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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) Form PTO-1449. The information disclosed therein was considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (“Brownian Circuits: Designs” Journ. Of Unconventional Computing – cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses an apparatus for processing information by evaluating randomly moving tokens corresponding to particles or quasiparticles (see page 341, section 1, first paragraph), the apparatus comprising: an input interface for receiving an input signal (see page 343, “these elements have…inputs”); a carrier (Cjoin, for example see Figure 3) for supporting a plurality of pathways for the randomly moving tokens and at least one join for connecting two pathways and for permitting a passing of a first token in a first pathway of the two connected pathways through the at least one join upon presence of a second token from a second pathway of the two connected pathways in the join (see page 344, last two paragraphs); an insertion unit for inserting tokens into the plurality of pathways based on the input signal (see page 344, Hub); an excitation unit (Rachet, see Figure 4 page 346) for applying a stimulus to a token in at least one pathway of the plurality of pathways, said stimulus acting to increase random movement of the token in a direction substantially parallel to the carrier (rachet applies mechanical constraints to stimulate a passing token along the carrier direction while the movement remains random post rachet); and an output unit for providing an output signal based on a location of at least one token after a predefined or dynamically adjusted time period (see page 360, first two paragraphs).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17-20, 22, 23, 26, 28-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Nozaki (“Brownian motion of skyrmion bubbles and its control by voltage application” Applied Physics Letters – Cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 17, Lee discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, but fails to teach the apparatus is configured to evaluate particles or quasiparticles exhibiting a Brownian diffusive motion as tokens, in particular magnetic skyrmions but does suggest other technologies such as spintronic devices (see page 361). Nozaki teaches such Brownian evaluation (see abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to apply the teaching of Lee to a different technology base in order to realize the benefits of Lee in that other technology and also achieve the benefits of that technology (e.g. less quantum flux sensitivity).
Regarding claim 18, Lee discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the excitation unit includes a pulse unit for applying an electric current to the carrier and/or to at least one pathway of the plurality of pathways (see page 114, left column apply Vb).
Regarding claim 19, Lee discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the excitation unit includes a magnetic field unit for applying a magnetic field or magnetic field gradient to the carrier (see page 114, left column “the amplitude of the external magnetic filed…”).
Regarding claim 20, Lee discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the excitation unit includes an electric field unit for applying an electric field to the carrier; and the carrier includes an electrically insulating layer for propagating the electric field (see page 114, MgO).
Regarding claim 33, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 20, wherein the carrier includes a layer but fails to teach it is a of a high-k dielectric material.
However, high-k dielectrics are well-known in the art and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing to provide such a material for the known benefits thereof (e.g. CMOS compatibility, reduced breakdown, etc.)
Regarding claim 22, Lee discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the output unit includes a magnetic sensor for detecting a change in magnetization or in a magnetic field in an output position on the carrier (page 2, left column P-MOKE measurements).
Regarding claim 23, Lee discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the output unit is configured to periodically determine whether a token is in an output position on the carrier (see page 3, right column 60fps).
Regarding claims 26 and 29, Lee discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the input interface is configured to receive the input signal from a sensor (this is drawn to the intended use of being connected to sensor output, while not disclosed it would have been further obvious to connect to a sensor in order to achieve the benefits of Lee in any known sensor device).
Regarding claims 28 and 30, Lee discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, wherein the excitation unit is configured to apply the stimulus based on an amount of energy in an energy supply connected to an energy harvesting unit for generating electric energy from an environment (this is drawn to the intended use of being connected to an energy harvesting system, while not disclosed it would have been further obvious to connect to a sensor in order to achieve the benefits of Lee in any known energy harvesting device).
Regarding claim 31, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the carrier includes a layer of a conductive material enabling a spin torque effect, in particular a spin-orbit torque effect, to which the electric current is applied (see Nozaki, “W” layer).
Claim(s) 24, 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (and Nozaki) and Further in view of Buttner (US 2019/0131049).
Regarding claim 24, Lee discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 16, but fails to show detailed structure and therefore fails to teach the carrier includes a multi-layer thin film system arranged on a semiconductor wafer. However, this was a known method of implementing such devices of Lee and Nozaki above (see Buttner, paragraph 0038). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of filing provide the system of Lee (and that modified to Nozaki in other claims) in such a multi-layer film arranged on a semiconductor wafer since this was a known configuration for building skyrmion devices and would have the predictable result of a silicon substrate manufactured chip.
Regarding claim 35, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 24, wherein said semiconductor wafer includes an insulating top layer and/or said multi-layer thin film system includes a magnetized material (see paragraphs 0037-0038).
Regarding claim 36, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 24, wherein the pathways and the at least one join are manufactured in the multi-layer thin film system in an etching and/or lithography process (see paragraph 0038).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21, 25, 27, 32, 34 and 37 are 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.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably disclose in combination all the features of the claim in combination with preceding claim limitations including wherein the excitation unit includes an electromagnetic field unit for generating a high-frequency electromagnetic field.
Regarding claim 25, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably disclose in combination all the features of the claim in combination with preceding claim limitations including the insertion unit includes a nucleation unit for nucleating a token in an input position connected to a pathway.
Regarding claim 27, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably disclose in combination all the features of the claim in combination with preceding claim limitations including wherein the input interface is configured to receive a stimulus signal; and the excitation unit is configured to apply the stimulus based on the stimulus signal.
Regarding claim 32, the prior art fails to teach or reasonably disclose in combination all the features of the claim in combination with preceding claim limitations including wherein said magnetic field unit includes at least two coils arranged on different sides of the carrier.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2311. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00AM-5:30PM.
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.
/DOUGLAS KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824
Prosecution Insights