion, as taught by Chuang, in order to provide a spacer layer (see Chuang, [0038]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeda in view of Yun, and further in view of Lee (US 2018/0040810).
Regarding claim 6, Ikeda in view of Yun teaches the device of claim 1.
Ikeda discloses the magnetoresistance effect element (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Ikeda in FIG. 1 does not explicitly disclose a switching element connected in series to the magnetoresistance effect element.
Lee teaches a switching element (SE) connected in series to the magnetoresistance effect element (ME) (see Lee, FIG. 2, [0031]-[0035]).
Ikeda and Lee are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Ikeda with the features of Lee because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify Ikeda to include a switching element connected in series to the magnetoresistance effect element, to provide a selection element for a memory element in a memory cell array (see Lee, [0031], [0034]).
Regarding claim 7, Ikeda in view of Yun, and further in view of Lee, teaches the device of claim 6.
Lee teaches a first wiring line (WL1, for example) extending in a first direction; and a second wiring line (BL1, for example) extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction, wherein the magnetoresistance effect element (ME) and the switching element (SE) are provided between the first wiring line and the second wiring line (see Lee, FIG. 2, [0031]-[0032]), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, Chuang, teaches a sidewall insulating layer provided along a side surface of the magnetoresistance effect element, a side surface of the second electrode portion, and an upper portion of a side surface of the first electrode portion. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “wherein the sidewall insulating layer is not provided along a lower portion of the side surface of the first electrode portion” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 13.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection.
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 SHIH TSUN A CHOU whose telephone number is (408)918-7583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-16:00 Arizona Time.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/SHIH TSUN A CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights