DETAILED ACTION
As per MPEP 2111 and 2111.01, the claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation and the words of the claims are given their plain meaning consistent with the specification without importing claim limitations from the specification.
In responding to this Office action, the applicant is requested to include specific references (figures, paragraphs, lines, etc.) to the drawings/specification of the present application and/or the cited prior arts that clearly support any amendments/arguments presented in the response, to facilitate consideration of the amendments/arguments.
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 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character … has been used to designate “…” in figure …. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) … is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s)… recite(s) the language (emphasis added) …
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “reading element on the moving element and configured to read a magnetic domain included in the moving element”, where the limitation “a magnetic domain” is already recited in the claim and it is unclear if the limitations are different from each other.
Claim(s) 5 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “is configured to create a magnetic domain having a magnetization direction”, where the limitation “a magnetic domain” is already recited in claim 1 and it is unclear if the limitations are different from each other.
Claim(s) 6 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “to create the magnetic domain so the magnetic domain has a first magnetization direction” and “the writing element is configured to create the magnetic domain so the magnetic domain has a second magnetization direction”, where it is unclear which of the previously “magnetic domain” limitations are relied upon in the claim.
Claim(s) 8 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “a size of the magnetic domain injected into the moving element”, where it is unclear which of the previously “magnetic domain” limitations are relied upon in the claim.
Claim(s) 9 recite(s) the language (emphasis added) “the size of the magnetic domain injected into the moving element is proportional”, where it is unclear which of the previously “magnetic domain” limitations are relied upon in the claim.
Claim(s) 14 recite(s) the language “the first electrode”, “the second electrode”, and “the third electrode”, but claim 1, upon which claim 14 depends, does not disclose language --a first electrode--, --a second electrode--, and --a third electrode-- and the limitations lack antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quinsat, US 20180269381 A1.
As to claim 1, Quinsat discloses a racetrack memory device (see Fig 1A) comprising:
a writing element (See Fig 1C Refs 50, 11, and 12) extending in a first horizontal direction (see Fig 1A Ref Y) and configured to create a magnetic domain (see Para [0092]) based on a first current (see Fig 6A Ref I1) applied to the writing element; a moving element (see Fig 1A Ref 13) having a first end (see Fig 1A Refs 11, 12, and 13) connected to the writing element, the moving element extending in a second horizontal direction (see Fig 1A Ref X), the second horizontal direction intersecting the first horizontal direction, the moving element configured to have the magnetic domain created in the writing element injected into the moving element based on a second current (see Fig 7A Ref I3) applied to the moving element; and a reading element (see Fig 1A Ref 20U and Para [0040]) on the moving element and configured to read a magnetic domain (see Para [0092]) included in the moving element, wherein
a width of the moving element (see Fig 1A width of Ref 13 in Y-direction) is less than a width of the writing element (see Fig 1A width of Ref 50 in X-direction).
As to claim 2, Quinsat discloses the racetrack memory device of claim 1, wherein
a ratio of the width of the writing element to the width of the moving element is 1.5 or more (see Fig 1A widths of Refs 50 and 13; Reference character 50 is depicted as twice the width as reference character 13.).
As to claim 3, Quinsat discloses the racetrack memory device of claim 2, wherein
the ratio of the width of the writing element to the width of the moving element is 5 or less (see Fig 1A widths of Refs 50 and 13).
As to claim 4, Quinsat discloses the racetrack memory device of claim 1, wherein
a ratio of a length of the writing element to the width of the moving element is 2 or more (see Fig 1A length between Refs E1 and E2 in Y-direction).
As to claim 5, Quinsat discloses the racetrack memory device of claim 1, wherein
the writing element is configured to create a magnetic domain having a magnetization direction (see Fig 6A Ref 11b) corresponding to a direction of the first current (see Fig 6A Ref I1).
As to claim 6, Quinsat discloses the racetrack memory device of claim 1, wherein
the writing element is configured to create the magnetic domain so the magnetic domain has a first magnetization direction (see Fig 6A Ref 11b) if a direction of the first current (see Fig 6A Ref I1) applied to the writing element is parallel to the first horizontal direction (see Fig 1A Ref Y), and the writing element is configured to create the magnetic domain so the magnetic domain has a second magnetization direction (see Fig 6C Ref 12a) if the direction of the first current applied to the writing element is opposite (see Fig 6A Ref I2) the first horizontal direction, and the second magnetization direction is opposite (see Fig 6A Ref 11b and 6C Ref 12a) the first magnetization direction.
As to claim 7, Quinsat discloses the racetrack memory device of claim 6, wherein
if a first magnetic domain (see Fig 6A Ref 11b) having the first magnetization direction is already in the writing element, the writing element is configured to change the magnetic domain in the writing element from the first magnetic domain to a second magnetic domain (Fig 6C Ref 12a; Configured does not imply must.) having the second magnetization direction if the direction of the first current applied to the writing element is opposite the first horizontal direction.
As to claim 13, Quinsat discloses the racetrack memory device of claim 1, further comprising:
a first electrode at a first end of the writing element (see Fig 1A Ref E1); a second electrode at a second end of the writing element (see Fig 1A Ref E2), the second end of the writing element being opposite the first end of the writing element; and a third electrode (see Fig 1A Ref E3) connected to a second end of the moving element, the second end of the moving element being different than the first end of the moving element (see Fig 1A).
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 of this title, 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) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinsat, US 20180269381 A1.
As to claim 14, Quinsat discloses the racetrack memory device of claim 1, wherein
the racetrack memory device is configured to apply the first current through the first electrode and the second electrode (see Para [0057]), and the racetrack memory device is configured to apply the second current through the third electrode while the first electrode and the second electrode are at a low voltage (see Para [0105]).
Quinsat does not appear to explicitly disclose grounded.
However, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention that grounded is a subset of low voltage. It is obvious that a ground voltage is a low voltage (see MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quinsat, US 20180269381 A1, in view of Ales Hrabec. Domain wall dynamics in magnetic nanostructures: Effect of magnetic field and electric current. Materials Science [cond-mat.mtrl-sci]. Université de Grenoble, 2011. English. NNT: 2011GRENY056. tel-00767418 (hereafter referred to as NPL Hrabec).
As to claim 8, Quinsat discloses the racetrack memory device of claim 1, wherein
the magnetic domain injected into the moving element is based on a pulse width of the second current.
Quinsat does not explicitly disclose a size of the magnetic domain.
NPL Hrabec discloses a size of the magnetic domain (see NPL Hrabec Page 82, third paragraph, and Figs 4.5 and 4.6; Larger walls result in smaller domains.).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention that a racetrack memory, as disclosed by Quinsat, may incorporate particular current application schema, as disclosed by NPL Hrabec. The inventions are well known variants of racetrack memory designs, and the combination of known inventions which produces predictable results is obvious and not patentable. Further evidence to the obviousness of their combination is NPL Hrabec’s attempt to improve operation speed (see NPL Hrabec Page 79, first paragraph).
As to claim 9, Quinsat and NPL Hrabec disclose the racetrack memory device of claim 8, wherein
the size of the magnetic domain injected into the moving element is proportional to the pulse width of the second current (see NPL Hrabec page 82, third paragraph, and Figs 4.5 and 4.6).
As to claim 10, Quinsat and NPL Hrabec disclose the racetrack memory device of claim 1, wherein
an intensity of the second current is less than or equal to an intensity of the first current (see NPL Hrabec Page 88, second paragraph, Page 82, equation 4.4, and Fig 4.11; A 500 nm wire with a current density of 3 × 1012 A/m2 applied to it has less than an amp of current passing through it.).
As to claim 11, Quinsat and NPL Hrabec disclose the racetrack memory device of claim 10, wherein
the intensity of the second current is ½ or less of the intensity of the first current (see NPL Hrabec Page 88, second paragraph, Page 82, equation 4.4, and Fig 4.11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 12 and 15-20 is/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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not appear to disclose (as recited in claim 12):
a pulse width of the first current and a pulse width of the second current are equal.
The prior art does not appear to disclose (as recited in claim 15):
he moving element comprises a second spin-orbit torque layer configured to induce a second spin orbit torque by the second current, the second spin-orbit torque layer corresponding to the first spin-orbit torque layer, a second free layer on the second spin-orbit torque layer, the moving element being configured to inject the magnetic domain into the second free layer based on the second spin orbit torque, and a second oxide layer on the second free layer.
The prior art does not appear to disclose (as recited in claim 19):
the moving element comprises a second ferromagnet layer on a same plane as the first ferromagnet layer, a second spin-orbit torque layer on the second ferromagnet layer and configured to induce a second spin orbit torque, and a second free layer on the second spin-orbit torque layer, the moving element being configured to inject the magnetic domain into the second free layer based on the second spin orbit torque.
The prior art does not appear to disclose (as recited in claim 20):
the moving element comprises a second antiferromagnetic layer on a same plane as the first antiferromagnetic layer and configured to create a second spin current based on the second current, and a second free layer on the second antiferromagnetic layer, the moving element being configured to inject the magnetic domain into the second free layer based on the second spin current.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Quinsat, US 20150078070 A1 does not appear to disclose a lesser width.
Nakamura, US 20150078071 A1 does not appear to disclose a lesser width.
Quinsat, US 20210249061 A1 does not appear to disclose a lesser width.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEROME LARRY LEBOEUF whose telephone number is (571)272-7612. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 8:00AM - 6:00PM 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, RICHARD ELMS can be reached at (517)272-1869. 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.
/JEROME LEBOEUF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824