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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-21 in the reply filed on 2/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0016 of the specification, the phrase “FIGS. 1a-1d” should be amended to recite “FIGS. 1a-1e” so that each figure is included in the “Brief Description of the Drawings”.
Appropriate correction is required.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claim 12 and 16, the limitation of a “neighboring tantalum (Ta) layer” is recited in paragraph 0077 of the specification; however, paragraph 0068 seems to indicate that the Ta layer that nitrogen is moved into is the capping layer and the limitation “a neighboring tantalum (Ta) layer” makes it seem like the neighboring layer is a different layer from the capping layer, which does not have antecedent basis in the specification.
In claim 14 and 16, similarly to in claim 12, the limitation that the capping layer is a “Ta capping layer” is supported by the specification but the specification does not provide antecedent basis for a Ta capping layer distinct from the neighboring capping layer in claim 12 and 16.
In claim 15, the limitation “Mn4N single phases” does not have antecedent basis in the specification as paragraph 0088 refers to a “single-phase Mn4N” transforming back and forth from a mixed phase but does not describe multiple Mn4N single “phases”. This objection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “single phase” instead of “single phases”.
In claim 20, the limitation “further comprising a Ta layer” lacks antecedent basis in the specification because paragraph 0068 of the specification seems to make it clear that the Ta layer to receive nitrogen ions is the capping layer and this limitation requires a Ta layer in addition to and distinct from the capping layer recited in claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 13, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10, the limitation “deposited using with nitrogen partial pressures” should be amended to read either “deposited using nitrogen partial pressures” or “deposited with nitrogen partial pressures” to correct grammar.
In claims 13 and 17, the limitation “nitrogen partial pressures” should be amended to recite “nitrogen partial pressure” because the claim is only referring to a single/fixed partial pressure.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 8-9, the limitations reciting that the thickness or exchange bias “can be varied” are interpreted to require only that the material is capable of being varied in the claimed manner because the claims do not recite these limitations as method steps but as properties of the resulting material or its formation process.
In claim 11, the limitation that the magnetic material goes through a transformation when nitrogen partial pressure is increased is interpreted to only require that the magnetic material is capable of going through the claimed transformation when nitrogen partial pressure is increased and not necessarily a step of increasing the nitrogen partial pressure to achieve the claimed transformation.
In claim 20, the limitation of a Ta layer to receive nitrogen ions during post-annealing and voltage application is interpreted to only require a Ta layer capable of receiving nitrogen during a post-annealing and voltage application but not a method step of performing post-annealing and voltage application.
In claim 21, the limitation “the fabrication process is adaptable” is interpreted to mean that the process is capable of being modified/adjusted to be used in other systems but not necessarily requiring a method of actually adapting the process to other ionic systems.
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 3, 8, 12-19, and 21 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.
In claim 3, the limitation “the Mn3N2 seed layers” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because claim 1 only recites one Mn3N2 seed layer and thus it is unclear whether this claim is referring to the seed layer of claim 1 or is requiring an additional seed layer.
In claim 8, the limitation “the thickness of the Mn layer” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of a “thickness” and therefore it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to refer to an average thickness of an overall layer, a thickness of a portion of the layer, or another thickness. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “a thickness of the Mn layer”.
In claim 12, the limitation “the exchange bias” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because there is no previous recitation of an “exchange bias” in claim 1 and therefore it is unclear what exchange bias is being referred to. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite “an exchange bias”.
In claim 12, the limitation “the Mn nitride layer” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to refer to the Mn3N2 seed layer or a different Mn nitride layer, such as the one formed by the Mn layer on the seed layer (which is not claimed in claim 1 or 12).
In claim 15, the limitation “the nitride layer” lacks antecedent basis and thus is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation intends to refer to the “Mn3N2 seed layer” or a different nitride layer.
In claim 16, the limitation “the Mn nitride layers” is indefinite because it is unclear what “Mn nitride layers” are being referred to, especially considering claim 1 only reciting a Mn3N2 seed layer and a Mn layer. For example, the limitation could refer to the Mn3N2 seed layer and a Mn4N layer formed from depositing Mn on the seed layer or could refer to two completely different Mn nitride layers.
In claim 16, the limitation “the neighboring Ta layer” lacks antecedent basis because claim 1 does not recite a Ta layer and therefore it is unclear if this limitation is intended to require the capping layer is made of Ta or intended to refer to another Ta layer.
In claim 19, the limitation “the changes induced by positive voltage conditioning are reversed upon applying a negative voltage conditioning” is indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation is intended to require applying a negative voltage conditioning to drive nitrogen atoms back into the Mn nitride layers or only that the changes can be reversed by negative voltage conditioning.
In claim 21, the limitation “other ionic systems, including oxides, borides, and lithium-based materials” is indefinite because claim 1 does not recite an “ionic system” and therefore it is unclear whether the limitation “other ionic systems” requires that the process is an ionic system or not. Additionally, the phrase “including” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention or are merely examples.
Claims 13-14 and 17-18 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
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, 3, 6-9, 11, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (NPL – “Enhanced perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of ferrimagnetic Mn4N films deposited on the glass substrate”) in view of Kryder (US 20170221508 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li (NPL) teaches a method of depositing a seed layer of Mn3N2 on a substrate by reactive sputtering and depositing an Mn layer, at least momentarily, onto the seed layer with a low nitrogen content in the atmosphere such that an Mn4N layer is formed by diffusion of N into the layer and the substrate, Mn3N2 seed layer, and deposited Mn layer form a magnetic material sample, wherein the layers are each deposited at a substrate temperature of 250°C (first temperature) and the heated substrate at 250° results in changes in the seed layer concentration (annealing the seed layer at the first temperature) (pg. 1-2, 5, 7).
Li fails to explicitly teach cooling the sample to a second temperature lower than the first temperature, and depositing a capping layer onto the sample to form a magnetic material. However, Kryder (US 20170221508 A1), in the analogous art of magnetic material deposition, teaches cooling the substrate to room temperature (second temperature lower than the first temperature) after depositing a perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (PMA) layer and then depositing a Ta capping layer that provides electrical contact to the magnetic layer to form the magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) magnetic device, which may be a spintronic device (Abstract, para 0040, 0042, 0044, 0046, 0048). Li teaches depositing a perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (PMA) layer used in spintronic applications (Abstract). Because Kryder teaches that such cooling and capping layer deposition methods were operable, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cool the substrate/sample of Li to a room temperature and perform a tantalum capping layer atop the magnetic layer to provide a MTJ for use in spintronic applications with a reasonable expectation of success. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143(A)).
Alternatively, Kryder teaches that the MnAl PMA layer may be made of another ferromagnetic material (para 0043). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Mn3N2/Mn4N combined PMA layer of Li with the MnAl PMA layer of Kryder because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Li and Kryder teaches Mn3N2 seed layers are reactively sputtered onto the substrate (Li pg. 2).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li and Kryder teaches the substrate is heated in a chamber below atmospheric conditions (under vacuum) (Li pg. 2, 5) and therefore the heat treatment is vacuum annealing.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Li and Kryder teaches cooling the substrate/sample to room temperature (Kryder para 0046, 0048).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Li and Kryder teaches the deposition of Mn may be set (thickness of the Mn layer can be varied) such that a Mn3N2/Mn4N film (single Mn4N layer) is formed (Li pg. 2-5). Alternatively, the method of the aforementioned combination is inherently capable of having the Mn layer thickness controlled/varied to form a single Mn4N layer or multilayers of Mn4N/Mn2N or Mn4N/Mn2N/Mn3N2.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Li and Kryder fails to explicitly teach the resulting magnetic material exhibits an exchange bias that can be varied by over an order of magnitude by adjusting nitrogen partial pressure during deposition of the Mn layer. However, the aforementioned combination teaches a similar process as the instant application. Similar processes to form similar materials must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the method of Li and Kryder must necessarily yield a magnetic material exhibiting an exchange bias that can be (i.e., is capable of) varied by over an order of magnitude by adjusting nitrogen partial pressure during deposition of the Mn layer. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Li and Kryder fails to explicitly teach the magnetic material goes through a transformation from Mn4N to Mn4N/Mn2N and Mn4N/Mn2N/Mn3N2 mixed phases when nitrogen partial pressure is increased. However, the aforementioned combination teaches a similar process as the instant application. Similar processes to form similar materials must necessarily yield similar results. Therefore, the method of Li and Kryder must necessarily yield a magnetic material that goes through a transformation from Mn4N to Mn4N/Mn2N and Mn4N/Mn2N/Mn3N2 mixed phases when nitrogen partial pressure is increased. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Li and Kryder teaches the capping layer is tantalum (Ta layer) in contact with the magnetic layer (Kryder para 0043, 0046, 0048) and therefore the tantalum layer is necessarily capable of receiving nitrogen ions during a post-annealing and voltage application, enabling controlled manipulation of magnetic phases.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Li and Kryder is inherently capable of being modified/adjusted/adapted and therefore is necessarily adaptable for creating other ionic systems including oxides, borides, and lithium-based materials.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (NPL – “Enhanced perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of ferrimagnetic Mn4N films deposited on the glass substrate”) in view of Kryder (US 20170221508 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tan (US 20190172998 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Li and Kryder fails to explicitly teach the substrate is an Si substrate having a SiO2 layer. However, Tan (US 20190172998 A1), in the analogous art of magnetic devices, teaches a spintronic device that may have a perpendicular magnetic anisotropy magnetic layer and may have a substrate made of various materials including glass and thermally oxidized silicon (Si substrate having a SiO2 layer) (Abstract, para 0073, 0094, 0108). Li teaches a glass substrate for use in spintronic applications with a perpendicular magnetic anisotropy magnetic layer (Abstract, pg. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the glass substrate of Li with a thermally oxidized silicon layer, as described by Tan, because this is a substitution of known elements yielding predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (NPL – “Enhanced perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of ferrimagnetic Mn4N films deposited on the glass substrate”) in view of Kryder (US 20170221508 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Melton (US 4683043 A).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Li and Kryder fails to explicitly teach the first temperature is approximately 450°C. However, Melton (US 4683043 A), in the analogous art of deposition, teaches that substrate temperature influences the microstructure and crystal structure of nitride coatings deposited by sputtering (col 7 line 13-29). Therefore, the substrate temperature is a recognized result-effective variable and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of substrate temperature by routine optimization, which can include a temperature of approximately 450°C. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Claim(s) 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (NPL – “Enhanced perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of ferrimagnetic Mn4N films deposited on the glass substrate”) in view of Kryder (US 20170221508 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Hatwar (US 4719154 A).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Li and Kryder teaches the Mn3N2 seed layer is reactively sputtered under vacuum conditions in a chamber (vacuum chamber) with a 1:1 Ar/N2 ratio at a pressure of 0.2 Pa, or about 1.5 mTorr (Li pg. 2). The aforementioned combination fails to explicitly teach the pressure is about 5 mTorr. However, Hatwar (US 4719154 A), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that the total sputtering pressure affects the properties of metal nitride films (col 4 line 6-18). Therefore, the total pressure is a recognized result-effective variable and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of total pressure by routine optimization, which can include a pressure of about 5 mTorr. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Li and Kryder fails to explicitly teach the Mn layer is deposited with nitrogen partial pressures varying from 0% to 6%. However, Hatwar (US 4719154 A), in the analogous art of sputtering, teaches that the partial pressure and argon to nitrogen ratio affects the properties of metal nitride films (col 4 line 6-33). Therefore, the nitrogen partial pressure is a recognized result-effective variable and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the optimum or workable ranges of nitrogen partial pressure by routine optimization, which can include a nitrogen partial pressure in the range of 0% to 6%. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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:
Regarding claim 12, the aforementioned combination of Li and Kryder fails to teach the method comprises a “post-annealing process that reduces the exchange bias by up to 70% by driving nitrogen out of the Mn nitride layer into a neighboring tantalum (Ta) layer”. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the aforementioned references to meet the claim limitations. Therefore, claim 12 contains allowable subject matter
Regarding claim 16, the aforementioned combination of Li and Kryder fails to teach “applying a positive voltage across the Mn nitride layers to drive nitrogen ions out of the Mn nitride layers and into the neighboring Ta layer, resulting in an increase in saturation magnetization and a decrease in exchange bias”. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the aforementioned references to meet the claim limitations. Therefore, claim 16 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 13-15 and 17-19 depend on claims 12 and 16 and thus would be allowable for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights