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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/31/2025 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the domain wall motion elements of the magnetic recording array are magnetically stabilized.” Previously in the claim it is recited that the “domain wall motion elements includ[es]: a first ferromagnetic layer, a domain wall motion layer…, a non-magnetic layer…, a first conductive portion…, a second conductive portion…, a first wiring…, a second wiring…, and a third wiring…”. However, it appears there would not be sufficient written description support in the intrinsic evidence to sufficiently support magnetically stabilizing individual components. Thus, the limitation is interpreted to mean the sum of the components, treated as a whole, is magnetically stabilized, rather than each individual component by itself.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20100214826 A1 Fukami et al. (hereinafter “Fukami”) in view of US 8902644 B2 Sakimura et al. (hereinafter “Sakimura”) in view of US 20100110777 A1 Katou et al. (hereinafter “Katou”) and in further view of Guchang Han, Michael Tran, Cheow Hin Sim, Jacob Chenchen Wang, Kwaku Eason, Sze Ter Lim, Aihong Huang; Control of offset field and pinning stability in perpendicular magnetic tunnelling junctions with synthetic antiferromagnetic coupling multilayer. J. Appl. Phys. 7 May 2015; 117 (17): 17B515. (hereinafter “Han”).
Regarding claim 1, Fukami teaches a magnetic recording array (Fig. 1A, 1C, “80”; Fig. 1B, “10” [0070-0071]) comprising:
a plurality ([0069]) of domain wall motion elements (Fig. 1A, 1C, 5, “80”, [0077]) and a plurality of wirings (Fig. 5, “102, 103a-c, 101, 105”, [0093-0095]),
the plurality ([0069]) of domain wall motion elements (Fig. 1A, 1C, 5, “80”, [0077]) has a first element array (Fig. 1A, 1B, 2, “11a” [0072]) arranged in a first direction ([0073], s-direction) and a second element array (Fig. 1A-C, 2, 3, “11b” [0072]) arranged in a second direction ([0073], t-direction) the first direction ([0073], s-direction),
each of the plurality ([0069]) of domain wall motion elements (Fig. 1A, 1C, 5, “80”, [0077]) including:
a first ferromagnetic layer (Fig. 1A, 1B, 2, “10”; [0070]);
a domain wall motion layer (Fig. 2, “DW”; [0075]) which extends in a direction different ([0077-0078]) from the first direction ([0073], s-direction) and the second direction ([0073], t-direction) and in which an orientation direction of magnetization ([0077]) in a first end portion (Fig. 2, “11a”, [0077], +z) and an orientation direction of magnetization ([0077]) in a second end portion (Fig. 2, “11b”, [0077], -z) are different from each other ([0077], 11a in +z and 11b in -z);
a non-magnetic layer (Fig. 1A-C, 3, “20”, [0070], [0082-0083]) located between the first ferromagnetic layer (Fig. 1A, 1B, 2, “10”; [0070]) and the domain wall motion layer (Fig. 2, “DW”; [0075]);
a first conductive portion (Fig. 2, “12”; [0072]; Fig. 2, “1”, [0079]) facing the first end portion (Fig. 2, “11a”, [0077]) of the domain wall motion layer (Fig. 2, “DW”; [0075]); and
a second conductive portion (Fig. 2, “12”; [0072]; Fig. 2, “0”, [0078]) facing the second end portion (Fig. 2, “11b”, [0077]) of the domain wall motion layer (Fig. 2, “DW”; [0075]),
the plurality of wirings (Fig. 5, “102, 103a-c, 101, 105”, [0093-0095]) including:
a first wiring (Fig. 5, “105, 103c” through “100c”; [0092]) connected over the first ferromagnetic layers ([0094] via “12”; Fig. 1A, 1B, 2, “10”; [0070]) of some of the plurality ([0069]) of domain wall motion elements (Fig. 1A, 1C, 5, “80”, [0077]);
a second wiring (Fig. 5, “102, 103a” through “100a”; [0084]) connected over the first conductive portions (Fig. 2, “12”; [0072]; Fig. 2, “1”, [0079]) of some of the plurality ([0069]) of domain wall motion elements (Fig. 1A, 1C, 5, “80”, [0077]); and
a third wiring (Fig. 5, “102, 103b” through “100b”; [0084]) connected over the second conductive portions (Fig. 2, “12”; [0072]; Fig. 2, “0”, [0078]) of some of the plurality ([0069]) of domain wall motion elements (Fig. 1A, 1C, 5, “80”, [0077]),
wherein, the plurality ([0069]) of domain wall motion elements (Fig. 1A, 1C, 5, “80”, [0077]) has a first element (Fig. 2, in “11a” region, solid dot with circle around it; [0079]), a second element (Fig. 2, in “11b” region, ‘x’ with circle around it; [0078]) and a third element (Fig. 2, in “12” region, solid dot with circle around it in left-hand-side figure and ‘x’ with circle around it in right-hand-side figure; [0078-0079]),
the second element (Fig. 2, in “11b” region, ‘x’ with circle around it; [0078]) has the second end portion (Fig. 2, “11b”, [0077]) closest to the first end portion (Fig. 2, “11a”, [0077]) of the first element (Fig. 2, in “11a” region, solid dot with circle around it; [0079]),
the third element (Fig. 2, in “12” region, solid dot with circle around it in left-hand-side figure and ‘x’ with circle around it in right-hand-side figure; [0078-0079]) has the second end portion (Fig. 2, “11b”, [0077]) closest or second closest to the first end portion (Fig. 2, “11a”, [0077]) of the first element (Fig. 2, in “11a” region, solid dot with circle around it; [0079]),
the first end portion (Fig. 2, “11a”, [0077]) of the first element (Fig. 2, in “11a” region, solid dot with circle around it; [0079]) and the second end portion (Fig. 2, “11b”, [0077]) of the second element (Fig. 2, in “11b” region, ‘x’ with circle around it; [0078]) and the first end portion (Fig. 2, “11a”, [0077]) of the first element (Fig. 2, in “11a” region, solid dot with circle around it; [0079]) and the second end portion (Fig. 2, “11b”, [0077]) of the third element (Fig. 2, in “12” region, solid dot with circle around it in left-hand-side figure and ‘x’ with circle around it in right-hand-side figure; [0078-0079]) are shorter than between the first end portion (Fig. 2, “11a”, [0077]) of the first element (Fig. 2, in “11a” region, solid dot with circle around it; [0079]) and the first end portion (Fig. 2, “11a”, [0077]) closest to the first end portion (Fig. 2, “11a”, [0077]) of the first element (Fig. 2, in “11a” region, solid dot with circle around it; [0079]), and
the domain wall motion layer has a rectangular shape (Fig. 2, DW forms rectangular area 11b when 11a = “0” [0078], DW forms rectangular area 11a when 11a = “1” [0079]).
Although Fukami generally teaches elements of the magnetic recording array device, they are silent with disclosing measurements regarding the distances between components, specifically a first distance, second distance, third distance, closest, and shorter. Further, they are silent with disclosing: a first element array arranged in a first direction and a second element array arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; the second conductive portion being separate from the first conductive portion; the first end portion and the second end portion correspond to one end and another end of the rectangular shape respectively, and the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion are different parts that both face. Further, Fukami is silent with explicitly disclosing the domain wall motion elements of the magnetic recording array are magnetically stabilized.
Regarding claim 1, the preamble is given patentable weight. Claim 1 contains the limitation “the magnetic recording array” in the body, which is referring to the limitations as recited in the preamble. A skilled person in the art reading the claims would consider the claim in view of the body and preamble, and identify them limited to the technological environment of the magnetic recording array. The body of the claim depends on the preamble for completeness, and gives life, meaning, and vitality to this claim. Therefore, the preamble of claim 1 should be afforded patentable weight.
Sakimura teaches:
a first distance (Fig. 9A, “4F”; Col. 10, lines 1-6)
a second distance (Fig. 9A, diagonal length found when using horizontal distance “3F” and vertical distance “4F”; Col. 10, lines 1-6)
a third distance (Fig. 9A, “3F”; Col. 10, lines 1-6)
second end portion closest (Fig. 9A, “4F”; Col. 10, lines 1-6; associated with first distance) to the first end portion
second end portion closest or second closest (Fig. 9A, diagonal length found when using horizontal distance “3F” and vertical distance “4F”; Col. 10, lines 1-6) to the first end portion
a second distance (Fig. 9A, diagonal length found when using horizontal distance “3F” and vertical distance “4F”; Col. 10, lines 1-6) between the first end portion of the first element and the second end portion of the third element are shorter (Fig. 9A, diagonal length found when using horizontal distance “3F” and vertical distance “4F”; Col. 10, lines 1-6; Fig. 9A, “3F”; Col. 10, lines 1-6; length found using “3F” and “4” is shorter than “3F”) than a third distance (Fig. 9A, “3F”; Col. 10, lines 1-6) between the first end portion of the first element and the first end portion closest (Fig. 9A, “3F”; Col. 10, lines 1-6; associated with the third distance) to the first end portion of the first element.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fukami’s magnetic recording array elements with Sakimura’s distances technique because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of magnetic random access memory elements (Col. 1, lines 1-18). While Fukami generally teaches magnetic recording array elements, they do not specifically detail measurements of distances and lengths between components. Sakimura teaches assigning lengths to various components (Fig. 9A, “4F”; Col. 10, lines 1-6; Fig. 9A, diagonal length found when using horizontal distance “3F” and vertical distance “4F”; Col. 10, lines 1-6; Fig. 9A, “3F”; Col. 10, lines 1-6). It would be beneficial to make this modification as doing so would allow area optimization of the device to its ideal size while maintaining the smallest interconnection width and interval (Abstract; Col. 1, lines 26-43). Modifying with Sakimura’s distances features would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Fukami’s elements were ready for improvement to incorporate the distances, as taught by Sakimura.
Fukami in view of Sakimura are silent with disclosing: a first element array arranged in a first direction and a second element array arranged in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; the second conductive portion being separate from the first conductive portion; the first end portion and the second end portion correspond to one end and another end of the rectangular shape respectively, and the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion are different parts that both face. Further, Sakimura and Fukami in view of Sakimura are silent with explicitly disclosing the domain wall motion elements of the magnetic recording array are magnetically stabilized.
Katou teaches:
a first element array arranged in a first direction and a second element array arranged in a second direction perpendicular (Fig. 22, 12 in y direction perpendicular to 11 in x to direction, [0121], [0109] describes Fig. 18, a similar embodiment as 12 and 11 are at right angles to each other) to the first direction;
the second conductive portion being separate (Fig. 22, 30-1 separated from 30-2 by gap 31, [0122]) from the first conductive portion;
the first end portion and the second end portion correspond to one end and another end of the rectangular shape respectively, and the first conductive portion and the second conductive portion are different parts that both face (Fig. 29, when “0” DW forms B1 with 12 and 13 both facing DW and forming different sized rectangular shapes, when “1” DW forms B2 with 12 and 13 both facing DW and forming different sized rectangular shapes [0142]) the domain wall motion layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fukami in view of Sakimura’s magnetic recording array elements with Katou’s perpendicular, separate, and rectangular features because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of magnetic random access memory elements ([abstract]).
While Fukami generally teaches magnetic recording array elements, they do not specifically detail the first element array and second element array arranged perpendicular in directions. It would have been obvious to try a perpendicular arrangement or at 90
°
, as taught by Katou (Fig. 22, 12 in y direction perpendicular to 11 in x to direction, [0121], [0109] describes Fig. 18, a similar embodiment as 12 and 11 are at right angles to each other), because in practicality there are a finite number of angles of arrangement. For example, Fukami teaches at an angle greater than 90
°
(Fig. 1B, the s and t directions), at an angle of 180
°
(Fig. 14B, the s and t directions), and at an angle less than 90
°
(Fig. 14A, the s and t directions). Thus, given that the range of angles, previously taught by Fukami, span from less than 90
°
to 180
°
, it would have been obvious to try 90
°
, or perpendicular, and yield predictable results.
While Fukami generally teaches magnetic recording array elements, they do not specifically detail the first conductive portion and second conductive portion as being separate. Fukami in view of Sakimura discloses the claimed invention except for the first conductive portion and second conductive portion as being separate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to separate the conductive portions, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179. Additionally, it would have been obvious to make separable as it introduces a gap between parts, which is beneficial as it provides a continuous supply of spin electrons to the domain wall ([0122]) and keeps the device running smoothly.
While Fukami generally teaches magnetic recording array elements, they do not specifically detail the first end portion and second end portion forming a rectangular shape and are different parts that both face the domain wall. While Fukami teaches an embodiment where both different parts face each other (Fig. 28C, 11a and 11b), they are silent with disclosing inserting a domain wall in between them. However, it would have been obvious to try as Katou teaches several other embodiments where the shape of the part varies and both parts face a domain wall: elliptical portion with rectangular portion (Fig. 5, [0062]), rounded edges of u-shape (Fig. 6, [0065]), rounded edge perpendicular to rounded long shape to of t-shape (Fig. 20, [0118]), series of pinned rounded edges perpendicular to rounded long shape to form series of t-shapes (Fig. 21, [0019]). Thus, given the finite number of variations presented, it would have been obvious to try the one where the domain wall forms the rectangular area, as it is shown to form other shapes as taught by Katou.
Modifying with Katou’s perpendicular, separate, and rectangular features would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Fukami in view of Sakimura’s elements were ready for improvement to incorporate the features, as taught by Katou.
Further, Katou and Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou are silent with explicitly disclosing the domain wall motion elements of the magnetic recording array are magnetically stabilized.
Han discloses the domain wall motion elements of the magnetic recording array are magnetically stabilized (pg. 2, Abstract; Pg. 3-II, co. 2, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou’s magnetic recording array elements with Han’s magnetically stabilization feature because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of magnetic random access memory elements (Pg. 2-I, co. 1). It would be beneficial to make this modification as doing so would provide greater support for stability in the device, and thus avoiding unintended and unwanted effects, such as maintaining ease of switch during programming but remaining stable for data retention, or even in the extreme case losing data due to absence of bistable states (Pg. 2-I, co. 1-2). Modifying with Han’s magnetically stabilization feature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou’s elements were ready for improvement to ensure integrity of device operation by ensuring magnetic stability, as taught by Han.
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Fukami teaches the magnetic recording array wherein:
at least one of the first conductive portion (Fig. 2, “12”; [0072]; Fig. 2, “1”, [0079]) and the second conductive portion (Fig. 2, “12”; [0072]; Fig. 2, “0”, [0078]) contains a magnetic material ([0071], [0002]).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Fukami teaches the magnetic recording array further comprising:
a first transistor (Fig. 5, “100c”, [0092]) and a second transistor (Fig. 5, “100a”, [0084]),
the first transistor (Fig. 5, “100c”, [0092]) is located between the first ferromagnetic layer ([0094] via “12”; Fig. 1A, 1B, 2, “10”; [0070]) of the domain wall motion element (Fig. 1A, 1C, 5, “80”, [0077]) and the first wiring (Fig. 5, “105, 103c” through “100c”; [0092]); and
the second transistor (Fig. 5, “100a”, [0084]) is located between the first conductive portion (Fig. 2, “12”; [0072]; Fig. 2, “1”, [0079]) of the domain wall motion element (Fig. 1A, 1C, 5, “80”, [0077]) and the second wiring (Fig. 5, “102, 103a” through “100a”; [0084]).
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 5 analysis, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and Fukami teaches the magnetic recording array further comprising:
a third transistor (Fig. 5, “100b”, [0084]) which is located between the second conductive portion (Fig. 2, “12”; [0072]; Fig. 2, “0”, [0078]) of the domain wall motion element (Fig. 1A, 1C, 5, “80”, [0077]) and the third wiring (Fig. 5, “102, 103b” through “100b”; [0084]).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Fukami teaches the magnetic recording array wherein:
the first wiring (Fig. 5, “105, 103c” through “100c”; [0092]) and the second wiring (Fig. 5, “102, 103a” through “100a”; [0084]) are parallel to each other (Fig. 5, “105” parallel to “103a” and “103c” parallel to “102”).
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Fukami teaches the magnetic recording array wherein:
the first wiring (Fig. 5, “105, 103c” through “100c”; [0092]) and the second wiring (Fig. 5, “102, 103a” through “100a”; [0084]) intersect each other (Fig. 5, “105” intersect with “102” and “103c” intersect with “103a”).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shiino, Takayuki, et al. “Antiferromagnetic Domain Wall Motion Driven by Spin-Orbit Torques.” Physical Review Letters, vol. 117, no. 8, Aug. 2016. Crossref, https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.117.087203. (hereinafter “Shiino”).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Fukami teaches the magnetic recording array wherein:
each of the domain wall motion layers (Fig. 2, “DW”; [0075])
with respect to the first direction ([0073], s-direction), and the number (Fig. 2, left-hand-side “0” is zero DW) of the domain wall motion elements (Fig. 2, “DW”; [0075]) constituting the first element array (Fig. 1A, 1B, 2, “11a” [0072]) is smaller than the number (Fig. 2, left-hand-side “0” is one DW) of the domain wall motion elements (Fig. 2, “DW”; [0075]) constituting the second element array (Fig. 1A-C, 2, 3, “11b” [0072]).
Although Fukami generally teaches the domain wall motion layers, they are silent with disclosing measurements regarding the tilting the layers at specific angles. The combination of Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han also do not explicitly teach tilting angles of the domain wall motion layers larger than 0 degrees and smaller than 45 degrees.
Shiino teaches:
tilted at an angle (“Supplementary Material for ‘Antiferromagnetic domain wall motion driven by spin-orbit torques’”, Pg. 9, Fig. 2B, curves corresponding to angles; Pg. 8, Sec. 4, Para. 4) larger than 0 degrees and smaller than 45 degrees (“Supplementary Material for ‘Antiferromagnetic domain wall motion driven by spin-orbit torques’”, Pg. 9, Fig. 2B, curves falling between
1
°
-
44
°
).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han’s magnetic recording array device with Shiino’s tilting technique because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of ferromagnetic (Pg. 1, Abstract), antiferromagnetic (Pg. 1, Para. 1), and synthetic antiferromagnetic components (“Supplementary Material for ‘Antiferromagnetic domain wall motion driven by spin-orbit torques’”, Pg. 9, Sec. 4, Para. 1). While Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han generally teaches the magnetic recording array device, they do not specifically detail tilting the domain motion wall layers. Shiino teaches using various antiferromagnetic exchanges (“Supplementary Material for ‘Antiferromagnetic domain wall motion driven by spin-orbit torques’”, Pg. 9, Fig. 2b, -1.0meV, -5.0meV, -10.0meV) to tilt the domain wall angles (“Supplementary Material for ‘Antiferromagnetic domain wall motion driven by spin-orbit torques’”, Pg. 9, Fig. 2B, curves corresponding to angles; Pg. 8, Sec. 4, Para. 4). Shiino teaches that these techniques are able to tilt the angles between 0° to
~
60° (“Supplementary Material for ‘Antiferromagnetic domain wall motion driven by spin-orbit torques’”, Pg. 9, Fig. 2B, y-axis). In practicality, there are only a finite number of angles Shiino presented, angles between 0° to
~
60°. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to try these tilting techniques in Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han’s device in an attempt to provide various angles, as a person with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that domain wall tilt depends on the material, true antiferromagnetic or synthetic antiferromagnetic, and therefore each material’s properties possess damping-like characteristics that causing tilting or suppress-like characteristics that reduce tilting (“Supplementary Material for ‘Antiferromagnetic domain wall motion driven by spin-orbit torques’”, Pg. 9, Para. 2). In turn, because Shiino’s tilting techniques when used in the Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han’s device have predictable properties of domain wall tilting, it would have been obvious to make this modification.
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Fukami teaches the magnetic recording array wherein:
each of the domain wall motion layers (Fig. 2, “DW”; [0075])
with respect to the first direction ([0073], s-direction), and the number (Fig. 2, right-hand-side “1” is one DW) of the domain wall motion elements (Fig. 2, “DW”; [0075]) constituting the first element array (Fig. 1A, 1B, 2, “11a” [0072]) is larger than the number (Fig. 2, right-hand-side “1” is zero DW) of the domain wall motion elements (Fig. 2, “DW”; [0075]) constituting the second element array (Fig. 1A-C, 2, 3, “11b” [0072]).
Although Fukami generally teaches the domain wall motion layers, they are silent with disclosing measurements regarding the tilting the layers at specific angles. The combination of Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han also do not explicitly teach tilting angles of the domain wall motion layers larger than 45 degrees and smaller than 90 degrees.
Shiino teaches:
is tilted at an angle (“Supplementary Material for ‘Antiferromagnetic domain wall motion driven by spin-orbit torques’”, Pg. 9, Fig. 2B, curves corresponding to angles; Pg. 8, Sec. 4, Para. 4) larger than 45 degrees and smaller than 90 degrees (“Supplementary Material for ‘Antiferromagnetic domain wall motion driven by spin-orbit torques’”, Pg. 9, Fig. 2B, curves falling between
46
°
-
89
°
).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 3 equally applies to claim 4.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gnawali, Krishna Prasad et al. “Low Power Spintronic Ternary Content Addressable Memory.” IEEE Transactions on Nanotechnology 17 (2018): 1206-1216. (hereinafter “Gnawali”).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 1 analysis, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Fukami teaches a product-sum calculator comprising:
the plurality ([0069]) of domain wall motion elements (Fig. 1A, 1C, 5, “80”, [0077]) belonging to the first element array (Fig. 1A, 1B, 2, “11a” [0072])
the first wiring (Fig. 5, “105, 103c” through “100c”; [0092]) and
the second wiring (Fig. 5, “102, 103a” through “100a”; [0084]).
Although Fukami generally teaches the elements of the magnetic recording array device, they are silent with disclosing the magnetic recording array according to claim 1.
The combination of Fukami in view of Sakimura teaches:
the magnetic recording array (all limitations cited with respect to rejection analysis of claim 1) according to claim 1.
Fukami is also silent with disclosing a sum calculation unit, a peripheral circuit, a first and second power supply. The combination of Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han further does not explicitly teach a sum calculation unit connected, a peripheral circuit disposed around, a first power supply connected, and a second power supply connected.
Gnawali teaches:
a sum calculation unit (Fig. 6, MLSA; Pg. 6, Col. 2, Para. 2) connected (Fig. 6, wire connection to cells)
a peripheral circuit (Fig. 6, encompassing Row address decoder, programming circuitry, and Column address decoder; Pg. 6, Col. 1-2, Sub. C, Para. 1) disposed around (Fig. 6, encompassing Row address decoder, programming circuitry, and Column address decoder),
the peripheral circuit (Fig. 6, encompassing: Row address decoder, programming circuitry, and Column address decoder; Pg. 6, Col. 1-2, Sub. C, Para. 1) includes a first power supply (Fig. 6, Column address decoder; Pg. 6, Col. 1-2, Sub. C, Para. 1) connected (Fig. 6, wire connection to transistors via vertical lines), a second power supply (Fig. 6, Row address decoder; Pg. 6, Col. 1-2, Sub. C, Para. 1) connected (Fig. 6, wire connection to transistors via horizontal lines).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han’s magnetic recording array device with Gnawali’s additional circuitry because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of magnetic memory (Pg. 2, Col. 1, Para. 1; Pg. 1, Col. 1, Para. 1). While Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han generally teaches the magnetic recording array device, they do not specifically detail a sum calculation unit connected, a peripheral circuit disposed around, a first power supply connected, and a second power supply connected. Gnawali teaches these additional circuitry components as disclosed in the rejection of claim 9 above. It would have been obvious in the memory art to apply Gnawali’s additional circuitry as using memristor technologies are common substitutes for traditional SRAM blocks causing reduction in power leakages (Pg. 1, Col. 2, Para. 2), as taught by Gnawali. Incorporating this additional circuitry is effectively similar to switching out traditional SRAM with memristors, which provides a predictable level of area efficiency in the combination of Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Modifying with Gnawali’s additional circuitry would have been obvious, since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han’s device was ready for improvement to incorporate the additional circuitry, as taught by Gnawali.
The preamble in claim 1 has been given patentable weight as claim 9 depends on the preamble for completeness, and gives life, meaning, and vitality into this claim by the reference to “the magnetic recording array”. A skilled person in the art reading the claims would consider the claim in view of the body and the preamble, and identify them limited to device as described by claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 9 analysis, the rejection of claim 9 is incorporated and Fukami teaches the product-sum calculator wherein:
the third wiring (Fig. 5, “102, 103b” through “100b”; [0084]), which is commonly connected (Fig. 5, connected via transistor 100a) to the first element array (Fig. 1A, 1B, 2, “11a” [0072]), during a period ([0089], [0091] time to enable data to be read) from when a read current ([0084-0085] through bit line 101) is applied ([0089], [0091] bit line 101 is “HIGH”) to all the domain wall motion elements (Fig. 1A, 1C, 5, “80”, [0077]) disposed in the first element array (Fig. 1A, 1B, 2, “11a” [0072]) to when the read current ([0084-0085] through bit line 101) is not applied ([0089], [0091], [0082] not activating reading).
Although Fukami generally teaches the elements of the magnetic recording array device, they are silent with disclosing the magnetic recording array according to claim 1.
The combination of Fukami in view of Sakimura teaches:
the magnetic recording array (all limitations cited with respect to rejection analysis of claim 1) according to claim 1;
Fukami is also silent to a sum calculation unit, a peripheral circuit, a first and second power supply. The combination of Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han further does not explicitly teach wherein the peripheral circuit further includes a control unit, the sum calculation unit further includes a detector, the control unit is connected to the detector, and the control unit controls the detector to detect a total current amount of an electric current flowing through.
Gnawali teaches:
wherein the peripheral circuit (Fig. 6, encompassing Row address decoder, programming circuitry, and Column address decoder; Pg. 6, Col. 1-2, Sub. C, Para. 1) further includes a control unit (Fig. 6, programming circuitry; Pg. 4, Col. 1, Para. 2; Pg. 6, Col. 1-2, Sub. C, Para. 1),
the sum calculation unit (Fig. 6, MLSA; Pg. 6, Col. 2, Para. 2) further includes a detector (Fig. 6, sensing amplifiers in MLSA; Pg. 1, Col. 2, Para. 3),
the control unit (Fig. 6, programming circuitry; Pg. 4, Col. 1, Para. 2; Pg. 6, Col. 1-2, Sub. C, Para. 1) is connected (Fig. 6, connected via cells) to the detector (Fig. 6, sensing amplifiers in MLSA; Pg. 1, Col. 2, Para. 3), and the control unit (Fig. 6, programming circuitry; Pg. 4, Col. 1, Para. 2; Pg. 6, Col. 1-2, Sub. C, Para. 1) controls the detector (Fig. 6, sensing amplifiers in MLSA; Pg. 1, Col. 2, Para. 3) to detect a total current amount (Pg. 6, Col. 2, Para. 5-6) of an electric current flowing through (Pg. 3, Col. 2, Para. 3; Pg. 1, Col. 2, Para. 4).
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 9 equally applies to claim 10.
The preamble in claim 1 has been given patentable weight as claim 10 depends on the preamble for completeness, and gives life, meaning, and vitality into this claim by the reference to “the magnetic recording array”. A skilled person in the art reading the claims would consider the claim in view of the body and the preamble, and identify them limited to device as described by claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, in addition to the teachings addressed in the claim 10 analysis, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated.
Although Fukami generally teaches the elements of the magnetic recording array device, but they are silent with disclosing one or a plurality of product-sum calculator according to claim 9. Although the combination of Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han generally teaches the magnetic recording array according to claim 1, they are silent with disclosing one or a plurality of product-sum calculator according to claim 9.
Fukami in view of Sakimura in view of Katou in view of Han in further view of Gnawali teaches:
One or a plurality of product-sum calculators (all limitations cited with respect to rejection analysis of claim 9) according to claim 9.
The motivation to combine provided with respect to claim 9 equally applies to claim 11.
The preamble in claim 9 has been given patentable weight as claim 11 depends on the preamble for completeness, and gives life, meaning, and vitality into this claim by the reference to “the product-sum calculator”. A skilled person in the art reading the claims would consider the claim in view of the body and the preamble, and identify them limited to device as described by claim 9.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 103. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks Pg. 6-9, filed 10/31/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-11 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Han, as necessitated by the amendment.
To the extent Applicant’s arguments are related to previous features of the claimed invention, Applicant asserts that, the first, second, and third distances recited in claim 1 lead to the "magnetically stabilized" feature. Applicant now submits that none of the cited references disclose or suggest the "magnetically stabilized" feature (Remarks Pg. 7 ⁋ 3).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is arguing unclaimed features as the relationship between the distances and magnetic stability is not explicitly claimed. The claims instead recite, as explained in the Claim Interpretation section, that the device as a whole is magnetically stabilized, but not as a consequence of the specific distances.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARKUS A VILLANUEVA whose telephone number is (703)756-1603. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 am - 5:30 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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/MARKUS ANTHONY VILLANUEVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2151
/James Trujillo/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151