Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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) 1-2, 4-5, 10-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (US 20200403148) in view of Kim et al (US 20210296575).
Regarding claims 1, 4, 5, 12, and 15,
Sasaki et al teaches
[claim 1] A magnetization rotation element comprising a spin-orbit torque wiring (figure 13, paragraph 0129, where element 24 is a spin-orbit torque wiring figure of a magnetization rotation element);
and a first ferromagnetic layer connected to the spin-orbit torque wiring (figure 13, paragraph 0042, where element 2 is the first ferromagnetic layer connected to the spin-orbit torque wiring layer [element 24]),
wherein the spin-orbit torque wiring has a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer is closer to the first ferromagnetic layer than the second layer, wherein the first layer has a negative spin Hall angle, and wherein the second layer has a positive spin Hall angle (figure 13, paragraph 0139, where the first layer [element 24A1] is a negative spin-hall angle and is closer to the first ferromagnetic layer [element 2] than the second layer [element 24A2] which has a positive spin Hall angle),
[claim 15] A magnetization rotation element comprising a spin-orbit torque wiring (figure 13, paragraph 0129, where element 24 is a spin-orbit torque wiring figure of a magnetization rotation element),
and a first ferromagnetic layer connected to the spin-orbit torque wiring (figure 13, paragraph 0042, where element 2 is the first ferromagnetic layer connected to the spin-orbit torque wiring layer [element 24]),
wherein the spin-orbit torque wiring has a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer is closer to the first ferromagnetic layer than the second layer, wherein the first layer has a negative spin Hall angle, and wherein the second layer has a positive spin Hall angle (figure 13, paragraph 0139, where the first layer [element 24A1] is a negative spin-hall angle and is closer to the first ferromagnetic layer [element 2] than the second layer [element 24A2] which has a positive spin Hall angle),
However, Sasaki et al does not specifically disclose
[claim 1] and wherein at least one of the first layer and the second layer is nitride.
[claim 4] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first layer and the second layer contains nitrogen or carbon.
[claim 5] The magnetization rotation element according claim 4, wherein the contents of nitrogen and carbon in the second layer are all 50 atm% or less.
[claim 12] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 1, wherein both the first layer and the second layer are nitride.
[claim 15] wherein at least one of the first layer and the second layer contains nitrogen or carbon and wherein the content of nitrogen or carbon in at least one of the first layer and the second layer is 50 atm% or less
However, Kim et al does teach
[claim 1] and wherein at least one of the first layer and the second layer is nitride (paragraph 0056, where the spin-orbit torque wiring layer is made of a nitride).
[claim 4] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the first layer and the second layer contains nitrogen or carbon (paragraph 0056, where the spin-orbit torque wiring layer is made of a nitride, which contains nitrogen).
[claim 5] The magnetization rotation element according claim 4, wherein the contents of nitrogen and carbon in the second layer are all 50 atm% or less (paragraph 0056, where the elements listed for the second layer all have nitrogen and carbon at 50 atm% or less).
[claim 12] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 1, wherein both the first layer and the second layer are nitride (paragraph 0056, where the spin-orbit torque wiring layer [first and second layer] is made of a nitride).
[claim 15] wherein at least one of the first layer and the second layer contains nitrogen or carbon and wherein the content of nitrogen or carbon in at least one of the first layer and the second layer is 50 atm% or less (figure 13, paragraph 0016, where the percent of nitrogen is less than 50%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Sasaki et al to incorporate the teaching of Kim et al to maximize efficiency by allowing a conductive material that offers high spin Hall angle ability.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 11
Sasaki et al further teaches
[claim 2] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 1, wherein the first layer contains a metal element belonging to any one of the group consisting of Group 3, Group 4, Group 5 and Group 6, and wherein the second layer contains a metal element belonging to any one of the group consisting of Group 8, Group 9, Group 10, Group 11, and Group 12 (figure 13, paragraphs 0139-0140, where the first layer [element 24A1] and the second layer [element 24A2] may be formed of materials consisting of groups 3-6 [for first layer] and groups 8-12 [for second layer]).
[claim 10] A magnetoresistance effect element, comprising the magnetization rotation element according to claim 1, a non-magnetic layer, and a second ferromagnetic layer, wherein the non-magnetic layer is interposed between the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer, and wherein the first ferromagnetic layer is closer to the spin-orbit torque wiring than the second ferromagnetic layer (figure 13, paragraph 0042, where element 1 is the second ferromagnetic layer, and element 3i s the non-magnetic layer interposed between the first ferromagnetic layer [element 1] and the second ferromagnetic layer [element 2] where the first ferromagnetic layer [element 1] is closer to the spin-orbit torque wiring layer [element 24] than the second ferromagnetic layer [element 2]).
[claim 11] A magnetic memory comprising the plurality of magnetoresistance effect elements according to claim 10 (paragraph 0004, where the magnetoresistance effect element is part of a plurality that create an MRAM device).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (US 20200403148), Kim et al (US 20210296575) and in further view of Wang et al (US 20180166197).
Sasaki et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 1, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 3] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 1, wherein the second layer contains a light element with an atomic number of 38 or less.
However, Wang et al teaches
[claim 3] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 1, wherein the second layer contains a light element with an atomic number of 38 or less (abstract, where the SOT layer uses Selenium which has an atomic number of 34, which is under 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Sasaki et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Wang et al in order to use a specific material to maximize the function of the device (i.e. through engineered spin-Hall conductivity).
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (US 20200403148), Kim et al (US 20210296575) and in further view of Sasaki et al (US 20180033953).
Sasaki et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 1, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 6] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 1, further comprising an intermediate layer between the first layer and the second layer.
[claim 7] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 6, wherein the intermediate layer contains a ferromagnetic material.
[claim 8] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 7 wherein the thickness of the intermediate layer is 1 nm or less.
[claim 9] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 6, wherein the intermediate layer contains any one of the group consisting of Ir, Ru, Rh, Cr, Cu, Re, Pd, Pt, and Au.
However, Sasaki et al does teach
[claim 6] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 1, further comprising an intermediate layer between the first layer and the second layer (figure 4C, paragraph 0113, where element 24A is in place of the first and second layer of Sasaki et al, where the intermediate layer is element 24B and would be situated between a first and second layer in a diagonal direction).
[claim 7] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 6, wherein the intermediate layer contains a ferromagnetic material (figure 4C, paragraph 0114, where element 24B [intermediate layer] is made of any metal that has a low-conductive resistance, which may include a ferromagnetic material).
[claim 8] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 7 wherein the thickness of the intermediate layer is 1 nm or less (paragraph 0059, where the first ferromagnetic layer [element 2] has a thickness no more than 2.5 nm, where element 2 [by visual inspection of figure 4C] is larger than element 24B, thus element 24B may be less than 2.5nm including less than 1 nm).
[claim 9] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 6, wherein the intermediate layer contains any one of the group consisting of Ir, Ru, Rh, Cr, Cu, Re, Pd, Pt, and Au (figure 4C, paragraph 0114, where the intermediate layer may be made of any low-conductivity metal which may include Au).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Sasaki et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Sasaki et al in order to add an intermediate layer to limit the heating effect of the device by minimizing the generation of pure spin current [paragraph 0112].
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (US 20200403148), Kim et al (US 20210296575) and in further view of Xue et al (US 20220115439 – priority date of PCT/US2020013791).
Sasaki et al as modified teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim, claim 1, but does not specifically disclose
[claim 13] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 1, wherein the first layer is TaN and the second layer is TiN.
However, Xue et al teaches
[claim 13] The magnetization rotation element according to claim 1, wherein the first layer is TaN and the second layer is TiN (paragraph 0020, where the SOT layer can be made of TaN or TiN, thus each layer as read in by Sasaki et al can have the first layer be made of TaN and the second layer be made of TiN).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Sasaki et al as modified to incorporate the teachings of Xue et al in order to use TaN or TiN as a material for the SOT layer to maximize the efficiency of the device by using a commong material for interconnects and diffusion-barrier layer in CMOS devices to make compatible with other CMOS devices and minimize using different materials (more materials means more processes and places to source material).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki et al (US 20200403148) in view of Kato et al (US 20180174634).
Sasaki et al teaches
[claim 14] A magnetization rotation element comprising a spin-orbit torque wiring (figure 13, paragraph 0129, where element 24 is a spin-orbit torque wiring figure of a magnetization rotation element);
and a first ferromagnetic layer connected to the spin-orbit torque wiring (figure 13, paragraph 0042, where element 2 is the first ferromagnetic layer connected to the spin-orbit torque wiring layer [element 24]),
wherein the spin-orbit torque wiring has a first layer and a second layer, wherein the first layer is closer to the first ferromagnetic layer than the second layer, wherein the first layer has a negative spin Hall angle, and wherein the second layer has a positive spin Hall angle (figure 13, paragraph 0139, where the first layer [element 24A1] is a negative spin-hall angle and is closer to the first ferromagnetic layer [element 2] than the second layer [element 24A2] which has a positive spin Hall angle),
However, Sasaki et al does not specifically disclose
[claim 14] wherein at least one of the first layer and the second layer contains oxygen, and wherein the content of oxygen in at least one of the first layer and the second layer is 50 atm% or less.
However, Kato et al does teach
[claim 14] wherein at least one of the first layer and the second layer contains oxygen, and wherein the content of oxygen in at least one of the first layer and the second layer is 30 atm% or more and 50 atm% or less (paragraph 0148, where the SOT layer [layer containing the spin-Hall angle] contains oxygen, when read onto from Sasaki et al includes both he first and second layer, and the oxygen contains less than 50% atm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Sasaki et al to incorporate the teachings of Kato et al to utilize a certain percentage of oxygen to maximize the efficiency of the device by utilizing oxygen to stabilize the spin-orbit torque of the spin-orbit torque wiring layer.
However, Sasaki et al as modified does not specifically disclose
[claim 14] 30 atm% or more [of oxygen]
However, according to MPEP 2144.05 II. ROUTINE OPTIMIZATION
A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine Experimentation
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Lab. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1848 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989)(Claimed ratios were obvious as being reached by routine procedures and producing predictable results); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149, 14 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(Claimed amount of wash solution was found to be unpatentable as a matter of routine optimization in the pertinent art, further supported by the prior art disclosure of the need to avoid undue amounts of wash solution); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(Claims were unpatentable because appellants failed to submit evidence of criticality to demonstrate that that the wear resistance of the protective layer in the claimed thickness range of 50-100 Angstroms was "unexpectedly good"); Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions."). See also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395 (2007) (identifying "the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to have modified the teachings of Sasaki et al as modified to optimize the spin-orbit torque wiring layer with certain percentages of oxygen to increase the efficiency of the device.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kakinuma (US 20220037587), Yu (US 20210257545), Shiokawa et al (US 20210249470), and Li et al (US 10867626) as other spin-orbit torque based devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW ZABEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4788. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5PM ET.
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 W Natalini can be reached at 572-272-2266. 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. 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.
/ANDREW JOHN ZABEL/Examiner, Art Unit 2818
/JEFF W NATALINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights