Patent Application 17726981 - MAGNETIC MEMORY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR

Title: MAGNETIC MEMORY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME

Application Information

Invention Title: MAGNETIC MEMORY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME
Application Number: 17726981
Submission Date: 2025-05-23T00:00:00.000Z
Effective Filing Date: 2022-04-22T00:00:00.000Z
Filing Date: 2022-04-22T00:00:00.000Z
National Class: 257
National Sub-Class: 258000
Examiner Employee Number: 78028
Art Unit: 2893
Tech Center: 2800

Rejection Summary

102 Rejections: 1
103 Rejections: 2

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text

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 .

Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 11-30) in the reply filed on 4/8/25 is acknowledged.

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.

Claim(s) 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (2014/0374860).
Re claim 11, Suzuki discloses forming a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) unit (MTJ ~ Fig. 1); and forming a shielding element (MS1) which is disposed on the MTJ unit to deviate an external magnetic field away from the MTJ unit, and which includes a magnetic layer (MS1).
In reference to the claim language referring to “to deviate an external magnetic field away from the MTJ unit”, intended use and other types of functional language must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable to performing the intended use, and then it meets the claim. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ F.2d 1647 (1987). In a claim drawn to a process to making, the intended use must result in a manipulative difference as compared to the prior art. In Regarding claim Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); In Regarding claim Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).

Re claim 15, Suzuki discloses wherein forming the shielding element includes: forming an inner dielectric layer (II4) surrounding the MTJ unit (MTJ); forming the magnetic layer (MS1) on the inner dielectric layer, the magnetic layer including a soft magnetic material (Ta); and forming an outer dielectric layer (II5) on the magnetic layer opposite to the inner dielectric layer (Fig. 6A).

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) 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claims 11 and 15 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (2023/0240150).
Re claim 12, Suzuki does not disclose wherein forming the MTJ unit includes: forming an MTJ element on a bottom electrode; and forming a top electrode on the MTJ element.
Chen et al. disclose wherein forming the MTJ unit (4) includes: forming an MTJ element (5) on a bottom electrode (42); and forming a top electrode (43) on the MTJ element (Fig. 2).
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Suzuki and Chen et al. to form the bottom and top electrodes on Suzuki’s device in order to create the magnetic device.

Re claim 13, Chen et al. disclose wherein the MTJ element includes: a reference layer (52) having a fixed magnetic orientation (abstract); a free layer (54) having a changeable magnetic orientation (abstract); and a tunnel barrier layer (53) including an insulating material and disposed between the reference layer and the free layer (abstract and Fig. 2).

Re claim 14, Suzuki discloses wherein forming the MTJ unit further includes: forming a spacer (II2) (Fig. 6A) to cover an outer periphery of the MTJ element exposed from the top electrode and the bottom electrode (disclosed by Chen et al.).

Re claim 16, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited thickness through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of thickness, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

Claim(s) 21-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (2023/0240150) in view of Suzuki (2014/0374860).
Re claim 21, Chen et al. disclose forming a memory unit (4) including: a bottom electrode (42), a memory element (5) disposed on the bottom electrode (42), and a top electrode (43) disposed on the memory element (Fig. 2).
Chen et al. does not disclose forming a shielding element surrounding the memory unit to deviate an external magnetic field away from the memory element.
Suzuki discloses forming a shielding element (MS1) surrounding the memory unit (MTJ) to deviate an external magnetic field away from the memory element.
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Suzuki and Chen et al. to form shielding element of Suzuki in Chen et al.’s device in order to protect the magnetic device.

Re claim 22, Chen et al. disclose wherein the memory unit is a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) unit (4) and the memory element is an MTJ element (5) (Fig. 2).

Re claim 23, Suzuki discloses wherein the shielding element includes a magnetic layer including a soft magnetic material (Ta).

Re claim 24, the combination discloses wherein: the magnetic layer has an upper surface and a lower surface which are distal from and proximate to a lower surface of the bottom electrode, respectively; the MTJ element has an upper surface and a lower surface which are distal from and proximate to the lower surface of the bottom electrode, respectively (Fig. in Suzuki and Fig. 2 in Chen et al.).

One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited height through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of height, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed height or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen height or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen height is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 25, Suzuki discloses wherein the shielding element further includes an inner dielectric layer (II4) disposed between the MTJ unit and the magnetic layer, and an outer dielectric layer (II5) disposed on the magnetic layer opposite to the inner dielectric layer (Fig. 6A).
Re claim 26, it is obvious to use a dielectric material including oxygen, nitrogen or a combination thereof since it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of Applicant’s invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the known material for its own intended purpose.
Re claim 27, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited thickness through routine experimentation to achieve a desired device dimension, device associated characteristics and device density on the finished wafer.
In addition, the selection of thickness, it's obvious because it is a matter of determining optimum process conditions by routine experimentation with a limited number of species of result effective variables. These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996)(claimed ranges or a result effective variable, which do not overlap the prior art ranges, are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill or art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1995) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious).
Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed thickness or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen thickness or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen thickness is critical. In re Woodruf, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re claim 28, Suzuki discloses wherein the soft magnetic material includes tantalum.
Re claim 29, Suzuki discloses wherein forming the MTJ unit further includes: forming a spacer (II2) (Fig. 6A) to cover an outer periphery of the MTJ element exposed from the top electrode and the bottom electrode (disclosed by Chen et al.).

Re claim 30, Chen et al. disclose wherein the MTJ element (5) includes: a reference layer (52) having a fixed magnetic orientation (abstract); a tunnel barrier layer (53) disposed on the reference layer (Fig. 2), and including an insulating material (abstract); and a free layer (54) having a changeable magnetic orientation, and disposed to permit the tunnel barrier layer to be sandwiched between the reference layer and the free layer (abstract and Fig. 2).

Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2013/0154034 A1, US 2023/0067715 A1 disclose a similar method for manufacturing a magnetic memory device.

Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: there is no disclosure in the prior art of “patterning the shielding layer to expose the top electrode and to form a shielding element that surrounds and covers the bottom electrode and the spacer” in combination with the remaining limitations of claim 17.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE MANDALA whose telephone number is (571)272-1858. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 571-272-1236. 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.

/MICHELLE MANDALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893 May 21, 2025