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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Japanese Patent Application No. 2021-201018, filed on 12/10/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 7/3/2024 and 2/25/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki (WO 2020050329 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nozaki teaches a spintronics device (spintronics device 1, Fig. 1, [0021]) that generates a spin current ([0020]), the device comprising:
a metal layer (conductive layer 2 (first conductive layer), Fig. 1, [0081]: “the constituent material of the first conductive layer may be one or more metals selected from the group of metals including Cu and Al”);
a layer (conductive layer 3 (second conductive layer), Fig. 1, [0081]: “the constituent material of the first conductive layer may be one or more metals selected from the group of metals including Cu and Al, and the second conductive layer may be composed of other dissimilar materials excluding their oxides.”, and therefore the layer is a conductive material) having a lower carrier mobility or a lower electrical conductivity than the metal layer ([0010]: ”a second conductive layer having a carrier mobility or electrical conductivity lower than that of the first conductive layer”); and
a gradient layer (boundary region 4, Fig. 1, [0027]) located at a boundary between the metal layer (conductive layer 2 (first conductive layer), Fig. 1) and the layer (conductive layer 3 (second conductive layer), Fig. 1), and having a gradient in the carrier mobility ([0027]: “The carrier mobility in boundary region 4 has a gradient and changes continuously from the interface with conductive layer 2 to the interface with conductive layer 3”) or the electrical conductivity.
Nozaki does not explicitly disclose that the layer is a semiconductor layer.
Nozaki, however, discloses that “the constituent material of the first conductive layer may be one or more metals selected from the group of metals including Cu and Al, and the second conductive layer may be composed of other dissimilar materials excluding their oxides“ ([0081]), “all materials exhibiting conductivity, such as conductive organic materials, conductive oxides, and conductive nitrides, can be candidates for the first and second conductive layers.” ([0081]), and “regardless of the size of the SOI, metals such as copper (Cu), aluminum (Al), iron (Fe), and platinum (pt), conductive oxides such as indium oxide (ln02), conductive nitrides such as titanium nitride (TiN), conductive polymers such as polyacetylene, and even semiconductors such as silicon (Si) can be used to generate spin current” ([0009]). Therefore, choosing a semiconductor material, such as Si, for the second conductive layer (conductive layer 3) presents a prima facie case of obviousness (see MPEP 2143(I)(B)), because such a semiconductor layer (Si) has a lower electrical conductivity than the metal layer (Al), which is the requirement for selecting the material for the second conductive layer according to Nozaki (Abstract), and will also lead to the predictable result of obtaining a spintronics device.
Thus, Nozaki also meets the limitation of claim 1 that the layer is a semiconductor layer.
Regarding claim 2, Nozaki teaches the spintronics device according to claim 1,
wherein the metal layer (conductive layer 2 (second conductive layer), Fig. 1) contains Al (Al, [0081]: “the constituent material of the first conductive layer may be one or more metals selected from the group of metals including Cu and Al”).
Regarding claim 3, Nozaki teaches the spintronics device according to claim 1,
wherein the metal layer (conductive layer 2 (second conductive layer), Fig. 1) is an Al layer ([0081]: “the constituent material of the first conductive layer may be one or more metals selected from the group of metals including Cu and Al”, and therefore can be selected to be a layer containing one metal only (Al) selected from the group of metals including Cu and Al).
Regarding claim 4, Nozaki teaches the spintronics device according to claim 1,
wherein the semiconductor layer (conductive layer 3 (second conductive layer), Fig. 1) contains Si (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 5, Nozaki teaches the spintronics device according to claim 1,
wherein the semiconductor layer (conductive layer 3 (second conductive layer), Fig. 1) is a Si layer (see claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding claim 6, teaches the spintronics device according to claim 1,
wherein the metal layer (conductive layer 2 (second conductive layer), Fig. 1) is an Al layer (([0081]: “the constituent material of the first conductive layer may be one or more metals selected from the group of metals including Cu and Al”, and therefore can be selected to be a layer containing one metal only (Al) selected from the group of metals including Cu and Al), the semiconductor layer (conductive layer 3 (second conductive layer), Fig. 1) is a Si layer (see claim 1 rejection above), and a thickness of the gradient layer (boundary region 4, Fig. 1) is 2.4 nm or less ([0025]: “The thickness of boundary region 4 is, for example, greater than 0 nm and less than or equal to 100 nm.”).
Therefore, the range of thickness values provided by the prior art overlaps with the range of thickness values provided in the claimed invention, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)), as the thickness of the gradient layer can be optimized by routine experimentation to achieve a spin current efficiency ([0068]: “by reducing the thickness D, the efficiency of spin current generation can be improved without changing the material systems of the conductive layers 2 and 3.”, where D is the thickness of the boundary region 4) while maintaining the structure of the device (see MPEP 2144.05(II)). Therefore, the range of values provided does not hold an inventive subject matter.
Regarding claim 7, Nozaki teaches the spintronics device according to claim 1,
wherein the spin current (Abstract) is generated by a rotation of an electron velocity field or an electric current field caused by the gradient (Abstract: “The boundary region 4 has a carrier mobility or electric conductivity gradient, and generates a spin current due to rotation of a velocity field of electrons caused by the gradient.”).
Regarding claim 8, Nozaki teaches the spintronics device according to claim 7,
wherein the spin current ([0020]),) is generated by an angular momentum due to the rotation of the electron velocity field (Abstract: “The boundary region 4 has a carrier mobility or electric conductivity gradient, and generates a spin current due to rotation of a velocity field of electrons caused by the gradient.”) or the electric current field.
Regarding claim 9, Nozaki teaches a magnetic memory (magnetic memory 30, Fig. 16, [0054]) comprising:
the spintronics device ([0054]: “This magnetic memory 30 is a magnetic random access memory and includes the device 1 according to the first embodiment”,).
Nozaki does not teach that the spintronics device is the spintronics device according to claim 1 (the layers of the spintronics device of embodiment 1 of Nozaki is different than the spintronics device of claim 1).
However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention that device 1 of Nozaki’s embodiment 1 is analogous to the spintronics device of claim 1, and therefore, a person pf ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention who is aiming to obtain a magnetic memory from the spintronics device of claim 1 would be motivated to replaced by device 1 in the magnetic memory of Nozaki with the spintronics device of claim 1, and obtain
a magnetic memory comprising:
the spintronics device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Nozaki teaches a magnetic memory (magnetic memory 30, Fig. 16, [0054]: magnetic memory 30 comprises magnetic elements (memory cells) shown in Fig. 17) comprising:
a first ferromagnetic layer (first ferromagnetic layer (fixed layer) 31, Fig. 17, [0055]);
a non-magnetic layer (nonmagnetic layer 32, Fig. 17, [0055]) provided on the first ferromagnetic layer (first ferromagnetic layer (fixed layer) 31, Fig. 17);
a second ferromagnetic layer (second ferromagnetic layer (movable layer) 33, Fig. 17, [0055]) provided on the non-magnetic layer (nonmagnetic layer 32, Fig. 17);
a metal layer (conductive layers 2 (first conductive layer) ([0054]: “a device 1 provided on the ferromagnetic layer 33. Device 1 has the same configuration as the first embodiment.”), Fig. 17, [0023]-[0024]: copper Cu) provided on the second ferromagnetic layer (second ferromagnetic layer (movable layer) 33, Fig. 17, [0055]);
a semiconductor layer (conductive layer 3 (second conductive layer), Fig. 17, [0024]: “if the conductive layer 2 mainly contains copper (Cu), the conductive layer 3 may mainly contain copper oxide (Cu2O)”, and Cu2O is a semiconductor) having a lower carrier mobility or a lower electrical conductivity than the metal layer (conductive layers 2 (first conductive layer), Fig. 17, [0055]: “the mobility of conductive layer 3 is lower than that of conductive layer 2”), and provided on the metal layer (conductive layers 2 (first conductive layer), Fig. 17); and
a gradient layer (boundary region 4, not shown in Fig. 17, but see Fig. 1 and [0055]: “the boundary region between conductive layer 2 and conductive layer 3 has a mobility gradient in the stacking direction”) located at a boundary between the metal layer (conductive layers 2 (first conductive layer), Fig. 17) and the semiconductor layer (conductive layer 3 (second conductive layer), Fig. 17), and having a gradient in the carrier mobility ([0055]: “the boundary region between conductive layer 2 and conductive layer 3 has a mobility gradient in the stacking direction”) or the electrical conductivity,
wherein the magnetic memory (magnetic memory 30 (Fig. 16) comprising magnetic elements (memory cells) shown in Fig. 17) stores information by controlling a direction of a magnetization of the second ferromagnetic layer (second ferromagnetic layer (movable layer) 33, Fig. 17) using a spin current generated in the gradient layer ([0015]: “The boundary region between the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer has a gradient of carrier mobility or electrical conductivity in the stacking direction, and a spin current is generated by the rotation of the electron velocity field caused by this gradient. Information is stored by controlling the magnetization direction of the second ferromagnetic layer using this spin current.).
Regarding claim 11, Nozaki teaches an electronic apparatus (electronic device, [0063]),
wherein one or more magnetic memories (magnetic memory 30, Fig. 16, [0063]) according to claim 9 (see claim 9 rejection above) are mounted on the electronic apparatus ([0063]: “the electronic device may be equipped with one or more magnetic memories 30.”).
Regarding claim 13, Nozaki teaches an electronic apparatus (electronic device, [0063]),
wherein one or more magnetic memories (magnetic memory 30, Fig. 16, [0063])) according to claim 10 (see claim 10 rejection above) are mounted on the electronic apparatus ([0063]: “the electronic device may be equipped with one or more magnetic memories 30.”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nozaki (WO 2020050329 A1) as applied to claims 1-11 and 13, and further in view of Shiokawa (US 2019/0057732 A1).
Regarding claim 12, while Nozaki teaches the spintronics device according to claim 1
Nozaki is silent on the method for manufacturing, and therefore does not teach that the method comprises:
forming a first layer by depositing a same material as the metal layer on the semiconductor layer through sputtering;
forming a second layer by depositing a same material as the semiconductor layer on the first layer through sputtering; and
forming the metal layer on the second layer.
Shiokawa, on the other hand, teaches a method ([0114]) for manufacturing a spintronics device (spin current magnetization rotational element 10, Fig. 1B) with layers similar to the ones of the spintronics device of claim 1, wherein the method comprises
forming a first layer (bottommost interfacial spin generation layer 4, Fig. 1B) by depositing a same material as the metal layer ([0020]: interfacial spin generation layer 4 is a metal layer, and ferromagnetic metal layers 4 are repeated (Fig. 1B) and therefore, all metal layers are the same material) on the semiconductor layer (spin conduction layer 3 which is first from the bottom, Fig. 1B, [0019]: spin conduction layer is Si) through sputtering ([0115]: “the interfacial spin generation layer is formed on the spin conduction layer by using a sputtering method”);
forming a second layer (spin conduction layer 3 which is second from the bottom, Fig. 1B) by depositing a same material as the semiconductor layer (all interfacial spin generation layer 4 are identical and therefore semiconductors) on the first layer (bottommost interfacial spin generation layer 4, Fig. 1B) through sputtering ([0114]: layers may be formed by sputtering); and
forming the metal layer (spin generation layer 4 which is second from the bottom) on the second layer (spin conduction layer 3).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the layers formed by the method of Shiokawa are analogous to the layers of the spintronics device of Nozaki, and therefore a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply the method taught by Shiokawa to form the layers of the spintronics device of Nozaki to be able to form the spin generation layers and spin conduction layers reliably.
Thus, the combination of Nozaki and Shiokawa meets all the limitations of claim 12.
Conclusion
Examiner notes that the independent claim 12, which claims the method of manufacturing the spintronics device of claim 1, is broad in its scope, as it only includes limitations regarding depositing the layers, but not how the final device structure is reached. The Examiner recommends including limitations about forming the gradient or how the gradient layer is a consequence of depositing the first layer and second layer.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ando (JP 2017216286 A) teaches a spintronics device, which is relevant to all claims.
Ando (JP 2017112365 A) teaches a spintronics device, which is relevant to all claims.
Shirotori (US 2017/0076769 A1) teaches a magnetic memory device, which is relevant to claim 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ILKER OZDEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5775. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:30pm.
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, William B Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/ILKER NMN OZDEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2812
/William B Partridge/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights