DETAILED ACTION
This Action is responsive to the communication filed on 05/13/2024.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed limitation of Claim 2 reciting “the stack MTJ layers includes a pinned layer over a tunnel barrier layer” (emphasis added) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "28" and "32" in Figure 8 have both been used to designate the “spacer.”
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Brief Description of the Drawings
The Brief Description of the Drawings is objected to under 37 C.F.R. 1.74. When there are drawings, there shall be a brief description of the several views of the drawings and the detailed description of the invention shall refer to the different views by specifying the numbers of the figures and to the different parts by use of reference letters or numerals (preferably the latter).
The Brief Description of the Drawings must provide a brief description of the several views of the drawings. Page 4, in the disclosure as originally filed, does not provide a brief description of each of the cross-sectional views of sequential processes of fabricating a magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) structure for FIG. 1 – FIG. 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation: “first portion of the stack MTJ layers includes a pinned layer over a tunnel barrier layer” (emphasis added). However, the disclosure, at page 5, paragraph 1, discloses, “the MTJ stack, comprising at least a pinned layer 14, a tunnel barrier layer 16, and a free layer 18, are deposited on the bottom electrode.” Additionally, Applicants’ Drawings depicts the tunnel barrier layer 16 over the pinned layer 14 as opposed to the pinned layer over the tunnel barrier layer as claimed. Therefore, Claim 2 has been rendered as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-11, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doczy (US 2018/0240969), in view of Sonoda (US 2019/0280195).
Regarding claim 1, Doczy (see, e.g., FIG. 2K, FIG. 3) discloses a device comprising:
a stack of magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) layers 204, 205, 206, the stack of MTJ layers 204, 205, 206 including a first portion 204 and a second portion 206 (Para 0032, Para 0033, Para 0039, Para 0041);
a first metal re-deposition layer 208, lower portion (left side) disposed on the first portion 204 of the stack of MTJ layers 204, 205, 206, a second metal re-deposition layer 208, upper portion (left side) disposed on the second portion 206 of the stack of MTJ layers 204, 205, 206 (Para 0050, Para 0061); and
wherein the first metal re-deposition layer 208, lower portion (left side) has a first surface e.g., top surface of 208, lower portion (left side) and the second metal re-deposition layer 208, upper portion (left side) has a second surface e.g., bottom surface of 208, upper portion (left side) that faces the first surface e.g., top surface of 208, lower portion (left side),
Although Doczy shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Doczy fails to expressly teach a first dielectric layer disposed between the first and second metal re-deposition layers thereby electrically isolating the first metal re-deposition layer from the second metal re-deposition layer, and wherein the first dielectric layer physically contacts the first surface of the first metal re-deposition layer and the second surface of the second metal re-deposition layer.
Sonoda (see, e.g., FIG. 1), in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a first dielectric layer 42 for the purpose of protecting the magnetoresistive element (Para 0031).
The combination of Doczy (see, e.g., FIG. 2K, FIG. 3) / Sonoda (see, e.g., FIG. 1) teaches a first dielectric layer 42 (as taught by Sonoda), 209 (as taught by Doczy) disposed between the first and second metal re-deposition layers 208, lower portion (left side); 208, upper portion (left side) (as taught by Doczy) thereby electrically isolating the first metal re-deposition layer 208, lower portion (left side) (as taught by Doczy) from the second metal re-deposition layer 208, upper portion (left side) (as taught by Doczy), wherein the first metal re-deposition layer 208, lower portion (left side) (as taught by Doczy) has a first surface e.g., top surface of 208, lower portion (left side) (as taught by Doczy) and the second metal re-deposition layer 208, upper portion (left side) (as taught by Doczy) has a second surface e.g., bottom surface of 208, upper portion (left side) (as taught by Doczy) that faces the first surface e.g., top surface of 208, lower portion (left side) (as taught by Doczy), and wherein the first dielectric layer 42 (as taught by Sonoda), 209 (as taught by Doczy) physically contacts the first surface e.g., top surface of 208, lower portion (left side) (as taught by Doczy) of the first metal re-deposition layer 208, lower portion (left side) (as taught by Doczy) and the second surface e.g., bottom surface of 208, upper portion (left side) (as taught by Doczy) of the second metal re-deposition layer 208, upper portion (left side) (as taught by Doczy) (Doczy: Para 0057, Para 0058; Sonoda: Para 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Doczy to include a first dielectric layer as described by Sonoda for the purpose of protecting the magnetoresistive element (Para 0031).
Regarding claim 4, Doczy (see, e.g., FIG. 2K, FIG. 3) teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising: a third metal re-deposition layer 208, lower portion (right side) disposed on the first portion 204 of the stack of MTJ layers 204, 205, 206, wherein the first portion 204 of the stack of MTJ layers 204, 205, 206 is disposed laterally between the first and the third metal re-deposition layers 208, lower portion (left side); 208, lower portion (right side); and a fourth metal re-deposition layer 208, upper portion (right side) disposed on the second portion 206 of the stack of MTJ layers 204, 205, 206, wherein the second portion 206 of the stack of MTJ layers 204, 205, 206 is disposed laterally between the second 208, upper portion (left side) and the fourth metal re-deposition layers 208, upper portion (right side).
Regarding claim 6, Sonoda (see, e.g., FIG. 1) teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the first dielectric layer 42 includes a nitride material (Para 0031).
Regarding claim 9, Doczy (see, e.g., FIG. 2K, FIG. 3) teaches the device of claim 1, further comprising: a bottom electrode layer e.g., first contact electrode (not shown) (Para 0072); and a top metal contact layer 301 (Para 0074), wherein the first portion 204 of the stack of MTJ layers 204, 205, 206 lands on the bottom electrode layer e.g., first contact electrode (not shown), and the top metal contact layer 301 lands on the second portion 206 of the stack of MTJ layers 204, 205, 206 (Para 0032, Para 0033, Para 0074).
Regarding claim 10, although Doczy shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Doczy fails to expressly teach the device of claim 9, wherein each of the bottom electrode layer and the top metal contact layer extends a greater width along a first direction than that of the first portion of the stack of MTJ layers. Sonoda (see, e.g., FIG. 1, FIG. 8), on the other hand, teaches each of the bottom electrode layer BEC and the top metal contact layer BL extends a greater width along a first direction e.g., x-direction than that of the first portion 22 of the stack of MTJ layers MTJ (20) (Para 0067). However, differences in widths will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such difference is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of each of the bottom electrode layer and the top metal contact layer extending a greater width along a first direction than that of the first portion of the stack of MTJ layers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the widths of each of the bottom electrode layer and the top metal contact layer in the device of Doczy through routine experimentation.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed each of the bottom electrode layer and the top metal contact layer extending a greater width along a first direction than that of the first portion of the stack of MTJ layers or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 11, Doczy (see, e.g., FIG. 2K, FIG. 3) discloses a device comprising:
a bottom electrode e.g., first contact electrode (not shown) (Para 0072);
a stack of magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) layers 204, 205, 206 over the bottom electrode e.g., first contact electrode (not shown) (Para 0032, Para 0033, Para 0039, Para 0041, Para 0072);
first metal re-deposition layers 208, lower portion (left, right) along sidewalls of first portions e.g., sidewalls of 204 of the stack of MTJ layers 204, 205, 206 (Para 0050, Para 0061);
second metal re-deposition layers 208, upper portion (left, right) along sidewalls of second portions e.g., sidewalls of 206 of the stack of MTJ layers 204, 205, 206 (Para 0050, Para 0061); and
a metal contact 301 over the stack of the MTJ layers 204, 205, 206 (Para 0074).
Although Doczy shows substantial features of the claimed invention, Doczy fails to expressly teach a dielectric layer separating the first metal re-deposition layers from the second metal re-deposition layers.
Sonoda (see, e.g., FIG. 1), in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a first dielectric layer 42 for the purpose of protecting the magnetoresistive element (Para 0031).
The combination of Doczy (see, e.g., FIG. 2K, FIG. 3) / Sonoda (see, e.g., FIG. 1) teaches a dielectric layer 42 (as taught by Sonoda), 209 (as taught by Doczy) separating the first metal re-deposition layers 208, lower portion (left, right) from the second metal re-deposition layers 208, upper portion (left, right) (Doczy: Para 0057, Para 0058; Sonoda: Para 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Doczy to include a dielectric layer as described by Sonoda for the purpose of protecting the magnetoresistive element (Para 0031).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Doczy (see, e.g., FIG. 2K, FIG. 3) / Sonoda (see, e.g., FIG. 1) teaches the device of claim 11, wherein the dielectric layer 42 (as taught by Sonoda), 209 (as taught by Doczy) includes a spacer layer 209 (as taught by Doczy) disposed on an encapsulation layer 42 (as taught by Sonoda), wherein the spacer layer 209 (as taught by Doczy) includes carbon or aluminum (Doczy: Para 0057, Para 0058; Sonoda: Para 0031).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Doczy (see, e.g., FIG. 2K, FIG. 3) / Sonoda (see, e.g., FIG. 1) teaches the device of claim 15, wherein the first metal re-deposition layers 208, lower portion (left, right) (as taught by Doczy) directly contact the encapsulation layer 42 (as taught by Sonoda) and a bottom portion of the spacer layer 209, bottom portion (as taught by Doczy), and the second metal re-deposition layers 208, upper portion (left, right) (as taught by Doczy) directly contact the encapsulation layer 42 (as taught by Sonoda) without contacting the spacer layer 209, bottom portion (as taught by Doczy).
Claims 3, 5, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doczy (US 2018/0240969), in view of Sonoda (US 2019/0280195), and further in view of Aggarwal (US 2019/0103554).
Regarding claim 3, Doczy (see, e.g., FIG. 2K, FIG. 3) teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the first portion 204 extends a first width e.g., width of 204 along a first direction e.g., x-direction, the second portion 206 extends a second width e.g., width of 206 along the first direction e.g., x-direction.
Doczy fails to expressly specify that the first width is greater than the second width. Aggarwal (see, e.g., FIG. 5E), on the other hand, teaches the first width e.g., width of 60, 70 is greater than the second width e.g., width of 50 (Para 0028, Para 0031, Para 0033, Para 0036). However, differences in widths will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such difference is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the first width being greater than the second width, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first width and the second width in the device of Doczy through routine experimentation.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed first width being greater than the second width or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 5, Doczy (see, e.g., FIG. 2K, FIG. 3) teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the first and the third metal re-deposition layers 208, lower portion (left side); 208, lower portion (right side) are spaced apart at a first distance, the second and the fourth metal re-deposition layers 208, upper portion (left side); 208, upper portion (right side)are spaced apart at a second distance.
Doczy fails to expressly specify that the first distance is greater than the second distance. Aggarwal (see, e.g., FIG. 5E), on the other hand, teaches the first distance e.g., distance between 230, lower portions is greater than the second width e.g., distance between 230, upper portions (Para 0057, Para 0059). However, differences in distances will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such difference is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the first distance being greater than the second distance, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first distance and the second distance in the device of Doczy through routine experimentation.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed first distance being greater than the second distance or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 12, Doczy (see, e.g., FIG. 2K, FIG. 3) teaches the device of claim 11, wherein the first portions e.g., sidewalls of 204 of the stack of MTJ layers 204, 205, 206 includes a pinned layer 204 having a first width, the second portions e.g., sidewalls of 206 of the stack of MTJ layers 204, 205, 206 includes a free layer 206 having a second width.
Doczy fails to expressly specify that the first width is different from the second width. Aggarwal (see, e.g., FIG. 5E), on the other hand, teaches the first width e.g., width of 60, 70 is different from the second width e.g., width of 50 (Para 0028, Para 0031, Para 0033, Para 0036). However, differences in widths will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such difference is critical. “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation”. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Since the applicant has not established the criticality (see next paragraph) of the first width being different from the second width, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first width and the second width in the device of Doczy through routine experimentation.
CRITICALITY
The specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed first width being different from the second width or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 14, Doczy (see, e.g., FIG. 2K, FIG. 3) teaches device of claim 12, wherein the second portions e.g., sidewalls of 206 further includes a top electrode e.g., second contact electrode (not shown) having the second width, and the top electrode e.g., second contact electrode (not shown) is vertically disposed between the free layer 206 and the metal contact 301 (Para 0072, Para 0074).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 18, the applied prior art neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed device comprising a second metal re-deposition layer on sidewalls of the free layer and the second electrode, wherein the first metal re-deposition layer is physically separated from the second metal re-deposition layer, in combination with the remaining claimed limitations.
Claims 7-8, 13, and 17 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.
Remarks
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Regarding Claim 18, Aggarwal (US 2019/0103554; see, e.g., FIG. 5E) discloses device comprising: a first electrode 80 (Para 0028, Para 0029); a pinned layer 70 on the first electrode 80, the pinned layer 70 having a first width e.g., width of 70 (Para 28, Para 0030-Para 0032, Para 0059); a barrier layer 60 on the pinned layer 70, the barrier layer 60 having the first width e.g., width of 60 (Para 0028, Para 0059); a free layer 50 on the barrier layer 60, the free layer 50 having a second width e.g., width of 50 different from the first width e.g., widths of 60, 70 (Para 0028, Para 0031, Para 0033); a second electrode 20 on the free layer 50, the second electrode 20 having the second width e.g., width of 20 (Para 0028, Para 0029); a first metal re-deposition layer 230, lower portion on sidewalls of the barrier layer 60 and the pinned layer 70 (Para 0057); and a second metal re-deposition layer 230, upper portion on sidewalls of the free layer 206, wherein the first metal re-deposition layer 230, lower portion is physically separated from the second metal re-deposition layer 230, upper portion (Para 0057).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTONIO CRITE whose telephone number is (571) 270-5267. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10:00 am - 6:30 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, Kretelia Graham can be reached at (571) 272-5055. 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.
/ANTONIO B CRITE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Prosecution Insights