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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 30, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on January 29, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to page 17 (line 6 of paragraph [0052]), the term "314over" should be changed to the term --314 over--.
(ii) With regard to page 17 (line 1 of paragraph [0053]), the term "314may" should be changed to the term --314 may--.
(iii) With regard to page 17 (line 2 of paragraph [0053]), the term "314of" should be changed to the term --314 of--.
(iv) With regard to page 18 (line 2 of paragraph [0055]), the term "314and" should be changed to the term --314 and--.
(v) The Applicant should update, as appropriate, the U.S. application numbers referenced in the specification at page 8 (lines 2 and 4); page 20 (line 15 of paragraph [0060]); page 21 (lines 5, 7, 9, 13, 15 of paragraph [0062]) to reflect if the application has now matured into a U.S. Patent (listing the associated U.S. Patent No., if appropriate).
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 12, 14, 16, 19, 23, 26, and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(I) With regard to claim 1 (line 4), claim 3 (line 2), claim 5 (line 2), claim 12 (line 5), claim 14 (line 2), claim 16 (line 2), claim 19 (line 2), claim 23 (lines 5-6), claim 26 (line 2), claim 31 (line 2):
the term, "two or more laminated layers of RuAl and MgTiO or MgO" should be changed to the term --two or more laminated layers of RuAl, and MgTiO or MgO-- (i.e. a comma after RuAl) in order to clarify that the two or more laminated layers include RuAl and either of MgTiO or MgO.
The specification should also be amended, changing such recitations of "two or more laminated layers of RuAl and MgTiO or MgO" as noted above, to the term -- two or more laminated layers of RuAl, and MgTiO or MgO-- to enhance clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species II (Figure 3B) in the reply filed on February 18, 2026, is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that searching for Species I and II would not be a burden to the examiner. The Applicant alleges that claims 1-34 read on the elected embodiment. The Examiner disagrees, noting that at least claims 9-11, 20-22, and 32-34 do not read on the elected embodiment, but on Species III, IV, or V.
However, after searching for the elected invention, the Examiner has uncovered art (during search for the elected Species II), a posteriori the requirement of January 6, 2026, that encompasses all the Species. As such, the Examiner has withdrawn the restriction requirement. All claims have been examined on the merits.
The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-12, 14, 15, 18-23, 27, 28, 30, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le et al. (US 2023/0197132 A1).
As per claim 1, Le et al. (US 2023/0197132 A1) discloses a spin-orbit torque (SOT) device (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0007], "spin-orbit torque (SOT) device"), comprising: a texture layer structure (e.g., including (332)) having a (100) orientation, the texture layer structure comprising one of more of:(1) two or more laminated layers of RuAl and MgTiO or MgO;(2) laminations of MgO and W; or (3) W-X body-centered cubic (bcc) alloys, where X is one or more of Ta, Hf, Ti, V, Nb, and Mo (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0066, 0071] - wherein the layer (332) may be WTi50); and a topological insulator (TI) or a topological semi-metal (TSM) layer (e.g. 304 - see, inter alia, paragraphs [0002, 0054]) disposed over the texture layer structure. See paragraphs [0051-0058, 0066], Figs. 3A, 3C).
As per claim 2, wherein the TI or TSM layer (304) comprises BiSb having a (012) orientation - see, inter alia, abstract, paragraphs [0002, 0054].
As per claim 4, further comprising: an interlayer (e.g., 320); and a ferromagnetic layer (e.g., 324) (paragraph [0052]).
As per claim 6, further comprising: a barrier layer (e.g., 334 - see paragraph [0071], which includes metal elements such as "Ti, Al, Ge, Si, Ag, Cu, Mn, Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Fe, and combinations thereof" which are seen to provide a barrier to the mixing of elements between layers (332) and (336)) disposed between the texture layer structure (including layer (332)) and the TI or TSM layer (304 - see Fig. 3F (with layer (310) in detail) as applied with Fig. 3A); and an oxide layer (336 - including oxide materials listed in paragraph [0072]) disposed between the barrier layer (334) and the TI or TSM layer (304).
As per claim 8, wherein the texture layer structure comprises the W-X body-centered cubic (bcc) alloys, where X is one or more of Ta, Hf, Ti, V, Nb, and Mo (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0066, 0071] - wherein the layer (332) may be WTi50).
As per claim 9, a magnetic recording head comprising the SOT device of claim 1 (e.g. 200; Fig. 2).
As per claim 10, a magnetic recording device (e.g., 100 - see Fig. 1) comprising the magnetic recording head of claim 9.
As per claim 11, a magneto-resistive memory comprising the SOT device of claim 1 (e.g., see paragraphs [0003, 0038, 0117]).
As per claim 12, Le et al. (US 2023/0197132 A1) discloses a spin-orbit torque (SOT) device (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0007], "spin-orbit torque (SOT) device"), comprising: a seed layer (e.g., 314) comprising an amorphous material (e.g., see paragraph [0053]); a texture layer structure (e.g., including (332)) having a (100) orientation disposed on the seed layer, the texture layer structure comprising one or more of:(1) two or more laminated layers of RuAl and MgTiO or MgO;(2) laminations of MgO and W; or (3) W-X body-centered cubic (bcc) alloys, where X is one or more of Ta, Hf, Ti, V, Nb, and Mo (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0066, 0071] - wherein the layer (332) may be WTi50); a topological insulator (TI) or a topological semi-metal (TSM) layer (e.g. 304 - see, inter alia, paragraphs [0002, 0054]) disposed over the texture layer structure - see paragraphs [0051-0058, 0066], Figs. 3A, 3C); an interlayer (e.g., 320) disposed on the TI or TSM layer (304); and a ferromagnetic layer (e.g., 324) (paragraph [0052]) disposed on the interlayer.
As per claim 14, the recitation "wherein the two or more laminated layers of RuAl and MgTiO or MgO comprises: a first RuAl layer disposed on the seed layer; a first MgTiO or MgO layer disposed on the first RuAl layer; a second RuAl layer disposed on the first MgTiO or MgO layer; a second MgTiO or MgO layer disposed on the second RuAl layer; and a third RuAl layer disposed on the second MgTiO or MgO layer," only limits the texture layer structure with regard to the aspects of choice (1) in claim 12 (which is in the alternative). Since claim 14 does not positively further limit the scope of claim 14 to choice (1), and since Le et al. (US 2023/0197132 A1) meets another of the alternative choices of (1)-(3), claim 14 is still considered to be met by Le et al. (US 2023/0197132 A1).
As per claim 15, wherein the TI or TSM layer comprises BiSb having a (012) orientation or YPtBi having a (100) orientation - see, inter alia, abstract, paragraphs [0002, 0054].
As per claim 18, wherein the texture layer structure comprises the W-X body-centered cubic (bcc) alloys, where X is one or more of Ta, Hf, Ti, V, Nb, and Mo (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0066, 0071] - wherein the layer (332) may be WTi50).
As per claim 19, the recitation of "wherein the two or more laminated layers of RuAl and MgTiO or MgO comprises: a first RuAl layer disposed on the seed layer; a first MgTiO or MgO layer disposed on the first RuAl layer; a second RuAl layer disposed on the first MgTiO or MgO layer; a second MgTiO or MgO layer disposed on the second RuAl layer; a third RuAl layer disposed on the second MgTiO or MgO layer; a third MgTiO or MgO layer disposed on the third RuAl layer; and a fourth RuAl layer disposed on the third MgTiO or MgO layer" only limits the texture layer structure with regard to the aspects of choice (1) in claim 12 (which is in the alternative). Since claim 19 does not positively further limit the scope of claim 14 to choice (1), and since Le et al. (US 2023/0197132 A1) meets another of the alternative choices of (1)-(3), claim 19 is still considered to be met by Le et al. (US 2023/0197132 A1).
As per claim 20, a magnetic recording head comprising the SOT device of claim 12 (e.g. 200; Fig. 2).
As per claim 21, a magnetic recording device (e.g., 100 - see Fig. 1) comprising the magnetic recording head of claim 20.
As per claim 22, a magneto-resistive memory comprising the SOT device of claim 12 (e.g., see paragraphs [0003, 0038, 0117]).
As per claim 23, Le et al. (US 2023/0197132 A1) discloses a spin-orbit torque (SOT) device (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0007], "spin-orbit torque (SOT) device"), comprising: a buffer layer (e.g., including layers 330 through 338 of Fig. 3F - comprising (310), as applied to Fig. 3A) comprising: a texture layer structure (e.g., including (332)) having a (100) orientation disposed on a seed layer (e.g., 314) comprising an amorphous material (e.g., see paragraph [0053]), the texture layer structure comprising one or more of:(1) two or more laminated layers of RuAl and MgTiO or MgO;(2) laminations of MgO and W;(3) W-X body-centered cubic (bcc) alloys, where X is one or more of Ta, Hf, Ti, V, Nb, and Mo (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0066, 0071] - wherein the layer (332) may be WTi50); a first barrier layer (e.g., 334 - see paragraph [0071], which includes metal elements such as "Ti, Al, Ge, Si, Ag, Cu, Mn, Pd, Pt, Ni, Co, Fe, and combinations thereof" which are seen to provide a barrier to the mixing of elements between layers (332) and (336)) disposed on the texture layer structure (332) (see Figs. 3F and 3A); and an oxide layer (e.g., 336, including oxide materials listed in paragraph [0072]) disposed on the first barrier layer (334); a topological insulator (TI) or a topological semi-metal (TSM) layer (e.g. 304 - see, inter alia, paragraphs [0002, 0054]) disposed over the texture layer structure (332) (see Figs. 3A, 3F); an interlayer (e.g., 320 - Fig. 3A) disposed on the TI or TSM layer (304); and a ferromagnetic layer (e.g., 324) (paragraph [0052]) disposed on the interlayer - Fig. 3A.
As per claim 27, wherein the TI or TSM layer comprises BiSb having a (012) orientation or YPtBi having a (100) orientation - see, inter alia, abstract, paragraphs [0002, 0054].
As per claim 28, further comprising a second barrier layer (e.g., 338 - see paragraph [0073], which includes metal elements such as "Ag, Al, Au, FeO, CoO, ZrO, MgO, TiO, ScN, TiN, NbN, ZrN, HfN, TaN, ScC, TiC, NbC, ZrC, HfC, TaC, WC, and combinations thereof, alloys thereof, and in alloy combinations thereof with one or more additional elements selected from the group consisting of: W, Al, Ag, W, Mo, Zr, Ti, Ge Si, and combinations thereof" which are seen to provide a barrier to the mixing of elements between layers (336) and (304)) disposed between the oxide layer (336) and the TI or TSM layer (304).
As per claim 30, wherein the texture layer structure comprises the W-X body-centered cubic (bcc) alloys, where X is one or more of Ta, Hf, Ti, V, Nb, and Mo (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0066, 0071] - wherein the layer (332) may be WTi50)..
As per claim 32, a magnetic recording head comprising the SOT device of claim 23 (e.g. 200; Fig. 2).
As per claim 33, a magnetic recording device (e.g., 100 - see Fig. 1) comprising the magnetic recording head of claim 32.
As per claim 34, a magneto-resistive memory comprising the SOT device of claim 23(e.g., see paragraphs [0003, 0038, 0117]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le et al. (US 2023/0197132 A1).
See the description of Le et al. (US 2023/0197132 A1), supra.
As per claim 13, although Le et al. (US 2023/0197132 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the texture layer structure has a thickness of about 10 Å to about 150 Å, given the teachings and suggestions of Le et al. (US 2023/0197132 A1) for preventing "migration within the doped BiSbE layer and enhance uniformity of the doped BiSbE layer while further promoting the (012) orientation of the doped BiSbE layer," (see abstract of Le et al. (US 2023/0197132 A1)), it would have been within the ordinary skill of the artisan, at the time the invention was effectively filed, to routinely modify the thickness of layer (332) in the course of routine optimization/experimentation, to arrive at a range where the layer (332) provides sufficient migration prevention, but also establishes the desired crystal orientation of the topological layer (BiSbE).
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the Applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 7, 16, 17, 24-26, 29, and 31 are tentatively objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but, pending an updated search, amendments or arguments presented by the Applicant and considered by the Examiner in reply to this office communication, would be favorably considered if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Prior or Relevant Art on enclosed PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art made of record (see the enclosed PTO-892), not applied to the rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including wherein texture layer structures including materials to control the crystal orientations of layers disposed thereon, in magnetic recording heads and/or memory devices.
The best prior art has been applied to the claimed invention (see the rejection of the claims on the applied prior art, supra). However, if Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a manner to obviate the applied prior art, as noted in the rejection, supra, the Applicant is advised to not only carefully review the applied prior art for all it teaches and/or suggests, but also the cited prior art of record in order to obviate any potential rejections based on potential amendment(s); by doing so, compact prosecution on the merits can be enhanced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, 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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688