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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “300 degrees” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “300 degrees” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. This renders the temperature for performing the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer deposition and heat treatment temperature indefinite. For the purposes of this action, the term “300 degrees” will be interpreted as “300 degrees Celsius.”
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.
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) 1, 2, and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seungjun et al. (JP 2020017662A) see provided Google machine translation) in view of Nakatsuji et al. (WO 2020166722 see provided Google machine translation).
Regarding Claim 1, Seungjun teaches a magnetic storage device, comprising;
a body (fig. 1, antiferromagnetic layer 12 and spin injection layer 13 make up the body of the device);
input terminals (fig. 1, Input terminals 21 and 22);
and output terminals (fig. 1, Output terminal 23),
wherein the body is configured by laminating a spin-torque generation layer and an antiferromagnetic layer on a substrate in such an order or in a reverse order in a laminating direction, and the input terminals are disposed on both ends of the spin-torque generation layer in any one direction parallel to a lamination surface (fig. 1, antiferromagnetic layer 12 and spin injection layer 13 laminated on substrate 11. Input terminals 22 disposed on both ends of 13 parallel to the lamination surface).
While Seungjun teaches an antiferromagnetic layer formed of materials including manganese tritin (Mn3Sn) and manganese trigermanium (Mn3Ge), they fail to specifically teach a non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer having a non-collinear magnetic order in a plane formed by said any one direction in a laminating direction.
However, Nakatsuji teaches an electronic magnetic memory device where the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer has a non-collinear magnetic order in a plane formed by said any one direction and the laminating direction (Nakatsuji, fig. 3 shows the spin-polarized electrons with x-axis positive and negative polarization, and Description paragraph 17 of Google machine translation teaches the antiferromagnetic layer made of Mn3Sn has a crystal structure where the Mn atoms located at vertices of Kagome lattice have a non-collinear spin structure. The applicant’s own specification states that Mn3Sn has a Kagome lattice and is non-collinear).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Nakatsuji into the method of Seungjun by forming their antiferromagnetic layer out of a material with a Kagome lattice structure which has a non-collinear spin structure, therefore having the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer with a non-collinear magnetic order in a plane formed by said any one direction and the laminating direction as well as configuring the body by laminating a spin-torque generation layer and a non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer on a substrate in such an order or in a reverse order in a laminating direction, and the input terminals are disposed on both ends of the spin-torque generation layer in any one direction parallel to a lamination surface. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Seungjun in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of enabling the reversal of perpendicular magnetization in a ferromagnet stacked on the antiferromagnetic layer at zero magnetic field without exchange bias (Nakatsuji, Description paragraph 5).
Regarding Claim 2, Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the output terminals are disposed at both ends of the spin-torque generation layer in a direction substantially orthogonal to said any one direction (Seungin, Fig. 1 output terminal 23 disposed at both ends of spin-torque generation layer 13. Disposed at both ends does not necessarily mean directly connected to).
Regarding Claim 5, Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the electronic device is used as an oscillation device, a wave detection device, a random number generation device, or a memory device (Seungjun, abstract).
Regarding Claim 6, Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the spin-torque generation layer contains any one of Ta, W, Hf, Pt, or Ir (Seungjun, Description paragraph 24 of Google machine translation teaches the spin-torque generation layer can be Pt or W).
Regarding Claim 7, Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji teaches the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer is formed of any one of an alloy containing Mn and Sn, an alloy containing Mn and Ge, an alloy containing Mn and Ir, or an alloy containing Mn and Pt (Nakatsuji, Description paragraph 17 of Google machine translation).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji as applied to claim 1, 2, and 5-7 above, and further in view of Lai et al. (TW 7104558 B, see provided Google machine translation).
Regarding claim 3, Seungjun teaches an electronic device with an antiferromagnetic layer and a spin-torque generation layer.
Seungjun fails to teach a tunnel barrier layer, non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer, or a reference layer.
However, Nakatsiju teaches an electronic device with a tunnel barrier layer, non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer, and a reference layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nakatsuji into the method of Seungjun in view of by adding a tunnel barrier layer, non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer, and a reference layer to the electronic device body. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Seungjun in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of enabling reversal of perpendicular magnetization in a ferromagnet stacked on the antiferromagnetic layer at zero magnetic field without exchange bias (Nakatsuji, Description paragraph 5).
Additionally, Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji teaches an electronic device with a tunnel barrier layer, and a reference layer, wherein the reference layer is connected to a surface of the tunnel barrier layer opposite to the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer, and the output terminal is disposed in the reference layer (Nakatsuji, fig. 9, and reference layer 33 is connected to a surface of tunnel barrier layer 32 opposite the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer 20, and output terminal 41 disposed in the reference layer).
Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji fail to teach the tunnel barrier layer connected to a surface of the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer opposite to the spin-torque generation layer.
However, Lai teaches a tunnel barrier layer connected to a surface of the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer opposite to the spin-torque generation layer (Lai, fig. 1, tunnel barrier layer 106 connected to surface of non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer 104 opposite to the spin-torque generation layer 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Lai into the method of Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji by connecting the tunnel barrier layer connected to a surface of the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer opposite to the spin-torque generation layer. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of making the magnetic free layer achieve complete reversal of the magnetic moment without an external magnetic field, and providing better thermal stability (Lai, Description paragraph 6 of Google machine translation).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji as applied to claim 1, 2, and 5-7 above, and further in view of Patel et al. (US 10038138).
Regarding Claim 8, Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji teaches an electronic device with a magnetic tunnel junction body containing a non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer.
Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji fails to teach a non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer with a diameter of 200 nm or less.
However, Patel teaches an electronic device with a magnetic tunnel junction body having a non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer with a diameter below 70 nm (Patel, column 11 lines 45-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Patel into the method of Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji by forming the non-collinear anti-ferromagnetic layer with a diameter of 200 nm or less. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to operate the device of Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of allowing for the adjustment of the magnetoresistive ratio to optimize device performance (Patel, column 11 lines 39-45). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer diameters through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve a desired magnetoresistive ratio. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji as applied to claims 1, 2, and 5-7 above, and further in view of Braganca et al. (US Patent Pub 20100328799A1).
Regarding Claim 9, while Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji teaches electronic memory devices containing non-collinear antiferromagnetic and spin torque generating layers, they fail to teach a plurality of these devices connected to each other.
However, Braganca does teach a plurality of non-collinear antiferromagnetic layers provided and electrically connected to each other (Braganca fig. 6, Oscillatory Sensor stacks 504, 506, and 508, each containing a layer of antiferromagnetic material that may be non-collinear 524, electrically connected to each other via leads 340 and 342. 0030 says the material can be IrMn, which is non-collinear).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Braganca into the method of Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji by connecting a plurality of non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer devices are electrically connected to each other, and the device is used as an oscillation or a wave detection device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of electrically connecting a plurality of sensor elements to mitigate adjacent track interference (Braganca 0058).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji as applied to claim 1, 2, and 5-7 above, and further in view of Nunn et al. (US Patent Pub 20180261271).
Regarding Claim 10, Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji teaches an electronic device with a spin-torque generation layer provided adjacent to a surface of the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer, and the device is an oscillation device.
Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji fails to teach a second spin-torque generation layer provided adjacent to a surface of a non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer opposite the spin-torque generation layer.
However, Nunn teaches an electronic device having a second spin-torque generation layer provided adjacent to a surface of a non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer opposite the spin-torque generation layer (Nunn, fig. 28, second spin-torque generation layer 220 is provided adjacent to non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer 230 opposite the spin-torque generation layer 280, materials for these layers can be found in paragraphs 0103, 0012, and 0018).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nunn into the method of Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji by forming the electronic device by providing a second spin-torque generation layer adjacent to a surface of the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer opposite to the spin-torque generation layer, and using the device as an oscillation or wave detection device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to operate the device of Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of reducing the time and current needed to switch states due to the smaller change in angle required between states (Nunn paragraph 0224).
Regarding Claim 11, Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji teaches an electronic device used for magnetic memory.
Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji fails to teach the method for producing the electronic device in which the substrate is placed on a stage, depositing the spin-torque generation layer on the substrate, depositing a non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer in a state in which a surface of the stage is kept at 300 degrees or higher, and performing a heat treatment such that the substrate is heated to 300 degrees or higher throughout this microfabrication process.
However, Nunn teaches a microfabrication process for an electronic device with a spin-torque generation layer and a non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer in which during that process, the magnetic structure is heated to over 300°C during fabrication, including heat treatment (Nunn, paragraph 0142).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nunn into the method of Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji by performing microfabrication by placing a substrate on a stage and depositing a spin-torque generation layer on the substrate, and a non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer in a state in which a surface of the stage is kept at 300 degrees or higher, and performing a heat treatment such that the substrate is heated to 300 degrees or higher. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to operate the device of Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of achieving a desired atomic concentration parameter for coupling layer (Nunn paragraph 0143). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited fabrication and heat-treatment temperature range through routine experimentation and optimization to achieve a desired coupling layer atomic concentration. 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. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji as applied to claims 1, 2, and 5-7 above, and further in view of Kardasz et al. (US Patent Pub 20180248110).
Regarding Claim 12, Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji teaches an oscillation device with input and output terminals.
Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji fail to teach operating the oscillation device introducing a direct current between the terminals.
However, Kardasz teaches an oscillation memory device that uses a current source to pass direct current between the input terminals (Kardasz, fig. 5, oscillation device 300 uses current source 375 to pass direct current between the input terminals (paragraph 0063)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kardasz into the method of Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji by passing direct current through the input terminals of the electronic device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to operate the device of Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of effectively using the device, such as executing read and write operations (Kardasz paragraph 0063).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji as applied to claim 1, 2, and 5-7 above, and further in view of Braganca et al (US Patent Pub 20200324283).
Regarding Claim 13, Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji teaches an electronic oscillation device with input and output terminals.
Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji fail to teach introducing an alternating current between the terminals.
However, Braganca teaches an electronic oscillation device that can be used as a wave detection device and operates via an alternating current passed between the input terminals (Braganca, paragraph 0070 teaches the device uses filters to determine whether light of a particular wavelength is emitted. Paragraph 0126 describes a method involving using alternating current to determine the state of the sensor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Braganca into the method of Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji by passing an alternating current through the input terminals. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of down-shifting high frequency signals to a much lower frequency at which the signal can be processed more conveniently (Braganca, paragraph 0126).
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji as applied to claim 1, 2, and 5-7 above, and further in view of Fukushima et al. (US Patent Pub 20100131578).
Regarding Claim 14, Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji teaches an electronic device used for magnetic memory.
Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji fail to teach using the electronic device as a random number generator with a pulse width of 10 ns or more between the input terminals.
However, Fukushima teaches an electronic device used as a random number generation device, and using the device by inputting a pulse current with a pulse width of 10 ns or more (Fukushima, Paragraph 0112 teaches employing current pulses of 10 ns width. Paragraph 0126 teaches employing currents with pulse widths of 100 ms, 10 ms, 1 ms, 0.1 ms, and 0.01 ms).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Fukushima into the method of Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji by applying currents with pulse widths of 10 ns or more to the electronic device in a random number generator. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of successfully operating the random number generation device at higher rates (Fukushima, paragraph 0112).
Regarding claim 15, Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji teaches an electronic device used for magnetic memory.
Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji fail to teach using the electronic memory device utilizing a pulse current with a pulse width of 0.1 ns or more and 2ns or less between the input terminals.
However, Fukushima teaches an electronic device that can be a memory, and using the device by inputting a pulse current having a pulse width of 0.1 ns or more and 2 ns or less between the input terminals (Fukushima, Paragraph 0019 teaches the magnetoresistive element is at present put into practical use as a magnetic random-access memory. Paragraph 0112 teaches employing currents with a pulse width of 1 ns).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Fukushima into the method of Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji by applying currents with pulse widths of 1 ns to the electronic device used as a memory device. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Seungjun in view of Nakatsuji in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of successfully operating the memory device and adjusting the inversion probability of the magnetization free layer (Fukushima, paragraph 0132).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mihajlovic et al. (US Patent Pub 20200043538) in view of Nakatsuji.
Regarding Claim 4, Mihaljovic teaches an electronic device comprising:
A body (fig. 2, MTJ stack 202, intermediate layer 214, and spin-torque generation layer 220);
A first terminal (fig. 2, terminal B);
and a second terminal (fig. 2, terminal A);
Wherein the body is configured by laminating a spin-torque generation layer, an intermediate layer, and a non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer in such an order or in a reverse order (fig. 2, 220, 214, and non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer 206 can be made of non-collinear materials (paragraph 0038)),
the spin-torque generation layer has a substantially fixed magnetic structure, and a magnetization direction is defined as an effective magnetization direction thereof (fig. 3, paragraph 0051, adding layer 302 pins a direction of magnetization of the spin-torque generation layer),
the intermediate layer is formed of a non-magnetic material (paragraph 0043),
the spin-torque generation layer has a surface opposite to the intermediate layer, the surface being connected to the first terminal (fig. 2, terminal B electrically connected to 220 including all surfaces),
and the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer has a surface opposite to the intermediate layer, the surface being connected to the second terminal (fig. 2, terminal A electrically connected to 206).
While Mihajlovic teaches an antiferromagnetic layer (206) that can be formed of non-collinear materials, they fail to specifically teach a non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer having a non-collinear magnetic order in a plane orthogonal to the magnetization direction.
However, Nakatsuji teaches an electronic device where the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer has a non-collinear magnetic order in a plane orthogonal to the magnetization direction of the spin-torque generation layer (Nakatsuji, fig. 3 shows the spin-polarized electrons with x-axis positive and negative polarization).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Nakatsuji into the method of Mihaljovic by forming their antiferromagnetic layer out of a material with a Kagome lattice structure which has a non-collinear spin structure, therefore having the non-collinear antiferromagnetic layer with a non-collinear magnetic order in a plane orthogonal to the magnetization direction. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Mihaljovic in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of enabling the reversal of perpendicular magnetization in a ferromagnet stacked on the antiferromagnetic layer at zero magnetic field without exchange bias (Nakatsuji, Description paragraph 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE R GONZALES whose telephone number is (571)272-3365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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.
/V.R.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/ZANDRA V SMITH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899