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 .
Continuation
U.S. Patent Application Serial Number 19/067,754 (the instant application), filed on February 28, 2025, is a Continuation-In-Part of U.S. Patent Application Serial Number 19/011,206, filed on January 6, 2025, which claims the benefit of provisional application 63/554,533, filed on February 16, 2024.
Independent claims 1, 10, and 17 of the instant application, contain subject matter that lacks written description support from Application Serial Number 19/011,206, filed on January 6, 2025 and provisional application 63/554,533, filed on February 16, 2024 (that is, claims 1, 10, 17 (among others) of the instant application recite specific stoichiometric constraints of the YPtBi layer that are not 1:1:1).
As such, independent claims 1, 10, and 17 (and by extension, all claims that depend therefrom) have been granted an effective filing date of February 28, 2025.
Drawings
The drawings were received on February 28, 2025.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show:
(i) buffer layer 704 (see page 21 (line 4) of paragraph [0073]).
as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected, with traverse, Species I, sub-species A, sub-species B2 (claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20-22) in the reply filed on February 20, 2026.
Claims 5, 9, 16, 19, and 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on February 20, 2026.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-15, 17, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1) in view of "Effect of stoichiometry on the spin Hall angle of the half-Heusler alloy topological semimetal YPtBi," Shirokura et al. (published July 1, 2022), Japanese Journal of Applied Physics 61, 073001 (2022), pp. 073001-1 through 073001-4, hereinafter "Shirokura et al."
As per claims 1, 10, and 17, Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1) discloses a spin-orbit torque (SOT) device (e.g., 250 - see, inter alia, Fig. 2; paragraphs [0025, 0028]) comprising: a YPtBi layer (e.g., 312, 410; see paragraphs [0057, 0062, 0105]).
Additionally, as per claim 17, Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1) further discloses a buffer layer (e.g., 406) disposed adjacent to the YPtBi layer (e.g., 410) - see Figs. 4A, 4B; paragraph [0069]).
As per claim 4, Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1 further discloses a buffer layer (e.g. 406) disposed adjacent to the YPtBi layer (e.g., 410) - see Figs. 4A, 4B; paragraph [0069]).
As per claims 6 and 20, Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1) further discloses wherein the buffer layer (e.g., 410) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: Ru Hf; Zr-X alloys, where X is one or more of Co, Cu, Ru, and Rh; Ti-Y alloys, where Y is one or more of Au, Ru, and Rh; B2 ternary A(BxC1-x) alloys; B2 binary alloys; CoZrX, where X is one or more of Ti, Fe, Ni, Nb, and Mo; two or more elements selected from the group consisting of: Ta, Hf, W, Ir, Pt, Y, Zr, Nb, Mo, Mg, Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Fe, Co, Ni, Cu, Ru, Rh, and Ag (e.g., see paragraph [0069], "the SOT material sub-layer 410, such as Cu, Ag, Ge, Mn, Ni, Co Mo, W, Sn, B, and In, or in alloy combinations with one or more of aforementioned elements, such as CuAg, CuNi, CoCu, AgSn," which includes, inter alia, CuAg; oxides of Ti, Mg, Ni, Zn, or Zr; X-N or X-C composites, where X is one or more of Sc, Ti, V, Cr, Zr, Nb, Ta, Hf, and W; and MO2 materials, where M is one or more of Ti, Cr, Ru, Rh, Sn, Sb, Ir, CrNb, CrV, and WV .
As per claims 7, 14, and 21, a magnetic recording head (e.g., 200 - see Fig. 2) comprising the SOT device (e.g., 250) is provided.
As per claims 8, 15, and 22, a magnetic recording device (e.g., 100 - see Fig. 1) is provided comprising the magnetic recording head (200).
As per claims 1 and 11, Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1) remains silent with regard to the YPtBi layer having a 1:1.02:1.05 stoichiometry to a 1:1.25:1.35 stoichiometry.
As per claims 2, 12, and 18, Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the YPtBi layer has a 1:1.11:1.13 stoichiometry.
As per claims 3 and 13, Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the YPtBi layer has a (100), (111), or (110) orientation.
As per claim 10, Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein a concentration of Pt and Bi is about 10% greater than a concentration of Y (in the YPtBi layer).
As per claim 17, Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1) remains silent with regard to the YPtBi layer having a 1:1.02:1.05 stoichiometry to a 1:1.25:1.35 stoichiometry, and wherein the YPtBi layer has a (100), (111), or (110) orientation.
The prior art, however, discloses that the effect of stoichiometry on the spin Hall angle of such a half-Heusler alloy topological semimetal YPtBi, is known.
That is, Shirokura et al disclose an analogous spin orbit layer which includes a zero-gap topological insulator formed of YPtBi, wherein, as per claims 3, 13, and 17, the YPtBi layer has a (100), (111), or (110) orientation (e.g., see p. 07300-1 , section "Crystallinity and electric properties of YPtBi at various stoichiometry"). Additionally, Shirokura et al. expressly and explicitly notes that the composition of YPtBi can deviate from its standard 1:1:1 stoichiometry, by varying the elements of Y, Pt, and Bi, relative to each other, to affect the spin Hall angle and/or its electric properties is a manner to meet a desired attribute. See abstract of Shirokura et al and p. 07300-1 , section "Crystallinity and electric properties of YPtBi at various stoichiometry" through p. 073001-1 through 073001-4, section "Spin Hall properties of YPtBi at various stoichiometry."
As such, based upon the teachings and suggestions of Shirokura et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the crystal orientation of the YPtBi layer of Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1) (as set forth in claims 3, 13, 17), in addition to varying the stoichiometric composition of the elements Y, Pt, and Bi to meet the stoichiometric relationships (including concentrations and ratios) set forth in claims 1, 2, 10-12, 17, 18, in order to provide a desired spin Hall angle and/or electric property best suited toward its applied application, through routine optimization/experimentation. "[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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 stoichiometry of YPtBi.. 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.
No new or unobvious result is seen to be obtained, given the express teachings and motivations of the applied prior art, and as such, the claimed stoichiometric values of the YPtBi topological layer of Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1), when viewed in light of the teachings and suggestions of Shirokura et al, are seen, absent any unobvious evidence, as nothing more than a predictable variation based the on such overarching and pertinent teachings of Shirokura et al and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan, in light of the general knowledge of an artisan having ordinary skill in the art, with the express rationale provided supra. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., No. 04-1350 (U.S. Apr. 30, 2007).
Moreover still, the Supreme Court opined "w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentably." (Emphasis added) 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740.
The Examiner finds this situation analogous to the optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the "normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). As noted above, in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955), it was held that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
Shirokura et al. discloses topological materials having great potential for ultralow power spintronic devices (See Abstract). Shirokura et al. discloses that the atomic composition of Y:Pt:Bi is close to 1:1:1 (See page 3). Shirokura et al. further discloses an atomic composition of Y:Pt:Bi of 1.0:0.99:0.96 (See Figure 2c). Thus, the amount of Y is greater than or equal to the amounts of Pt and Bi. Shirokura et al. does not teach or suggest a YPtBi layer having a 1:1.02:1.05 stoichiometry to a 1:1.25:1.35 stoichiometry or a YPtBi layer where a concentration of Pt and Bi is about 10% greater than a concentration of Y. At best, Shirokura et al. suggests having a greater amount of Y than both of Pt and Bi, or decreasing the amounts of Pt and/or Bi. Moreover, Shirokura et al. only discusses the atomic composition of YPtBi when testing the YPtBi samples used. Shirokura et al. does not teach or suggest varying the atomic composition of YPtBi, or any benefits of doing so.
See page 10 of the Response.
The Examineer notes that Shirokura et al. expressly discloses that the effect of stoichiometry on the spin Hall angle of such a half-Heusler alloy topological semimetal YPtBi, is known.
That is, Shirokura et al disclose an analogous spin orbit layer which includes a zero-gap topological insulator formed of YPtBi, wherein, as per claims 3, 13, and 17, the YPtBi layer has a (100), (111), or (110) orientation (e.g., see p. 07300-1 , section "Crystallinity and electric properties of YPtBi at various stoichiometry"). Additionally, Shirokura et al. expressly and explicitly notes that the composition of YPtBi can deviate from its standard 1:1:1 stoichiometry, by varying the elements of Y, Pt, and Bi, relative to each other, to affect the spin Hall angle and/or its electric properties is a manner to meet a desired attribute. See abstract of Shirokura et al and p. 07300-1 , section "Crystallinity and electric properties of YPtBi at various stoichiometry" through p. 073001-1 through 073001-4, section "Spin Hall properties of YPtBi at various stoichiometry."
Additionally, Shirokura et al. further notes, contrary to the Applicant's position, that Y (yttrium) can indeed have a concentration that is lower than Pt (platinum) and Bi (bismuth) - see, inter alia, page 073001-1, col. 2, ll. 4-7, where the "composition ratio of Y/Pt (denoted as r) [can range] from 0.5 to 1.9". This evidences that that ratio of Y/Pt is less than one, allowing a concebtrartion of Pt and Bi to be higher than Y.
See also page 073001-1, col. 2, ll. 28-32, where, once again the value of Y is less than Pt (or Bi), since r (ratio of Y/Pt) is less than 1.0, and extends down to 0.5.
As such, based upon the teachings and suggestions of Shirokura et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the crystal orientation of the YPtBi layer of Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1) (as set forth in claims 3, 13, 17), in addition to varying the stoichiometric composition of the elements Y, Pt, and Bi to meet the stoichiometric relationships (including concentrations and ratios) set forth in claims 1, 2, 10-12, 17, 18, in order to provide a desired spin Hall angle and/or electric property best suited toward its applied application, through routine optimization/experimentation. "[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, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 stoichiometry of YPtBi.. 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.
No new or unobvious result is seen to be obtained, given the express teachings and motivations of the applied prior art, and as such, the claimed stoichiometric values of the YPtBi topological layer of Le et al. (US 2024/0240994 A1), when viewed in light of the teachings and suggestions of Shirokura et al, are seen, absent any unobvious evidence, as nothing more than a predictable variation based the on such overarching and pertinent teachings of Shirokura et al and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan, in light of the general knowledge of an artisan having ordinary skill in the art, with the express rationale provided supra. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., No. 04-1350 (U.S. Apr. 30, 2007).
Moreover still, the Supreme Court opined "w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentably." (Emphasis added) 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740.
The Examiner finds this situation analogous to the optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the "normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). As noted above, in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955), it was held that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights