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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 8-10, 14-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20190051822 A1 (Chatterjee).
Re claim 1, Chatterjee teaches a magnetic memory cell, sequentially comprising a first electrode, a transition combination layer, a Magnetic Tunnel Junction (MTJ) (PL/MgO/CSL), and a second electrode from bottom to top;
the first electrode (metallic seed layer) and the second electrode (metallic cap layer) are used to connect to an external circuit (MRAM operation), and used to control a resistance state of the MTJ (MRAM operation); and
the transition combination layer (hard layer HL/TriAF/PL) comprises at least one boron supply layer (HL [0071]) and at least one boron adsorption buffer layer (TriAF [0076]) that are stacked;
teaches wherein the plurality of the boron supply layers are alternately stacked with the plurality of the boron adsorption buffer layers (HL comprises nanolaminates of CoFeB/X where X are various metals without boron);
wherein the transition combination layer sequentially comprises a first boron adsorption buffer layer, the boron supply layer, and a second boron adsorption buffer layer from bottom to top (HL comprises nanolaminates of CoFeB/X where X are various metals without boron) (Fig. 8).
.
PNG
media_image1.png
470
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 5, Chatterjee teaches wherein the at least one boron adsorption buffer layer comprises at least one of metal molybdenum, chromium, hafnium, zirconium, magnesium, aluminum, zinc, titanium, vanadium and niobium (TriAF comprises T layers which include Nb, V, Cr, Mo [0076]).
Re claim 6, Chatterjee teaches wherein the at least one boron supply layer comprises at least one of cobalt boride, iron boride, nickel boride, cobalt iron boron, cobalt iron chromium boron and tantalum boride (CoFeB [0071]).
Re claim 8, Chatterjee teaches wherein the MTJ further comprises a synthetic antiferromagnetic structure layer (Top SAF Fig. 8).
Re claim 9, Chatterjee teaches wherein the MTJ is in contact with the at least one boron supply layer (all layers are in electrical contact with each other Fig. 8).
Re claim 10, Chatterjee teaches a magnetic memory, comprising the a magnetic memory cell wherein the magnetic memory cell (MRAM) sequentially comprising a first electrode, a transition combination layer, a Magnetic Tunnel Junction (MTJ) (PL/MgO/CSL), and a second electrode from bottom to top; the first electrode (metallic seed layer) and the second electrode (metallic cap layer) are used to connect to an external circuit (MRAM operation), and used to control a resistance state of the MTJ (MRAM operation); and the transition combination layer (hard layer HL/TriAF) comprises at least one boron supply layer (HL [0071]) and at least one boron adsorption buffer layer (TriAF [0076]) that are stacked (Fig. 8);
wherein the plurality of the boron supply layers are alternately stacked with the plurality of the boron adsorption buffer layers (HL comprises nanolaminates of CoFeB/X where X are various metals without boron); wherein the transition combination layer sequentially comprises a first boron adsorption buffer layer, the boron supply layer, and a second boron adsorption buffer layer from bottom to top (HL comprises nanolaminates of CoFeB/X where X are various metals without boron).
PNG
media_image1.png
470
381
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 11, Chatterjee teaches wherein the transition combination layer comprises at least of one of the following: a plurality of the boron supply layers and a plurality of the boron adsorption buffer layers ([0071,0076]).
Re claim 12, Chatterjee teaches wherein the plurality of the boron supply layers are alternately stacked with the plurality of the boron adsorption buffer layers (HL comprises nanolaminates of CoFeB/X where X are various metals without boron).
Re claim 13, Chatterjee teaches wherein the transition combination layer sequentially comprises a first boron adsorption buffer layer, the boron supply layer, and a second boron adsorption buffer layer from bottom to top (HL comprises nanolaminates of CoFeB/X where X are various metals without boron).
Re claim 14, Chatterjee teaches wherein the at least one boron adsorption buffer layer comprises at least one of metal molybdenum, chromium, hafnium, zirconium, magnesium, aluminum, zinc, titanium, vanadium and niobium (TriAF comprises T layers which include Nb, V, Cr, Mo [0076]).
Re claim 15, Chatterjee teaches wherein the at least one boron supply layer comprises at least one of cobalt boride, iron boride, nickel boride, cobalt iron boron, cobalt iron chromium boron and tantalum boride (CoFeB [0071]).
Re claim 17, Chatterjee teaches wherein the MTJ further comprises a synthetic antiferromagnetic structure layer (Top SAF Fig. 8).
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) 7, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190051822 A1 (Chatterjee) further in view of US 20200341079 A1 (Swerts).
Re claim 7, Chatterjee teaches the magnetic memory cell according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein a range of a thickness of at least one of the at least one boron adsorption buffer layer (C and T layers in the TriAF can be between 0.2 nm-0.9 nm and 0.1 nm-0.6 nm respectively [0032-0033]) is 0.3 nm to 0.8 nm, and the range comprises endpoint values.
However, Chatterjee is silent with regards to the thicknesses of the layers making up the nanolaminate hard layer HL which includes the CoFeB layers ([0071]).
Swerts teaches making nanolmainates of CoFeB or CoB with inveneing boron free layers in an MTJ wherein the thickness of the CoFeB layers is 0.4-0.5 nm ([0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the CoFeB layers of the HL: in Chatterjee using thicknesses as taught by Swertsa.
The motivation to do so is that Chatterjee is silent with regard to the thicknesses of the individual layers that make up the hard layer and thus the ordinary skilled artisan would look to Swerts to find working values for the thickness of the these layers.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005); See also In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Re claim 16, Chatterjee teaches the magnetic memory according to claim 10, wherein a range of a thickness of at least one of the at least one boron adsorption buffer layer (C and T layers in the TriAF can be between 0.2 nm-0.9 nm and 0.1 nm-0.6 nm respectively [0032-0033]) is 0.3 nm to 0.8 nm, and the range comprises endpoint values.
However, Chatterjee is silent with regards to the thicknesses of the layers making up the nanolaminate hard layer HL which includes the CoFeB layers ([0071]).
Swerts teaches making nanolmainates of CoFeB or CoB with inveneing boron free layers in an MTJ wherein the thickness of the CoFeB layers is 0.4-0.5 nm ([0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the CoFeB layers of the HL: in Chatterjee using thicknesses as taught by Swertsa.
The motivation to do so is that Chatterjee is silent with regard to the thicknesses of the individual layers that make up the hard layer and thus the ordinary skilled artisan would look to Swerts to find working values for the thickness of the these layers.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005); See also In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Re claim 18, Chatterjee teaches the magnetic memory cell according to claim 1, wherein the at least one boron supply layer is CoFeB, and a ratio of Co to Fe is 1 to 3, and boron content is 20 at.% (Co1−xFex)1-yBy compositions (x between 0 and 1 and y between 0 and 0.3)).
However, Chatterjee is silent with regards to the thicknesses of the layers making up the nanolaminate hard layer HL which includes the CoFeB layers ([0071]).
Swerts teaches making nanolmainates of CoFeB or CoB with inveneing boron free layers in an MTJ wherein the thickness of the CoFeB layers is 0.4-0.5 nm ([0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the CoFeB layers of the HL: in Chatterjee using thicknesses as taught by Swertsa.
The motivation to do so is that Chatterjee is silent with regard to the thicknesses of the individual layers that make up the hard layer and thus the ordinary skilled artisan would look to Swerts to find working values for the thickness of the these layers.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005); See also In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Re claim 19, Chatterjee teaches the magnetic memory cell according to claim 1, wherein the at least one boron supply layer is CoB, and boron content is 20 at.% (Co1−xFex)1-yBy compositions (x between 0 and 1 and y between 0 and 0.3)).
However, Chatterjee is silent with regards to the thicknesses of the layers making up the nanolaminate hard layer HL which includes the CoFeB layers ([0071]).
Swerts teaches making nanolmainates of CoFeB or CoB with inveneing boron free layers in an MTJ wherein the thickness of the CoFeB layers is 0.4-0.5 nm ([0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the CoFeB layers of the HL: in Chatterjee using thicknesses as taught by Swertsa.
The motivation to do so is that Chatterjee is silent with regard to the thicknesses of the individual layers that make up the hard layer and thus the ordinary skilled artisan would look to Swerts to find working values for the thickness of the these layers.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997). "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 74 USPQ2d 1951 (Fed. Cir. 2005); See also In re Baird, 16 F.3d 380, 29 USPQ2d 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (MPEP 2144.05 (I)).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190051822 A1 (Chatterjee) further in view of US 10,043,851 B1 (Shen).
Re claim 19, Chatterjee teaches the magnetic memory cell according to claim 1, and wherein the MTJ comprises a fixed layer (Top SAF), a barrier layer (MgO), and at least one free layer (CSL), the fixed layer includes a reference layer (2nd HL) and a pinning layer (APL); the reference layer comprises at least one of Co, Fe, Ni, CoB, FeB, NiB, CoFe, NiFe, CoNi and CoFeB; and the barrier layer comprises MgO, or one of MgO doped with AI, Zn and Hf (Fig. 8).
However, Chatterjee does not explicitly teach a seed layer.
Shen teaches forming a MTJ structure having CoFeB/MgO layers wherein the CoFeB is grown on NiCr or Ru seed layers (Col 4 lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form the CoFeB layers of Chatterjee on a seed layer of NiCr or Ru.
The motivation to do so is that seed layers perform the predictable result of promoting smooth and uniform grain structure in overlying layers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the recited boron supply layers and boron adsorption buffer layers of Chatterjee are not disclosed to have the same purpose as those of the claimed invention. However, the claims do not require the specific functions Applicant is claiming and Chatterjee teaches the same claimed materials for the respective boron supply and boron adsorption buffer layers one of ordinary skill in the art. If Applicant insists that the novelty of the invention of the instant application lies with the function of the layers as supported by other unclaimed properties (e.g. thickness, deposition type, etc.) then this should be claimed. The claim merely requires a stack of alternating layers having boron with metal layers which is very clearly taught in the art.
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 BRIGITTE A PATERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-1752. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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 Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
BRIGITTE A. PATERSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/BRIGITTE A PATERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896
Prosecution Insights