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 .
Response to A
The amended title overcomes the objection.
The amended claims appear to overcome the 102 rejection over Ohno.
The applicant argues on page 11 of the response that “Although Chepulskyy discloses that layers 102 and 104 ‘may actually be discontinuous,’ this disclosure does not apply to layer 218, which is not positioned between adjacent Fe layers (and instead contacts polarization enhancement layer 214’) as shown in Fig. 12. Similarly, Ohno does not teach that non-magnetic layers 108, 1207 are discontinuous or contact only a portion of another layer. Accordingly, the cited references do not teach or disclose a ‘an insertion substance in contact with the free magnetic region ... wherein the insertion substance contacts only a portion of a top surface of the free magnetic region’ as recited by amended claim 27.”
Chepulskyy also does not disclose that layers 102 or 104 may be discontinuous either, except regarding a single embodiment, FIG. 2 ([0049]). It is common in patent disclosures, etc., to give details in one embodiment that are understood to apply to other embodiments, but that are not explained in detail in all of the embodiments. In this case, layer 218 is an “insertion layer” just like layers 102 and 104, one that is only introduced in later embodiments (FIG. 12), and thus one those in the art would expect the same properties to apply. Furthermore, Chepulskyy [0073] states that “the thicknesses of the nonmagnetic insertion layers 104 and the layers 216 and 218 are desired to be sufficiently thin to allow ferromagnetic coupling between the ferromagnetic layers 212, 102, 106''' and 214. Thus, the materials and thicknesses of the layers 102, 104, and 106''' are analogous to those described above.” This appears to set forth that the thickness of layer 218 is analogous to the thickness of layer 104. As set forth at [0049], “the thickness of the Fe layer 102 is at least four and not more than ten Angstroms. The nonmagnetic insertion layer 104 may be at least one Angstrom and not more than eight Angstroms. In some such embodiments, the nonmagnetic insertion layer 104 is at least two Angstroms and not more than six Angstroms thick. Thus, although shown as full films, the layers 102 and/or 104 may actually be discontinuous. For example, the nonmagnetic insertion layer 104 may exists as islands on the Fe layer 102 at lower thicknesses.” Thus at the smallest thicknesses the insertion layer becomes discontinuous. Since layer 218 is to have the same thickness range as layer 104, it would also be expected to have, at the lower range, discontinuous portions, as layer 104 has.
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 27 and 29-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chepulsky.
Claim 27: Chepulskyy discloses
a fixed magnetic region (230, FIG. 12) positioned on or over a first electrically conductive region (11, FIG. 1);
Note that while the electrical contacts are not shown for any structure other that FIG. 1, it would be understood by those in the art that such contacts would be necessary to the functioning of all the devices and would be understood to be present.
“Although layers 210', 220' and 230' are shown with a particular orientation, this orientation may vary in other embodiments.” [0072]. See also [0069]: “the reference layer 230 may be closer to the bottom (closest to a substrate that is not shown) of the magnetic junction 200.” Many embodiments, e.g. FIG. 17, show the reference layer on the bottom, and thus this is clearly contemplated by Chepulskyy as an alternative version of Chepulskyy, and is structure that is addressed here. Thus this is either disclosed implicitly by Chepulskyy, or clearly contemplated by and thus obvious over Chepulskyy.
a free magnetic region including:
a first magnetic layer (102);
a coupling layer (104) formed on or over the first magnetic layer;
and a second magnetic layer (106) formed on or over the coupling layer;
a plurality of intermediate layers (212, 214), wherein at least one of the plurality of intermediate layers is positioned between the fixed magnetic region and the free magnetic region;
and an insertion substance (218) in contact with the free magnetic region, wherein the insertion substance includes one or more transition metal elements ([0073]).
“Examples of materials that may be used for the layers 216 and/or 218 includes but are not limited to W, Cr, Ta, Bi, Nb, Mo, Zn, Zr and Hf.” [0073].
PNG
media_image1.png
426
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 27 also recites the insertion substance contacts only a portion of a top surface of the free magnetic region. Chepulskyy only talks in detail about the properties of the insertion layer in one embodiment, FIG. 2 ([0049]), in which the insertion layer is 104. It is common in patent disclosures, etc., to give details in one embodiment that are understood to apply to other embodiments, but that are not explained in detail in all of the embodiments. In this case, layer 218 is an “insertion layer” just like layers 102 and 104, one that is only introduced in later embodiments (FIG. 12), and thus one those in the art would expect the same properties to apply. Furthermore, Chepulskyy [0073] states that “the thicknesses of the nonmagnetic insertion layers 104 and the layers 216 and 218 are desired to be sufficiently thin to allow ferromagnetic coupling between the ferromagnetic layers 212, 102, 106''' and 214. Thus, the materials and thicknesses of the layers 102, 104, and 106''' are analogous to those described above.” This appears to set forth that the thickness of layer 218 is analogous to the thickness of layer 104. As set forth at [0049], “the thickness of the Fe layer 102 is at least four and not more than ten Angstroms. The nonmagnetic insertion layer 104 may be at least one Angstrom and not more than eight Angstroms. In some such embodiments, the nonmagnetic insertion layer 104 is at least two Angstroms and not more than six Angstroms thick. Thus, although shown as full films, the layers 102 and/or 104 may actually be discontinuous. For example, the nonmagnetic insertion layer 104 may exists as islands on the Fe layer 102 at lower thicknesses.” Thus at the smallest thicknesses the insertion layer becomes discontinuous. Since layer 218 is to have the same thickness range as layer 104, it would also be expected to have, at the lower range, discontinuous portions, as layer 104 has. Thus Chepulskyy would suggest to those in the art that insertion layer 218 could be discontinuous.
Claim 29: the coupling layer includes tantalum (Ta), tungsten (W), molybdenum (Mo), ruthenium (Ru), rhodium (Rh), rhenium (Re), iridium (Ir), osmium (Os), or combinations thereof. (“the insertion layer 104 may consist of W.” [0047]).
Claim 30: the free magnetic region includes iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), and/or boron (B) (“Fe layer”, FIG. 12).
Claim 31: the one or more transition metal elements include chromium (Cr), iridium (Ir), or both. “Cr, Ta, Bi, Nb, Mo, Zn, Zr and Hf.” [0073].
Claim 32: the free magnetic region comprises a ferromagnetic layer having an Iron (Fe) content greater than or equal to 90 atomic percent. (“Fe layer”, FIG. 12).
Claim 33: the insertion substance (218) is in contact with the ferromagnetic layer (106) of the free magnetic region (FIG. 12).
Claim 34: the one or more transition metal elements include one or more metals configured to be non-magnetic in an elemental state at 15°-40°C. “W, Cr, Ta, Bi, Nb, Mo, Zn, Zr and Hf.” [0073].
Claim 41: the insertion substance forms a discontinuous layer with irregular patches of material on the top surface of the free magnetic region in the case in which the insertion substance is discontinuous, as explained with respect to claim 27. See Chepulskyy [0049]: “the nonmagnetic insertion layer 104 may exists as islands on the Fe layer 102 at lower thicknesses.”
Claim 42 recites that the insertion substance has a thickness of less than one monolayer. As set forth above with respect to claim 27, the insertion substance can be discontinuous: “the nonmagnetic insertion layer 104 may exists as islands on the Fe layer 102 at lower thicknesses.” ([0049]) Thus in the portions outside the islands, the insertion substance has a thickness of less than one monolayer (zero).
Claim 43 recites that the insertion substance forms an alloy with material on the top surface of the free magnetic region. Chepulskyy does not explicitly disclose this. However, Chepulskyy discloses using the same materials for these layers as the present application, and also discloses at [0123] that the device can be annealed after the layers are formed, and thus it would be likely that such an alloy would be formed as the present application discloses. “Where, as here, the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his claimed product. See In re Ludtke, supra. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 USC 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 USC 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same, and its fairness is evidenced by the PTO's inability to manufacture products or to obtain and compare prior art products.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433-434 (CCPA 1977).
Claim 44: in the case in which insertion layer 104 is discontinuous ([0049]), a portion of a layer (106) above the free magnetic region is in direct contact with the free magnetic region.
Claim 35: Chepulskyy discloses
a fixed magnetic region (230, FIG. 12) positioned above a first electrically conductive region (11, FIG. 1);
Note that while the electrical contacts are not shown for any structure other that FIG. 1, it would be understood by those in the art that such contacts would be necessary to the functioning of all the devices and would be understood to be present.
“Although layers 210', 220' and 230' are shown with a particular orientation, this orientation may vary in other embodiments.” [0072]. See also [0069]: “the reference layer 230 may be closer to the bottom (closest to a substrate that is not shown) of the magnetic junction 200.” Many embodiments, e.g. FIG. 17, show the reference layer on the bottom, and thus this is clearly contemplated by Chepulskyy as an alternative version of Chepulskyy, and is structure that is addressed here.
a plurality of intermediate layers (212, 214), wherein at least one of the plurality of intermediate layers is positioned above the fixed magnetic region;
a free magnetic region positioned above at least one of the plurality of intermediate layers, wherein the free magnetic region comprises:
a first magnetic layer (102);
a second magnetic layer (106) above the first magnetic layer;
and a coupling layer (104) positioned between the first magnetic layer and the second magnetic layer;
an insertion substance (218) in contact with the free magnetic region, wherein the insertion substance includes one or more transition metal elements;
Examples of materials that may be used for the layers 216 and/or 218 includes but are not limited to W, Cr, Ta, Bi, Nb, Mo, Zn, Zr and Hf.” [0073].
and a capping layer comprising magnesium oxide, wherein the capping layer is in contact with the free magnetic region and is formed on the insertion substance.
Chepulskyy discloses at [0072] that “Although not shown, and optional capping layer may also be provided. The optional capping layer may be MgO.” In an embodiment in which the reference layer is at the bottom (see FIG. 17), the capping layer 240 is in contact with the free magnetic region 210.
Claim 35 also recites the insertion substance contacts only a portion of a top surface of the free magnetic region. Chepulskyy only talks in detail about the properties of the insertion layer in one embodiment, FIG. 2 ([0049]), in which the insertion layer is 104. It is common in patent disclosures, etc., to give details in one embodiment that are understood to apply to other embodiments, but that are not explained in detail in all of the embodiments. In this case, layer 218 is an “insertion layer” just like layers 102 and 104, one that is only introduced in later embodiments (FIG. 12), and thus one those in the art would expect the same properties to apply. Furthermore, Chepulskyy [0073] states that “the thicknesses of the nonmagnetic insertion layers 104 and the layers 216 and 218 are desired to be sufficiently thin to allow ferromagnetic coupling between the ferromagnetic layers 212, 102, 106''' and 214. Thus, the materials and thicknesses of the layers 102, 104, and 106''' are analogous to those described above.” This appears to set forth that the thickness of layer 218 is analogous to the thickness of layer 104. As set forth at [0049], “the thickness of the Fe layer 102 is at least four and not more than ten Angstroms. The nonmagnetic insertion layer 104 may be at least one Angstrom and not more than eight Angstroms. In some such embodiments, the nonmagnetic insertion layer 104 is at least two Angstroms and not more than six Angstroms thick. Thus, although shown as full films, the layers 102 and/or 104 may actually be discontinuous. For example, the nonmagnetic insertion layer 104 may exists as islands on the Fe layer 102 at lower thicknesses.” Thus at the smallest thicknesses the insertion layer becomes discontinuous. Since layer 218 is to have the same thickness range as layer 104, it would also be expected to have, at the lower range, discontinuous portions, as layer 104 has. Thus Chepulskyy would suggest to those in the art that insertion layer 218 could be discontinuous.
Claim 36: the insertion substance includes iridium (Ir), chromium (Cr), or both. “Cr”, [0073].
Claim 37: the free magnetic region further comprises a ferromagnetic layer (102) having an iron content greater than or equal to 90 atomic percent. “Fe layer”, FIG. 12.
Claim 38: the insertion substance is in contact with the ferromagnetic layer (FIG. 12).
Claim 39: the fixed magnetic region, the free magnetic region, or both, comprise iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), and/or boron (B). “Fe layer”, FIG. 12.
Claim 40 recites a seed region between the fixed magnetic region and the first electrically conductive region. Chepulskyy discloses a seed layer 12 in FIG. 12, and also in FIGS. 8-12 and 18-25. Seed layers were very common and obvious in the art to facilitate layer growth, and in an embodiment with the reference layer on the bottom (see e.g. FIGS. 8-10), the seed layer would have been between the fixed magnetic region and the first electrically conductive region.
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chepulskyy in view of Wang, US 2014/0145792 A1. Chepulskyy discloses that “although depicted as a simple layer, the reference layer 230’ may be a SAF or other multilayer.” [0072]. Chepulskyy does not disclose what material the reference layer, either simple of SAF (synthetic antiferromagnetic), would be, but those in the art would have known that the claimed materials were the most common materials for such a layer. See e.g. Wang, [0011], which discloses that the layers in an SAF contain the claimed materials: “In one aspect, FL1 and FL2 are laminates such as (Ni/Co)n, (Pt/Co)n, (Pd/Co)n, (Co/Ru)n, and the like where n is the lamination number which is from 1 to 10, and preferably 1 to 4. However, Co may be replaced by a Co-rich alloy such as CoFe or CoFeB wherein Co content is greater than that of Fe or B, and Ni may be replaced by a Ni rich alloy such as NiFe or NiFeB.” It would have been obvious to have used the claimed materials as well-known in the art for such a layer.
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 PETER BRADFORD whose telephone number is (571)270-1596. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Jacob Choi can be reached at 469.295.9060. 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.
/PETER BRADFORD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897
Prosecution Insights