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 Amendment
The Office acknowledges receipt on 25 April 2024 of Applicants’ amendments in which claim 10 is amended and claims 11-20 are newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6, 9, 15, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “the base layer further includes a third metal nitride layer as the two or more metal nitride layers,” which is indefinite because it is unclear how the third metal layer is “as the two or more layers.” For the purpose of compact prosecution and to better comport with the original application and the other claims, this will be interpreted as “the base layer further includes a third metal nitride layer. Claims 9, 15, and 19 are rejected due to their dependence from intermediate claim 6.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. (US20210050266A1) in view of Amano et al. (US20180247954A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tang teaches in Fig. 4 a magnetoresistive element comprising:
a substrate (32) {[0047]};
a base layer (18) provided on the substrate (32) {[0047]};
a stacked portion (2) provided on the base layer (18), and including a magnetization free layer (7), a reference layer (3, 14, 16), and a nonmagnetic layer (5) provided between the magnetization free layer (7) and the reference layer (3) {[0045, 0047]}.
Tang does not teach the base layer includes two or more metal nitride layers and a metal oxynitride layer provided between a first metal nitride layer and a second metal nitride layer of the two or more metal nitride layers.
In an analogous art, Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraph [0118] a base layer (1406, 1512, 1516, and/or 1620) includes two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516, and/or 1620) and a metal oxynitride layer (1512) provided between a first metal nitride layer (1406/1516) and a second metal nitride layer (1516/1406) of the two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tang’s magnetoresistive element based on the teachings of Amano, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so as to enhance the diffusion barrier property of the base layer. Amano [0118]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., metal oxynitride layer, first metal nitride layer, second metal nitride layer) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Amano) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 10, Tang as modified by Amano teaches a magnetic memory comprising a plurality of the magnetoresistive element (1) according to claim 1 (Figs. 1, 2; [0038]}.
Regarding claim 11, Tang as modified by Amano teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 1, but Tang does not teach wherein a metal nitride layer provided closest to the substrate of the two or more metal nitride layers is thicker than the metal oxynitride layer.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraphs [0115, 0118] that a metal nitride layer (1406) provided closest to a substrate (1402) of two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516) is thicker than a metal oxynitride layer (1512). The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Regarding the thicknesses of the respective layers, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 16, Tang as modified by Amano teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 1, but Tang does not teach wherein a metal constituting the metal nitride layer closest to the stacked portion of the two or more metal nitride layers and a metal constituting the metal nitride layer closest to the substrate of the two or more metal nitride layers are the same.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraph [0118] that a metal (TiN) of each of a first metal nitride layer (1406) and a second metal nitride layer (1516) of the two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516) are the same. The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. A consequence of this modification is that one of Amano’s two or more metal nitride layers is closest to Tang’s stacked portion and the other is closest to Tang’s substrate.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Amano as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park et al. (US20210193457A1).
Regarding claim 2, Tang as modified by Amano teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 1, but Tang does not teach wherein a metal constituting the first metal nitride layer and a metal constituting the second metal nitride layer are different.
In an analogous art, Park teaches in Fig. 14 and paragraph [0073] a base electrode SE may have a single-layered or multi-layered structure including at least one of TiN, WN, TaN, HfN, ZrN, TiAlN, TaSiN, TiSiN, TaAlN, TiBN, TiON, TiAlON, TiCN, TiAlCN, or TiSiCN. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tang’s magnetoresistive element as modified by Amano based on the teachings of Park, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E). Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., first metal nitride layer having different metal than second metal nitride layer) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Park) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 12, Tang as modified by Amano and Park teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 2, but Tang does not teach wherein a metal nitride layer provided closest to the substrate of the two or more metal nitride layers is thicker than the metal oxynitride layer.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraphs [0115, 0118] that a metal nitride layer (1406) provided closest to a substrate (1402) of two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516) is thicker than a metal oxynitride layer (1512). The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Regarding the thicknesses of the respective layers, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Claim(s) 3-9, 13-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang in view of Amano and Park as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Inubushi et al. (US20180342668A1).
Regarding claim 3, Tang as modified by Amano and Park teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 2, but Tang does not teach comprising: a metal layer provided between the base layer and the stacked portion.
In an analogous art, Inubushi teaches in Fig. 1 and paragraph [0038] a metal layer (2 and/or 3) provided between a base layer (1) and a stacked portion (4-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tang’s magnetoresistive element as modified by Amano and Park based on the teachings of Inubushi, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, so [w]hen a bias is applied between the first nonmagnetic metal layer … or the second nonmagnetic metal layer …, electrons having a spin in a specific direction can be allowed to pass therethrough in a direction perpendicular to a layer surface. Inubushi [0038]. Moreover, all the claimed elements (e.g., metal layer, base layer, stacked portion) were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (e.g., as taught by Inubushi) with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP §2143(I)(A). Furthermore, [t]he selection of a known … [structure] based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07.
Regarding claim 4, Tang as modified by Amano, Park, and Inubushi teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 3, and Tang further teaches wherein the reference layer (3, 14, 16) includes a first ferromagnetic layer (16/3), a second ferromagnetic layer (3/16), and a nonmagnetic insertion layer (14) provided between the first ferromagnetic layer (16/3) and the second ferromagnetic layer (3/16) such that the first ferromagnetic layer (16/3) and the second ferromagnetic layer (3/16) are exchange-coupled {[0047]}.
Regarding claim 5, Tang as modified by Amano, Park, and Inubushi teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 4, but Tang does not teach wherein the first metal nitride layer is provided on a side of the metal oxynitride layer close to the substrate, the second metal nitride layer is provided on a side of the metal oxynitride layer close to the stacked portion, and the first metal nitride layer is thickest in the base layer.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraph [0115, 0118, 0119] a first metal nitride layer (1406) is provided on a first side of a metal oxynitride layer (1512) close to a substrate (1402), a second metal nitride layer (1516) is provided on a second side of the metal oxynitride layer (1512) opposite to the first side, and the first metal nitride layer (1406) is thickest in a base layer (1406, 1512, and/or 1516). The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Regarding the thicknesses of the respective layers of the base layer, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, as interpreted in view of the indefiniteness rejection, Tang as modified by Amano, Park and Inubushi teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 4, but Tang does not teach wherein the base layer further includes a third metal nitride layer, and a metal nitride layer positioned in the middle in a thickness direction of the base layer, among the first metal nitride layer, the second metal nitride layer, and the third metal nitride layer, is thickest.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraph [0115, 0118, 0119] a base layer (1406, 1512, 1516, and/ or 1620) further includes a third metal nitride layer (1620). The motivation for this modification is identified with respect to base claim 1.
Amano does not expressly teach a metal nitride layer positioned in the middle in a thickness direction of the base layer, among the first metal nitride layer, the second metal nitride layer, and the third metal nitride layer, is thickest. However, as discussed with respect to claim 5, Amano teaches the first metal nitride (e.g., middle metal nitride layer) may be thickest between the first and second metal nitride layers. And regarding the thickest between the first and third metal nitride layers, only three possibilities exist, which would be recognized by a skilled artisan: (1) the layers have equal thickness, (2) the first metal nitride layer is thicker than the third metal nitride layer, and (3) the third metal nitride layer is thicker than the first metal nitride layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tang’s magnetoresistive element as modified by Amano, Park, and Inubushi based on the further teachings of and Amano, to achieve the above-identified subject matter, because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. MPEP §2143((I)(E).
Regarding claim 7, Tang as modified by Amano, Park, and Inubushi teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 5, but Tang does not teach wherein a metal nitride layer provided closest to the substrate of the two or more metal nitride layers is thicker than the metal oxynitride layer.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraphs [0115, 0118, 0119] a metal nitride layer (1406) provided closest to a substrate (1402) of two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516) is thicker than a metal oxynitride layer (1512). The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Regarding the thicknesses of the respective layers of the base layer, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 8, Tang as modified by Amano, Park, and Inubushi teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 5, but Tang does not teach wherein a metal constituting the metal nitride layer closest to the stacked portion of the two or more metal nitride layers and a metal constituting the metal nitride layer closest to the substrate of the two or more metal nitride layers are the same.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraph [0118] that a metal (TiN) of each of a first metal nitride layer (1406) and a second metal nitride layer (1516) of the two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516) are the same. The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. A consequence of this modification is that one of Amano’s two or more metal nitride layers is closest to Tang’s stacked portion and the other is closest to Tang’s substrate.
Regarding claim 9, Tang as modified by Amano, Park, and Inubushi teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 6, but Tang does not teach wherein a thickness of the base layer is 50 nm or more.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraphs [0115, 0118, 0119] that a thickness of a base layer (1406, 1512, 1516, and/ or 1620) is 50 nm or more. The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Regarding the thickness of the base layer, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Tang as modified by Amano, Park, and Inubushi teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 3, but Tang does not teach wherein a metal nitride layer provided closest to the substrate of the two or more metal nitride layers is thicker than the metal oxynitride layer.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraphs [0115, 0118] that a metal nitride layer (1406) provided closest to a substrate (1402) of two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516) is thicker than a metal oxynitride layer (1512). The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Regarding the thicknesses of the respective layers, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 14, Tang as modified by Amano, Park, and Inubushi teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 4, but Tang does not teach wherein a metal nitride layer provided closest to the substrate of the two or more metal nitride layers is thicker than the metal oxynitride layer.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraphs [0115, 0118] that a metal nitride layer (1406) provided closest to a substrate (1402) of two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516) is thicker than a metal oxynitride layer (1512). The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Regarding the thicknesses of the respective layers, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 15, Tang as modified by Amano, Park, and Inubushi teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 6, but Tang does not teach wherein a metal nitride layer provided closest to the substrate of the two or more metal nitride layers is thicker than the metal oxynitride layer.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraphs [0115, 0118] that a metal nitride layer (1406) provided closest to a substrate (1402) of two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516) is thicker than a metal oxynitride layer (1512). The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Regarding the thicknesses of the respective layers, [i]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 17, Tang as modified by Amano, Park, and Inubushi teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 3, but Tang does not teach wherein a metal constituting the metal nitride layer closest to the stacked portion of the two or more metal nitride layers and a metal constituting the metal nitride layer closest to the substrate of the two or more metal nitride layers are the same.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraph [0118] that a metal (TiN) of each of a first metal nitride layer (1406) and a second metal nitride layer (1516) of the two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516) are the same. The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. A consequence of this modification is that one of Amano’s two or more metal nitride layers is closest to Tang’s stacked portion and the other is closest to Tang’s substrate.
Regarding claim 18, Tang as modified by Amano, Park, and Inubushi teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 4, but Tang does not teach wherein a metal constituting the metal nitride layer closest to the stacked portion of the two or more metal nitride layers and a metal constituting the metal nitride layer closest to the substrate of the two or more metal nitride layers are the same.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraph [0118] that a metal (TiN) of each of a first metal nitride layer (1406) and a second metal nitride layer (1516) of the two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516) are the same. The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. A consequence of this modification is that one of Amano’s two or more metal nitride layers is closest to Tang’s stacked portion and the other is closest to Tang’s substrate.
Regarding claim 19, Tang as modified by Amano, Park, and Inubushi teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 6, but Tang does not teach wherein a metal constituting the metal nitride layer closest to the stacked portion of the two or more metal nitride layers and a metal constituting the metal nitride layer closest to the substrate of the two or more metal nitride layers are the same.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraph [0118] that a metal (TiN) of each of a first metal nitride layer (1406) and a second metal nitride layer (1516) of the two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516) are the same. The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. A consequence of this modification is that one of Amano’s two or more metal nitride layers is closest to Tang’s stacked portion and the other is closest to Tang’s substrate.
Regarding claim 20, Tang as modified by Amano, Park, and Inubushi teaches the magnetoresistive element according to claim 7, but Tang does not teach wherein a metal constituting the metal nitride layer closest to the stacked portion of the two or more metal nitride layers and a metal constituting the metal nitride layer closest to the substrate of the two or more metal nitride layers are the same.
Amano teaches in Fig. 16 and paragraph [0118] that a metal (TiN) of each of a first metal nitride layer (1406) and a second metal nitride layer (1516) of the two or more metal nitride layers (1406, 1516) are the same. The motivation for this modification is identified above with respect to base claim 1. Moreover, [t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use [is] … prima facie obviousness. MPEP §2144.07. A consequence of this modification is that one of Amano’s two or more metal nitride layers is closest to Tang’s stacked portion and the other is closest to Tang’s substrate.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sasaki et al. (US20190333966A1) teaches a TMR element includes a base layer that is disposed on an upper surface of a via interconnect part, a magnetic tunnel junction that is disposed on a surface of the base layer, and an interlayer insulation layer that covers a side surface of each of the via interconnect part and the base layer. The base layer includes a stress relieving region. The magnetic tunnel junction includes a reference layer having a magnetization fixed direction, a magnetization free layer, and a tunnel barrier layer disposed between the reference layer and the magnetization free layer. The interlayer insulation layer includes an insulation material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID WARD whose telephone number is (703)756-1382. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30-3:30 EST.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at (571)-272-1731. 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.
/D.W.W./Examiner, Art Unit 2891
/MATTHEW C LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights