DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Remarks and Amendments filed on 01 July 2026.
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
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(s) 1-4, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng et al. (US 2021/0375518 A1; citation previously made of record; hereinafter Zheng), in view of Tsou et al. (US 2023/0170403 A1; citation previously made of record; hereinafter Tsou).
In regards to claim 1, Zheng teaches, e.g. in figs. 1-4, a spin orbit torque device (Title), comprising:
a spin current source alloy layer (120/130) [0027-0028];
a ferromagnetic free layer (140) [0029], located on the spin current source alloy layer; and
an insulation layer (220), located on the ferromagnetic free layer (e.g. fig. 1A: (220) is on the side surface of (140)).
Zheng appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations of a magnetoresistive random access memory; wherein the spin current source alloy layer is a nickel-tungsten alloy layer. Tsou teaches the limitations of a magnetoresistive random access memory [0021]; wherein the spin current source alloy layer is a nickel-tungsten alloy layer [0030]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Zheng with the aforementioned limitation taught by Tsou to have a device that requires a smaller write current (Tsou [0023]).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Zheng and Tsou teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Zheng further teaches, e.g. in figs. 1-4, the limitations wherein the nickel-tungsten alloy layer (120/130) is in direct contact with the ferromagnetic free layer (140) (fig. 1A: e.g. the (130) portion of (120/130) is in direct contact with (140)).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Zheng and Tsou teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. The combination of Zheng and Tsou appears to be silent as to the limitation wherein the nickel-tungsten alloy layer contains 30 at% or more of tungsten; however Tsou teaches that the composition of a material of a device affects the electrical properties, e.g. capacitance, of said device [0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the limitation wherein the nickel-tungsten alloy layer contains 30 at% or more of tungsten, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Zheng and Tsou teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. The combination of Zheng and Tsou appears to be silent as to the limitation wherein the nickel-tungsten alloy layer contains less than 90 at% or less of tungsten; however Tsou teaches that the composition of a material of a device affects the electrical properties, e.g. capacitance, of said device [0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the limitation wherein the nickel-tungsten alloy layer contains less than 90 at% or less of tungsten, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Zheng and Tsou teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. Zheng further teaches the limitations wherein the spin current source layer (120/130) is a multi-layer film structure [0027-0028], the multi-layer film structure consists of a plurality of sub-layers [0027-0028]. Tsou teaches the limitations wherein a switching behavior of the ferromagnetic free layer is controlled by controlling a different composition ratio of nickel and tungsten in each of the sub-layers ([0047]: the composition of a material of a device affects the electrical properties of said device). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by Zheng with the aforementioned limitation taught by Tsou to have a device that requires a smaller write current (Tsou [0023]).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Zheng and Tsou teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 8. Zheng further teaches the limitations wherein a number of film layers in the multi-layer film structure is 2 to 10 layers (figs. 1-4) [0027-0028].
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zheng and Tsou as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Chiu et al. (US 12,451,175 B2; citation previously made of record; hereinafter Chiu).
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Zheng and Tsou teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 1. The combination of Zheng and Tsou appears to be silent as to, but does not preclude, the limitations wherein the nickel-tungsten alloy layer has a plurality of regions with different polarities. Chiu teaches the limitations wherein the nickel-tungsten alloy layer has a plurality of regions with different polarities (fig. 4; col. 6/lns. 35-51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by the combination of Zheng and Tsou with the aforementioned limitations taught by Chiu to provide a structure capable of different data states (Chiu col. 6/lns. 35-51).
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Zheng, Tsou, and Chiu teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 5. Chiu further teaches the limitations wherein shapes of the plurality of regions comprise block shapes, linear shapes, or a combination thereof (fig. 4: bar shaped; col. 6/lns. 35-51). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application at hand was filed to modify the limitations taught by the combination of Zheng and Tsou with the aforementioned limitations taught by Chiu to provide a structure capable of different data states (Chiu col. 6/lns. 35-51).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Zheng, Tsou, and Chiu teaches the limitations discussed above in addressing claim 5. The combination of Zheng, Tsou, and Chiu appears to be silent as to the limitation wherein each of the plurality of regions has a different composition ratio of nickel and tungsten; however Tsou teaches that the composition of a material of a device affects the electrical properties, e.g. capacitance, of said device [0047]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the limitation wherein each of the plurality of regions has a different composition ratio of nickel and tungsten, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (1955).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner thanks Applicant for the concise analysis of the prior Office Action dated 02 April 2026 (hereinafter the prior Office Action) found in Applicant’s Remarks (hereinafter the Remarks). The Remarks appear to assert that the prior art reference combination of Zheng and Tsou (citations in the Office Action above) does not teach the limitation “wherein the spin current source alloy layer is a nickel-tungsten alloy layer” (the Remarks pgs. 4-5); however Examiner respectfully submits that the combination of Zheng and Tsou teaches the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation in question.
Specifically, the Remarks appear to assert that Zheng alone does not teach the limitation in question (the Remarks pg. 5, para. 1). This assertion matches the statement made in the rejection of claim 1 in the prior Office Action. The Remarks appear to further assert that the combination of Zheng and Tsou do not teach the limitation in question (the Remarks pg. 5, paragraphs 2-3) because the SAF layer (213) taught by Tsou teaches composite layering and not alloying; however Examiner respectfully submits that Tsou teaches in paragraph [0030]:
SAF layer 213 may include two ferromagnetic layers 218 and 220, with a non-magnetic spacer layer 219 sandwiched between the ferromagnetic layers 218 and 220, or may be a stack of alternating non-magnetic layers and ferromagnetic layers. In some embodiments, the ferromagnetic layers 218 and 220 may be formed of a material such as Co, Pt, Fe, Ni, CoFe, NiFe, CoFeB, CoFeBW, alloys thereof, the like, or combinations thereof. Emphasis added.
Examiner respectfully submits that a teaching of Ni, CoFeBW, and alloys thereof could include an alloy including Ni and W, amongst other elements. Examiner further submits that this alloy would read on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation of a nickel-tungsten alloy. As such, Examiner respectfully submits that the claims of the application at hand stand properly rejected.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CALVIN Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-7882. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific 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, William (Blake) Partridge can be reached at (571) 270-1402. 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.
CALVIN CHOI
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2812
/CALVIN Y CHOI/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights