11Notice 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
In light of applicant’s claim amendments, the restriction requirement is withdrawn. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending and are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS was filed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a ferromagnetic structure appended to the top of the upper surface (of the substrate) (claim 1); side of one ferromagnetic structure and the side of another ferromagnetic structure forms a gap (claim 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected because the scope of the claimed invention, in light of applicant’s specification, does not appear to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter with regard to the structural relationship of the “ferromagnetic structure appended to the top of the upper surface (of the substrate)” because applicant’s disclosure (see FIGS. 1-4, 5(a)-(e), and 6-8 and [0044] et seq.) recites a ground layer on the substrate, or the bottom portion of the ferromagnetic structure is a ground layer.
Claim 1 is rejected because “the top of the upper surface,” “the bottom portion of the ferromagnetic structure,” “the top of the first ferromagnetic layer,” and “the top of the first insulator layer” raise an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 1 is rejected because “one of the ferromagnetic layers” is unclear. The Office recommends amending to “the first ferromagnetic layer or the second ferromagnetic layer”.
Claim 2 is rejected because “at least one ferromagnetic layer” is unclear and raises an antecedent basis issue. The Office recommends amending to “the first ferromagnetic layer or the second ferromagnetic layer”.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected because each claim does not clearly claim the subject matter and raises an antecedent basis issue. Is the side for one ferromagnetic structure, and the side of another ferromagnetic structure intended to imply each side is perpendicular to the first or second ferromagnetic layers? The Office recommends amending each claim to recite, “wherein the device comprises two or more ferromagnetic structures, wherein each of the two or more ferromagnetic structures comprise perpendicular sides that are perpendicular to the first ferromagnetic layer or the second ferromagnetic layer, and wherein a perpendicular side of one ferromagnetic structure and a perpendicular side of another ferromagnetic structure form a gap.”
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected because the structural relationship between the two or more ferromagnetic structures and the substrate of claim 1 is unclear. Are the two or more ferromagnetic structures positioned on the same substrate of claim 1?
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected because “the two sides” raises an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 4 is rejected because “one of the ferromagnetic layers” and “the ferromagnetic structure” raise an antecedent basis issue. Furthermore, the attachment of the material does not appear to be clearly claimed. The Office recommends amending to “wherein the material is attached to the perpendicular sides of each of the two or more ferromagnetic structures, wherein the perpendicular sides are part of the first ferromagnetic layer or the second ferromagnetic layer.”
Claim 5 is rejected because “one of the ferromagnetic layers” raises an antecedent basis issue. Also, “a virus sensor” raises an antecedent basis issue. Lastly, “one ferromagnetic structure” and “another ferromagnetic structure” raise an antecedent basis issue (see claim 2 above).
Claim 6 is rejected because “one of the ferromagnetic layers” raises an antecedent basis issue. Also, “a virus sensor” raises an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 7 is rejected because the scope of the claim is unclear. First, a virus sensor raises an antecedent basis issue. Second, because claims 6 and 7 depend on claim 1, which appears to claim one ferromagnetic structure, claiming additional ferromagnetic structures, “one ferromagnetic structure” and “another ferromagnetic structure” makes the claim unclear.
Claim 8 is rejected because “one of the ferromagnetic layers” raises an antecedent basis issue. Also, “a molecular detector” raises an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 10 is rejected because “one of the ferromagnetic layers” is unclear. The Office recommends amending to “the material is attached to the second ferromagnetic layer”. Also, “the material attached to the second ferromagnetic layer is positioned on the top of the ferromagnetic structure” raises an antecedent basis and is unclear. What is claimed to be positioned on the top of the ferromagnetic structure?
Claim 11 is rejected because “the top of the second ferromagnetic layer” and “the top of the second insulator layer” raise an antecedent basis issue.
Claim 12 is rejected because the scope of the claim is not clear. First, because the claim recites the material is attached to one of the ferromagnetic layers, and then recites the material is attached to two different ferromagnetic layers. Second, “one point of attachment” and “the other point of attachment” raise an antecedent basis issue. The Office recommends amending to “first point of attachment of the at least two points of attachment” and “second point of attachment of the at least two points of attachment”. Third, “at least a ferromagnetic layer selected from the first ferromagnetic layer and the third ferromagnetic layer” is unclear. The Office recommends amending to “the first ferromagnetic layer or the third ferromagnetic layer”.
Claim 15 is rejected because the scope of the claim is unclear. First, is claim 15 an independent or dependent claim of claim 1? Second, is the claim directed to a device or a system? The structural relationship between the device of claim 1, magnetic resonance device, and magnetic field detector is unclear.
Claim 17 is rejected because the scope of the claim is unclear. First, is claim 17 an independent or dependent claim of claim 1? Second, is the claim directed to a device or a system? The structural relationship between the device of claim 11, magnetic resonance device, and magnetic field detector is unclear.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected because “testing the magnetic field of the device a first time” raises an antecedent basis issue.
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 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tyagi (Spin Photovoltaic Effect on Molecule Coupled Ferromagnetic Films of a Magnetic Tunnel Junction, 2013).
As to claim 1, Tyagi discloses a molecular tunnel junction based molecular spintronics device comprising: a substrate having an upper surface (see thermally oxidized silicon (Si), or Co layer, or Ta and Co layers in Experimental Details on p. 2); a ferromagnetic structure appended to the top of the upper surface (see fig. 5 on p. 4), wherein the ferromagnetic structure comprises: a first ferromagnetic layer (NiFe or NiFe/Co), wherein the first ferromagnetic layer forms the bottom portion of the ferromagnetic structure; a first insulator layer (AlOx) appended to the top of the first ferromagnetic layer; a second ferromagnetic layer (NiFe) appended to the top of the first insulator layer; and a material attached to one of the ferromagnetic layers, said material selected from a virus sensor or a molecular detector (organometallic molecular clusters (OMCs), see also p. 6, which discloses “according to SQUID magnetometer based experimental studies [8] OMC had opposite nature of magnetic interaction with the two FM electrodes of MTJ testbed, i.e. Co/NiFe/AlOx/NiFe in this case”. Because [0056] of applicant’s PG Pub. recites, “the virus sensors 160/700/710 may be formed from any suitable material, such as enzymes and proteins, and any suitable combination thereof,” Tyagi’s OMC is capable of detecting a virus, and thus, the material can also be a virus sensor.
As to claims 8-10, Tyagi discloses a material attached to one of the ferromagnetic layers is a molecular detector (organometallic molecular clusters (OMCs), see also p. 6, which discloses “according to SQUID magnetometer based experimental studies [8] OMC had opposite nature of magnetic interaction with the two FM electrodes of MTJ testbed, i.e. Co/NiFe/AlOx/NiFe in this case”. Tyagi discloses the molecular detectors is attached to the first and the second ferromagnetic layers, wherein the second ferromagnetic layer is positioned on the top of the ferromagnetic structure in fig. 5 on p. 4.
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.
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 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi in view of Pang et al. (“Pang,” Fixed-Gap Tunnel Junction for Reading DNA Nucleotides, 2014).
See Tyagi above.
As to claims 2-7, while Tyagi discloses multiple MTJs were fabricated in Experimental Details on p. 2, each ferromagnetic structure has a side that is perpendicular to at least one ferromagnetic layer in fig. 5 of Tyagi, and the material is attached to the side of the ferromagnetic layer in fig. 5 of Tyagi, Tyagi does not specifically disclose the side of one ferromagnetic structure and the side of another ferromagnetic structure form a gap of about 1nm to 1000nm. Pang discloses layered tunnel junctions tunnel junctions using electron-beam cuts in nanowires suspended on thin membranes (Supporting Information, Figure S1a) so that the gap size could be measured directly (Figure S1b) in a transmission electron microscope (TEM). We found that gaps between 1.8 and 2 nm gave RT signals (data summarized in Figure S2). This is a little smaller than the 2.5 nm estimated from break junction measurements,14 but subject to much less uncertainty. Thus, 2 nm was chosen as our target size for a fixed tunnel gap. See Experimental Approach on p. 11995. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a gap between the MTJs between 1.8 and 2 nm because it would help overcome the limitation of “the servo system used to maintain the gap distorts recognition tunneling (RT) signals by pulling the probe away from the surface as the current rises” (p. 11995 of Pang). As for the distance between the virus sensors, while Tyagi and Pang disclose multiple ferromagnetic structures, Tyagi and Pang do not specifically disclose the distance between the virus sensors. It would appear that the claimed distance between the virus sensors are result-effective variables. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to determine, through routine experimentation, the claimed distance between the virus sensors because discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claims 11-12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi in view of Tyagi (“Tyagi274,” US Pub. No. 2021/0111274).
See Tyagi above.
As to claim 11, while Tyagi discloses a second insulator layer (TaOx) on top of the second ferromagnetic layer (NiFe) in fig. 5, Tyagi does not specifically disclose a third ferromagnetic layer on top of the insulator layer. Tyagi274 discloses a third ferromagnetic layer (Gate 1035, [0102] et seq.) on top of the insulator layer (insulator in fig. 11C-F). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a third ferromagnetic layer on top of the insulator layer because it allows for the device to be used as field effect based molecular device ([0103] of Tyagi274).
As to claim 12, Tyagi discloses the material is attached to the first and the second ferromagnetic layers in fig. 5 on p. 4.
As to claims 15 and 17, the combination of Tyagi and Tyagi274 disclosed the claimed device of claim 11 (see above), while Tyagi discloses a magnetic field detector (SQUID magnetometer on p. 6 of Tyagi), Tyagi does not specifically disclose a magnetic resonance device. Tyagi274 discloses a radio frequency, which is known to those skilled in the art to be supplied by a magnetic resonance device, in [0111]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to include a magnetic resonance device because it would be desirable to design devices where a molecule may respond to various stimuli, such as radio frequency ([0111] of Tyagi274).
As to claims 16, 18, 19 and 20, the combination of Tyagi and Tyagi274 teach a method of detecting a virus (Tyagi274 teaches detecting DNA nucleotides in [0113] et seq., DNA is the commonly known material found in viruses), comprising: providing the system of claim 17 (see claim 17 above); causing a radio frequency to contact the device (see claim 17 above); testing the magnetic field of the device a first time (see fig. 3 and 5, p. 3 et seq. of Tyagi); causing the device to contact a fluid (see “For the molecule attachment, MTJ samples were immersed in a dichloromethane solution of OMCs (0.1 mM)” on p. 3 of Tyagi); testing the magnetic field of the device a second time after the device is in contact with the fluid (see figs. 3 and 5 of Tyagi); and detecting a change in the magnetic field between the first time and the second time (see figs. 3 and 5 of Tyagi). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to detect a virus because it would be desirable to design devices to detect various analytes.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyagi in view of Tyagi274, as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Pang.
See Tyagi and Pang above.
As to claims 13 and 14, while Tyagi discloses multiple MTJs were fabricated in Experimental Details on p. 2, each ferromagnetic structure has a side that is perpendicular to at least one ferromagnetic layer in fig. 5 of Tyagi, and the material is attached to the side of the ferromagnetic layer in fig. 5 of Tyagi, Tyagi does not specifically disclose the side of one ferromagnetic structure and the side of another ferromagnetic structure form a gap of about 1nm to 1000nm. Pang discloses layered tunnel junctions tunnel junctions using electron-beam cuts in nanowires suspended on thin membranes (Supporting Information, Figure S1a) so that the gap size could be measured directly (Figure S1b) in a transmission electron microscope (TEM). We found that gaps between 1.8 and 2 nm gave RT signals (data summarized in Figure S2). This is a little smaller than the 2.5 nm estimated from break junction measurements,14 but subject to much less uncertainty. Thus, 2 nm was chosen as our target size for a fixed tunnel gap. See Experimental Approach on p. 11995. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a gap between the MTJs between 1.8 and 2 nm because it would help overcome the limitation of “the servo system used to maintain the gap distorts recognition tunneling (RT) signals by pulling the probe away from the surface as the current rises” (p. 11995 of Pang).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORE RAMILLANO JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7420. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday.
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, Lyle Alexander can be reached at 571-272-1254.
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.
/LORE R JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1797
12/27/2025