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 .
Response to Amendment
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.
Claims 1 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (“Lee”), US 2021/0376230 (the US counterpart of CN 112599661 published 4-2-2021), in view of Kariyada et al. (“Kariyada”), US 2021/0257541 (the US counterpart of WO 2020/008853 that is listed in the IDS dated 3-1-2024).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee discloses a method (Figs. 5-6B; ¶ 0108) for forming a magnetic memory device (4000; Fig. 5; ¶ 0078 “magnetic memory device 4000”), comprising:
forming a pinned magnetic layer (120L, 140L; Fig. 6A; ¶ 0098 “pinned layer…may be formed”), a tunnel barrier layer (TBL; Fig. 6A; ¶ 0099 “tunnel barrier layer TBL may be formed”) and a free magnetic layer (150L; Fig. 6A; ¶ 0099 “free magnetic layer 150L may be formed”) that are sequentially stacked (Fig. 6A) on a substrate (100; Fig. 6A; ¶ 0020);
forming a capping layer (HML, HMS; Figs. 4-6B; ¶ 0072) on the free magnetic layer (Figs 4-6B; ¶ 0035, 0039);
forming a conductive mask pattern (109; Fig. 6A; ¶ 0107 “conductive mask pattern 109 may be formed”) on the capping layer (Fig. 6A; ¶ 0107); and
performing an etching process (¶ 0108 “an etching process may be performed using the conductive mask pattern 109 as an etch mask”) to etch the capping layer, the free magnetic layer, the tunnel barrier layer and the pinned magnetic layer (¶ 0108) using the conductive mask pattern as an etching mask (¶ 0108 “an etching process may be performed using the conductive mask pattern 109 as an etch mask”) so as to form a capping pattern, a free magnetic pattern, a tunnel barrier pattern and a pinned magnetic pattern (¶ 0108),
wherein the capping layer (HML, HMS) includes:
a lower capping layer (160; Fig. 4; ¶ 0072);
an upper capping layer (195; Fig. 4; ¶ 0072) between (Fig. 4; ¶0072 “sequentially stacked”) the lower capping layer and the conductive mask pattern (Fig. 6A between 160L and 109);
a first non-magnetic layer (170; Fig. 4; ¶ 0072 “non-magnetic pattern 170”) between the lower capping layer and the upper capping layer (Fig. 4); and
a second non-magnetic layer (190; Fig. 4; ¶ 0072 “non-magnetic pattern 190”) between the first non-magnetic layer and the upper capping layer (Fig. 4), and,
wherein an upper surface of the first non-magnetic layer is in contact with a lower surface of the second non-magnetic layer (¶ 0045 “the non-magnetic pattern 170 may be formed of or include at least one of iridium (Ir), chromium (Cr), or ruthenium (Ru)”; Lee Claim 5 “each of the first magnetic structure, the second magnetic structure, and the free magnetic pattern comprises cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), and boron (B), and wherein a composition ratio of the free magnetic pattern differs from composition ratios of the first and second magnetic structures”; Lee Claim 6 “The magnetic memory device of claim 5, wherein composition ratios of boron in the first and second magnetic structures are higher than a composition ratio of boron in the free magnetic pattern”; current will flow between first non-magnetic layer 170 and second non-magnetic layer 190; therefore an upper surface of the first non-magnetic layer 170 is in electrical contact with a lower surface of the second non-magnetic layer 190; it is suggested that changing "in contact with" to either "in direct contact with" or "in physical contact with" would distinguish Claim 1 from Lee).
Lee does not disclose
wherein each of the lower capping layer and the upper capping layer includes a non-magnetic metal,
wherein the first non-magnetic layer includes a first metal, the second non-magnetic layer includes a second metal different from the first metal, and each of the first metal and the second metal has an oxidation potential greater than an oxidation potential of the non-magnetic metal included in each of the lower capping layer and the upper capping layer.
Kariyada discloses
wherein each of the lower capping layer (165; Fig. 14; ¶ 0115 “adjusting layer 165 configured of the magnetic layer and the non-magnetic layer”) and the upper capping layer (163, 163A, 163B; Fig. 14; ¶ 0116 “first barrier layer 163A and the second barrier layer 163B are formed of the same material and with the same film thickness as the barrier layer 163”) includes a non-magnetic metal (¶ 0106 “non-magnetic layer of the adjusting layer 165 is formed of a non-magnetic transition metal such as molybdenum (Mo)”, ¶ 0081 “barrier layer 163 is formed of a non-magnetic transition metal” and “barrier layer 163 may be formed of…molybdenum (Mo)”),
wherein the first non-magnetic layer (161; Fig. 14; ¶ 0078 “layer 161 may be formed of…magnesium oxide”) includes a first metal (¶ 0078 “magnesium”), the second non-magnetic layer (162; Fig. 14; ¶ 0079 “layer 162 may be formed of a non-magnetic material such as Ru”) includes a second metal (¶ 0079 “ruthenium”) different from the first metal, and each of the first metal and the second metal has an oxidation potential greater than (magnesium and ruthenium have an oxidation potential greater than) an oxidation potential of the non-magnetic metal included in each of the lower capping layer and the upper capping layer (the oxidation potential of molybdenum).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee to have wherein each of the lower capping layer and the upper capping layer includes a non-magnetic metal, wherein the first non-magnetic layer includes a first metal, the second non-magnetic layer includes a second metal different from the first metal, and each of the first metal and the second metal has an oxidation potential greater than an oxidation potential of the non-magnetic metal included in each of the lower capping layer and the upper capping layer, as taught by Kariyada, because “layer 163 can prevent deterioration of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the magnetization free layer 140 due to the diffusion of atoms resulting from the heat treatment” (Kariyada ¶ 0080), “layer 163 can more effectively inhibit the diffusion of the metal atoms from the upper electrode 170” (Kariyada ¶ 0082), “the diffusion of tantalum (Ta) and the like from the upper electrode 170 during the heat treatment is more reliably prevented, so that deterioration of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the magnetization free layer 140…can be more reliably prevented” (Kariyada ¶ 0016), thereby improving the reliability of the magnetic memory device (Kariyada ¶ 0012, 0080, 0082, 0116).
Regarding Claim 6, Lee as modified by Kariyada does not specifically disclose wherein an oxidation potential of the second metal is greater than an oxidation potential of the first metal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Lee as modified to switch the location of the first non-magnetic pattern including a first metal with the location of the second non-magnetic pattern including a second metal in order to reduce potential oxidation of the top electrode.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee does not disclose wherein
the first metal and the second metal are non-magnetic metals, and
the non-magnetic metal of each of the lower capping layer and the upper capping layer is different from the first metal and the second metal.
Kariyada discloses wherein
the first metal (161; Fig. 14; ¶ 0078 “layer 161 may be formed of magnesium oxide”) and the second metal (162; Fig. 14; ¶ 0079 “layer 162 may be formed of a non-magnetic material such as Ru”) are non-magnetic metals (¶ 0078-0079), and
the non-magnetic metal (¶ 0081, 0106) of each of the lower capping layer (165; Fig. 14; ¶ 0106 “layer 165 is formed of a non-magnetic transition metal such as molybdenum”) and the upper capping layer (163; Fig. 14 ¶ 0081 “non-magnetic transition metal” and “layer 163 may be formed of…molybdenum”) is different from (¶ 0081, 0106) the first metal and the second metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee to have wherein the first metal and the second metal are non-magnetic metals, and the non-magnetic metal of each of the lower capping layer and the upper capping layer is different from the first metal and the second metal, as taught by Kariyada, because “layer 163 can prevent deterioration of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the magnetization free layer 140 due to the diffusion of atoms resulting from the heat treatment” (Kariyada ¶ 0080), “layer 163 can more effectively inhibit the diffusion of the metal atoms from the upper electrode 170” (Kariyada ¶ 0082), “the diffusion of tantalum (Ta) and the like from the upper electrode 170 during the heat treatment is more reliably prevented, so that deterioration of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the magnetization free layer 140…can be more reliably prevented” (Kariyada ¶ 0016), thereby improving the reliability of the magnetic memory device (Kariyada ¶ 0012, 0080, 0082, 0116).
Regarding Claim 8, Lee does not disclose wherein the first metal is Ta.
Kariyada discloses wherein the first metal is Ta (¶ 0079 “layer 162 may be formed of a non-magnetic material such as…TaN”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee to have wherein the first metal is Ta, as taught by Kariyada because tantalum is known to have an oxidation potential superior to molybdenum.
Regarding Claim 9, Lee does not disclose wherein the second metal is Hf, Zr, Sr, Sc, Y, Ca, Be, Ba, or Ti.
Kariyada discloses wherein the second metal is Hf, Zr, Sr, Sc, Y, Ca, Be, Ba, or Ti (¶ 0079 “layer 162 may be formed of a non-magnetic material such as…TiN”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee to have wherein the second metal is Hf, Zr, Sr, Sc, Y, Ca, Be, Ba, or Ti, as taught by Lee because titanium’s oxidation potential is higher than molybdenum’s.
Regarding Claim 10, Lee as modified by Kariyada discloses wherein the first non-magnetic layer includes an alloy of the first metal (Kariyada ¶ 0078 magnesium oxide)
Lee as modified lacks specifically wherein the first non-magnetic layer additionally includes boron (B).
Kariyada further discloses wherein a nonmagnetic layer discloses a diffusion of boron (¶ 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee as modified to include boron in the first non-magnetic layer so as it is known to create high performance metal alloys in memory.
Regarding Claim 11, Lee as modified by Kariyada discloses wherein the second non-magnetic layer includes an alloy of the second metal and nitrogen (Kariyada ¶ 0079 TiN, which TI is known to have a higher oxidation potential of molybdenum in some instances and, thus, still read on claim 1 above).
Claims 12-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (“Lee”), US 2021/0376230 (the US counterpart of CN 112599661 published 4-2-2021), in view of Kariyada et al. (“Kariyada”), US 2021/0257541 (the US counterpart of WO 2020/008853 that is listed in the IDS dated 3-1-2024), and Lee et al. (“Lee ‘369), US 2016/0163369.
Regarding Claim 12, Lee discloses a method (Figs. 5-6B; ¶ 0108) for forming a magnetic memory device (4000; Fig. 5; ¶ 0078 “magnetic memory device 4000”), comprising:
forming a bottom electrode (BE, BEL; Figs. 4-6B; ¶ 0092 “bottom electrode layer BEL may be formed on”) on a substrate (100; Figs. 4-5; ¶ 0020);
forming a magnetic tunnel junction pattern (MTJ, MTJL; Figs. 4-6B; ¶ 0023, 0036, 0088, 0101, 0108, 0110) on the bottom electrode (Figs. 4-6B; ¶ 0023, 0036, 0088, 0101, 0108, 0110);
forming a top electrode (TE; Figs. 4, 5, 6B; ¶ 0036, 0111 “such an unremoved portion of the conductive mask pattern 109 may be used as the top electrode TE”) on the magnetic tunnel junction pattern (Figs. 4, 5, 6B; ¶ 0070 “top electrode TE may be on the magnetic tunnel junction pattern MTJ”); and
forming a protection layer (224; Fig. 5; ¶ 0086 “protection insulating layer 224”) on a lateral surface (Fig. 5; ¶ 0086 “protection insulating layer 224 may enclose the side surface of each of the data storage structures DS”) of the magnetic tunnel junction pattern (Fig. 5; ¶ 0088 “each of the data storage structures DS may include…the magnetic tunnel junction pattern MTJ”),
wherein the magnetic tunnel junction pattern includes (MTJ, MTJL; Figs. 4-6B; ¶ 0023 “magnetic tunnel junction pattern MTJ may include”, ¶ 0101 “constitute a magnetic tunnel junction layer MTJL”, ¶ 0110 “magnetic tunnel junction pattern MTJ may include”):
a tunnel barrier pattern (TBP, TBL; Figs. 4-6B; ¶ 0101 “tunnel barrier layer TBL”, ¶ 0110 “tunnel barrier pattern TBP”);
a free magnetic pattern (150, 150L; Figs. 4-6B; ¶ 0110 “free magnetic pattern 150”) between the tunnel barrier pattern and the top electrode (Figs. 4, 5, 6B; ¶ 0110 “the tunnel barrier pattern TBP, and the free magnetic pattern 150, which are sequentially stacked”); and
a capping pattern (HMS; Figs. 4, 5, 6B; ¶ 0088) between the free magnetic pattern and the top electrode (Figs. 4, 5, 6B; ¶ 0088, 0108), and,
wherein an upper surface of the first (170; Fig. 4; ¶ 0072 “non-magnetic pattern 170”) non-magnetic layer is in contact with a lower surface of the second (190; Fig. 4; ¶ 0072 “non-magnetic pattern 190”) non-magnetic layer (¶ 0045 “the non-magnetic pattern 170 may be formed of or include at least one of iridium (Ir), chromium (Cr), or ruthenium (Ru)”; Lee Claim 5 “each of the first magnetic structure, the second magnetic structure, and the free magnetic pattern comprises cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), and boron (B), and wherein a composition ratio of the free magnetic pattern differs from composition ratios of the first and second magnetic structures”; Lee Claim 6 “The magnetic memory device of claim 5, wherein composition ratios of boron in the first and second magnetic structures are higher than a composition ratio of boron in the free magnetic pattern”; current will flow between first non-magnetic layer 170 and second non-magnetic layer 190; therefore an upper surface of the first non-magnetic layer 170 is in electrical contact with a lower surface of the second non-magnetic layer 190; it is suggested that changing "in contact with" to either "in direct contact with" or "in physical contact with" would distinguish Claim 12 from Lee).
Lee does not disclose
wherein the capping pattern includes:
a lower capping pattern including a non-magnetic metal;
a first non-magnetic pattern between the lower capping pattern and the top electrode, the first non-magnetic pattern including a first metal; and
a second non-magnetic pattern between the first non-magnetic pattern and the top electrode, the second non-magnetic pattern including a second metal different from the first metal,
wherein the protection layer including metal oxide that contains at least one selected from the first metal and the second metal,
wherein each of the first metal and the second metal has an oxidation potential greater than an oxidation potential of the non-magnetic metal included in the lower capping pattern.
Kariyada discloses
wherein the capping pattern (160; Fig. 14; ¶ 0115 “cap layer 160…includes”) includes:
a lower capping pattern (165; Fig. 14; ¶ 0115 “adjusting layer 165 configured of the magnetic layer and the non-magnetic layer”) including a non-magnetic metal (¶ 0106 “non-magnetic layer of the adjusting layer 165 is formed of a non-magnetic transition metal such as molybdenum (Mo)”);
a first non-magnetic pattern (161; Fig. 14; ¶ 0078 “layer 161 may be formed of…magnesium oxide”) between the lower capping pattern (165) and the top electrode (170; Fig. 14; ¶ 0084 “upper electrode 170 is provided on the cap layer 160”), the first non-magnetic pattern including a first metal (¶ 0078 “magnesium”); and
a second non-magnetic pattern (162; Fig. 14; ¶ 0079 “layer 162 may be formed of a non-magnetic material such as Ru”) between the first non-magnetic pattern (161) and the top electrode (Fig. 14; ¶ 0084 “upper electrode 170 is provided on the cap layer 160”), the second non-magnetic pattern including a second metal (¶ 0079 “ruthenium”) different from the first metal,
wherein each of the first metal and the second metal has an oxidation potential greater than (magnesium and ruthenium have an oxidation potential greater than) an oxidation potential of the non-magnetic metal included in the lower capping pattern (the oxidation potential of molybdenum).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee to have wherein the capping pattern includes: a lower capping pattern including a non-magnetic metal; a first non-magnetic pattern between the lower capping pattern and the top electrode, the first non-magnetic pattern including a first metal; and a second non-magnetic pattern between the first non-magnetic pattern and the top electrode, the second non-magnetic pattern including a second metal different from the first metal, wherein each of the first metal and the second metal has an oxidation potential greater than an oxidation potential of the non-magnetic metal included in the lower capping pattern, as taught by Kariyada, because “layer 163 can prevent deterioration of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the magnetization free layer 140 due to the diffusion of atoms resulting from the heat treatment” (Kariyada ¶ 0080), “layer 163 can more effectively inhibit the diffusion of the metal atoms from the upper electrode 170” (Kariyada ¶ 0082), “the diffusion of tantalum (Ta) and the like from the upper electrode 170 during the heat treatment is more reliably prevented, so that deterioration of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the magnetization free layer 140…can be more reliably prevented” (Kariyada ¶ 0016), thereby improving the reliability of the magnetic memory device (Kariyada ¶ 0012, 0080, 0082, 0116).
Lee as modified by Kariyada does not disclose wherein the protection layer including metal oxide that contains at least one selected from the first metal and the second metal.
Lee ‘369 discloses wherein the protection layer (120; 4B-4C; ¶ 0082 “layer 120 may be provided to cover the side surfaces of the magnetic tunnel junctions MTJ”) including metal oxide (¶ 0082 “layer 120 may include…magnesium oxide”) that contains at least one selected from the first metal and the second metal (¶ 0082 “magnesium”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee as modified to have wherein the protection layer including metal oxide that contains at least one selected from the first metal and the second metal, as taught by Lee’369, to protect the magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) from being damaged during subsequent manufacturing processes (Lee ‘369 ¶ 0127-0128, 0141-0142, 0173-0174), thereby improving the performance and reliability of the magnetic memory device.
Regarding Claim 13, Lee as modified by Kariyada and Lee ‘369 does not specifically disclose wherein an oxidation potential of the second metal is greater than an oxidation potential of the first metal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Lee as modified to switch the location of the first non-magnetic pattern including a first metal with the location of the second non-magnetic pattern including a second metal in order to reduce potential oxidation of the top electrode.
Regarding Claim 15, Lee does not disclose
wherein the capping pattern further includes
an upper capping pattern between the top electrode and the second non-magnetic pattern, each of the lower capping pattern and the upper capping pattern including a non-magnetic metal different from the first metal and the second metal.
Kariyada discloses
wherein the capping pattern (160) further includes
an upper capping pattern (163B; Fig. 14; ¶ 0096 “barrier layer 163B are formed of the same material and with the same film thickness as the barrier layer 163”, ¶ 0081 “barrier layer 163 can be formed of a non-magnetic transition metal” and “barrier layer 163 may be formed of…molybdenum (Mo)”) between the top electrode (Fig. 14; ¶ 0084 “upper electrode 170 is provided on the cap layer 160”) and the second non-magnetic pattern (162), each of the lower capping pattern (165) and the upper capping pattern including a non-magnetic metal (molybdenum; ¶ 0106 “non-magnetic layer of the adjusting layer 165 is formed of…molybdenum”, ¶ 0081 “163 may be formed of… molybdenum”) different from the first metal and the second metal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee to have wherein the capping pattern further includes an upper capping pattern between the top electrode and the second non-magnetic pattern, each of the lower capping pattern and the upper capping pattern including a non-magnetic metal different from the first metal and the second metal, as taught by Kariyada, because “layer 163 can prevent deterioration of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the magnetization free layer 140 due to the diffusion of atoms resulting from the heat treatment” (Kariyada ¶ 0080), “layer 163 can more effectively inhibit the diffusion of the metal atoms from the upper electrode 170” (Kariyada ¶ 0082), “the diffusion of tantalum (Ta) and the like from the upper electrode 170 during the heat treatment is more reliably prevented, so that deterioration of the perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the magnetization free layer 140…can be more reliably prevented” (Kariyada ¶ 0016), thereby improving the reliability of the magnetic memory device (Kariyada ¶ 0012, 0080, 0082, 0116).
Regarding Claim 16, Lee discloses
forming a first sub-pattern (SP, SPL; Figs. 4-6B; ¶ 0102 “spacer layer SPL may be formed”) between (Figs. 4-6B; ¶ 0035 “spacer SP may be interposed between the free magnetic pattern 150 and the in-plane magnetic structure HMS”) the free magnetic (150, 150L) pattern and the capping pattern (HMS, HML),
wherein the first sub-pattern includes metal oxide (¶ 0035 “spacer SP may include…metal oxides”).
Regarding Claim 17, Lee does not disclose wherein
the first metal is Ta, and
the second metal is Hf, Zr, Sr, Sc, Y, Ca, Be, Ba, or Ti.
Kariyada discloses wherein
the first metal is Ta (¶ 0079 “layer 162 may be formed of a non-magnetic material such as…TaN”), and
the second metal is Hf, Zr, Sr, Sc, Y, Ca, Be, Ba, or Ti. ((¶ 0079 “layer 162 may be formed of a non-magnetic material such as…TiN”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee to have wherein the first metal is Ta, and the second metal is Hf, Zr, Sr, Sc, Y, Ca, Be, Ba, or Ti, as taught by Kariyada because tantalum is known to have an oxidation potential superior to molybdenum and titanium’s oxidation potential is higher than molybdenum’s.
Regarding Claim 18, Lee as modified by Kariyada discloses wherein the first non-magnetic layer includes an alloy of the first metal (Kariyada ¶ 0078 magnesium oxide)
Lee as modified lacks specifically wherein the first non-magnetic layer additionally includes boron (B).
Kariyada further discloses wherein a nonmagnetic layer discloses a diffusion of boron (¶ 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for Lee as modified to include boron in the first non-magnetic layer so as it is known to create high performance metal alloys in memory.
Regarding Claim 19, Lee as modified by Kariyada discloses wherein the second non-magnetic pattern includes an alloy of the second metal and nitrogen (Kariyada ¶ 0079 TiN, in which Ti is known to have a higher oxidation potential of molybdenum in some instances and, thus, still read on claim 12 above).
Regarding Claim 20, Lee discloses wherein
the magnetic tunnel junction pattern (MTJ) further includes a pinned magnetic pattern (VMS, VML, 120, 140; Fig. 4; ¶ 0110 “MTJ may include the perpendicular magnetic structure VMS” and “VMS may include the first pinned pattern 120, the second pinned pattern 140 between the first pinned pattern 120 and the tunnel barrier pattern TBP”) between the tunnel barrier pattern (¶ 0099 “tunnel barrier layer TBL may be formed on the perpendicular magnetic layer VML”) and the bottom electrode (Fig. 4), and
each of the free magnetic pattern (150) and the pinned magnetic pattern (120, 140) has a magnetization direction perpendicular to (150m, 140m, 120m; Fig. 4; ¶ 0032 “perpendicular magnetization direction 150m of the free magnetic pattern 150”, ¶ 0026 “perpendicular magnetization direction 120m of the first pinned pattern 120 and a perpendicular magnetization direction 140m of the second pinned pattern 140”) an interface between the free magnetic pattern and the tunnel barrier pattern (Fig. 4; ¶ 0026 “perpendicular to an interface between the tunnel barrier pattern TBP and the free magnetic pattern 150”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 14 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 claims and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 2, the prior art does not teach or render obvious furthering comprising: forming a protection layer on a lateral surface of the tunnel barrier pattern, wherein the protection layer is formed by being re-deposited etch byproducts generated from the first and second non-magnetic layers during the etching process. Therefore, the combination of Claims 1 and 2 is considered allowable.
Claims 3-4 incorporate all of the limitations of allowable Claim 2. Therefore, they are also allowable.
Regarding Claim 14, the prior art does not teach or render obvious wherein each of the first non-magnetic pattern and the second non-magnetic pattern has a thickness in a direction perpendicular to a top surface of the substrate, and the thickness of the second non-magnetic pattern is greater than the thickness of the first non-magnetic pattern. Therefore, the combination of the features of Claims 12, 13, and 14 is considered allowable.
Response to Arguments
In their amendment and response dated 9-17-2026, the applicant states (page 8) that “Claims 1, 12, and 21 have been amended.”
The applicant’s amended claim set does not contain a Claim 21.
The applicant states (page 10) that “Applicants have amended claim 1, and contend that the cited art does not disclose or suggest at least the features of amended claim 1.” In addition, the applicant states “As such, the layers and patterns of Lee and Kariyada being separated at least as discussed above cannot disclose or suggest claim 1 as amended.” The applicant also states “Applicants note that the cited art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest claim 1.”
As explained supra, Lee discloses that an upper surface of the first non-magnetic layer 170 is in electrical contact with a lower surface of the second non-magnetic layer 190. It is suggested that changing "in contact with" to either "in direct contact with" or "in physical contact with" would distinguish Claim 1 from Lee.
The applicant states (page 10) that “For at least the reasons above, there cannot be any disclosure or suggestion with regard to claim 12 for the same reasons.”
As explained supra, Lee discloses that an upper surface of the first non-magnetic layer 170 is in electrical contact with a lower surface of the second non-magnetic layer 190. It is suggested that changing "in contact with" to either "in direct contact with" or "in physical contact with" would distinguish Claim 12 from Lee.
The applicant states (page 11) that “There is no disclosure or suggestion in Kariyada for placing one material "above" or "below" another based on potential oxidation.” In addition, the applicant states “Applicants note that the cited art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest claim 6.”
The obviousness rejection of Claim 6 does not quote wording from the cited art. Claim 6 is rejected because it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for Lee as modified to switch the location of the first non-magnetic pattern including a first metal with the location of the second non-magnetic pattern including a second metal in order to reduce potential oxidation of the top electrode.
Independent Claims 1 and 12 are rejected for at least the reasons stated supra. Dependent Claims 6-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected for at least the reasons stated supra.
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 Rose Keagy whose telephone number is (571) 270-3455. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm (CT).
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, Jeff Natalini can be reached at (571) 272-2266. 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. 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. 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.
/R.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights