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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 23 October 2025 has been entered.
Applicant has amended claim 1.
Claim 12 was previously canceled.
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 7 May 2025 have been considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant has asserted that the element injection disclosed by Murayama cannot attain the feature where a width of each of the first nitride region and the second nitride region is narrower than a width of the third nitride region.
As stated in the previous rejection, the implantation process disclosed by Murayama would produce claimed greater width in the non-magnetic layer. Since the layers are injected simultaneously, each layer receives the same flux of ions, producing varying widths of the nitride regions based on the target material.
Feng is used to establish that the predicable result for this process would be a wider nitride region in the non-magnetic layer than the ferromagnetic layers.
Applicant further asserts that this is due to the difference in process between the sequential nitrogen plasma steps of the instant application and the spin injection process that applies nitrogen simultaneously disclosed by Murayama and that the nitrogen plasma process uses thermal diffusion instead of ion injection.
However, the process of forming the nitride regions is not claimed. Murayama discloses a device with the claimed widths based on the depth of ion injection shown by Feng.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama et al. USPGPUB No. 20130313506 (hereinafter Murayama) in view of Feng et al. Phys. Rev. B, 10, 3781-88 (1974) (hereinafter Feng).
Regarding claim 1, Murayama discloses (figs. 3B-22) a magneto resistive element comprising:
a laminate including a first ferromagnetic layer (12 and 12A), a second ferromagnetic layer (14 and 14A), and a non-magnetic layer (13) (¶32, 35-39); and
and an insulating layer (16) (¶50) configured to cover at least a part of a side surface of the laminate (fig. 3B), wherein the non-magnetic layer (13) is located between the first ferromagnetic layer (12 and 12A) and the second ferromagnetic layer (14 and 14A) (fig. 3B), and
wherein the first ferromagnetic layer (12 and 12A) has a first non-nitride region (12) and a first nitride region (12A) that is closer to the insulating layer (16) than the first non-nitride region and contains nitrogen (fig. 12, ¶39),
wherein the first nitride region (12A) is a ferromagnet containing nitrogen and having conductivity (¶35, where alloys of cobalt, iron, and/or nickel would be conductive even after the addition of nitrogen), and the first nitride region is outside the first non-nitride region and is a region surrounding the first non-nitride region (fig. 21A-22, where the nitride regions are shown on the outside of the non-nitride region in the cross-section in fig. 21B and surrounding in the top view 21A),
wherein the second ferromagnetic layer (14 and 14A) has a second non-nitride region (14) and a second nitride region (14A) that is closer to the insulating layer than the second non-nitride region and contains nitrogen,
wherein the non-magnetic layer (13) has a third non-nitride region and a third nitride region that is closer to the insulating layer than the third non-nitride region and contains nitrogen (fig. 12, where the region of 13 within the injection region 17 is a nitride region and the remaining area of 13 is the non-nitride region), and
wherein a width of each of the first nitride region and the second nitride region is narrower than a width of the third nitride region.
Murayama discloses injection region 17 applied uniformly to outer region of layers 12, 13, and 14. Murayama does not explicitly disclose wherein a width of each of the first nitride region and the second nitride region is narrower than a width of the third nitride region.
MPEP §2144.02 states, “The rationale to support a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 may rely on logic and sound scientific principle. In re Soli, 317 F.2d 941, 137 USPQ 797 (CCPA 1963).”
Feng discloses adherence to Bragg’s rule for electronic stopping power by measuring the ratios of elastically back-scattered ions on metal-oxide targets including the materials Fe and MgO used by Murayama for in ferromagnetic layers (12 and 14) and non-magnetic layer (13).
From Feng Table 1, positive ratios indicate higher back-scatter yield of first target component, with back-scatter yield being directly proportional to stopping power and inversely proportional to the penetration depth of a positive ion injection (lower back-scatter yield results in increased thickness of the ion injection region). This indicates back-scatter yields of Fe > Al > Mg > MgO for the same incident-ion energy.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing that uniform ion injection as disclosed by Feng would produce predictable results from nitrogen ion injection in the device of Murayama, where, where the non-magnetic MgO layer would have increased thickness compared to the nitride regions of the ferromagnetic layers.
Regarding claim 2, Murayama in view of Feng discloses the magneto resistive element according to claim 1,
wherein the second ferromagnetic layer (14 and 14A) has a second non-nitride region (14) and a second nitride region (14A) that is closer to the insulating layer (16) than the second non-nitride region (14A) and contains nitrogen (Murayama fig. 12, ¶32, 35, 37-39).
Regarding claim 3, Murayama in view of Feng discloses the magneto resistive element according to claim 1,
wherein the first nitride region (12A) (Murayama ¶32, 35, 37-39) is a nitride (Murayama ¶39) or an oxynitride containing one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, and Fe (Murayama ¶35).
Regarding claim 4, Murayama in view of Feng discloses the magneto resistive element according to claim 2,
wherein the second nitride region (14A) (Murayama ¶32, 35, 37-39) is a nitride (Murayama ¶39) or an oxynitride containing one or more elements selected from the group consisting of Ni, Co, and Fe (Murayama ¶35).
Regarding claim 5, Murayama in view of Feng discloses the magneto resistive element according to claim 1,
wherein the non-magnetic layer (13) contains any one of MgO (Murayama ¶32, 36), Al2O3, and spinel-structured oxides represented by AB204, and wherein, in the spinel-structured oxide represented by AB204, A is at least one of Mg and Zn and B is at least one of Al, Ga, and In.
Regarding claim 6, Murayama in view of Feng discloses the magneto resistive element according to claim 1,
wherein the non-magnetic layer (13) (Murayama ¶32, 36, 45-47) has a third non-nitride region (13 not overlapping injection region 17) and a third nitride region (13 overlapping injection region 17) that is closer to the insulating layer (16) (Murayama ¶50) than the third non-nitride (13 not overlapping injection region 17) region and contains nitrogen. (Murayama fig. 12, ¶47).
Regarding claim 7, Murayama in view of Feng discloses the magneto resistive element according to claim 6, wherein the third nitride region (13 overlapping injection region 17) (Murayama ¶32, 36, 45-47) is an oxynitride containing an element constituting the non-magnetic layer (13) (where 13 can be MgO, Murayama ¶36, and the area overlapping injection region 17 would be subject to ion injection that can be nitrogen, Murayama ¶39).
Regarding claim 8, Murayama in view of Feng discloses the magneto resistive element according to claim 1,
wherein the insulating layer (16) (Murayama ¶50) contains a nitride in a portion in contact with the laminate (Murayama fig. 12, ¶47, where element injection region 17 overlaps insulation layer 16).
Regarding claim 9, Murayama in view of Feng discloses the magneto resistive element according to claim 1,
wherein a width of the first nitride region is 3 nm or less (fig. 7, Murayama ¶55, where the magnetization portion that can be 12A, a thickness of 2 nm is deactivated by ion injection).
Regarding claim 10, Murayama in view of Feng discloses the magneto resistive element according to claim 2,
wherein a width of the second nitride region is 3 nm or less (Murayama fig. 7, ¶55, where the magnetization portion that can be 14A, a thickness of 2 nm is deactivated by ion injection).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murayama in view of Feng and Takahashi et al. US PGPUB No. 20120074511 (hereinafter Takahashi).
Regarding claim 11, Murayama in view of Feng discloses the magneto resistive element according to claim 1.
Murayama discloses wherein the second ferromagnetic layer (14 and 14A) has a second non-nitride region (14) and a second nitride region (14A) that is closer to the insulating layer (16) than the second non-nitride region (14A) and contains nitrogen (Murayama fig. 12, ¶32, 35, 37-39).
Murayama does not disclose wherein a width of the second nitride region is narrower than a width of the first nitride region.
In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi discloses (fig. 8) first ferromagnetic layer (12) and second ferromagnetic layer (14) (Takahashi ¶26, 30), wherein the first ferromagnetic layer (12) contains the first non-nitride region (12a) and the first nitride region (12b) (Takahashi ¶30), and the second ferromagnetic layer (14) contains the second non-nitride region (14a) and the second nitride region (14b) (Takahashi ¶30). Takahashi further discloses wherein a width of the second nitride region (14b) is narrower than a width of the first nitride region (12b) (Takahashi fig. 8, ¶32, 64-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective time of filing to have wider first nitride region into the magneto resistive element of Murayama as taught by Takashi to “so that the influence of a leak field from the reference layer 14 on the recording layer 12 can be reduced” (Takahashi ¶32).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Seth Lawson whose telephone number is (703)756-5675. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PST.
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, Yara Green can be reached at (571) 270-3035. 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.
/Seth D Lawson/ Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/YARA B GREEN/ Supervisor Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893