Office Action Predictor
Application No. 17/814,243

MRAM STRUCTURE WITH RAISED EDGE OF TUNNEL BARRIER LAYER

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 22, 2022
Examiner
MCCUTCHEON, COLIN RUSSELL
Art Unit
2892
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
International Business Machines Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
83%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

83%
Career Allow Rate
29 granted / 35 resolved
Without
With
+24.0%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
24 pending
59
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
66.0%
+26.0% vs TC avg
§102
25.3%
-14.7% vs TC avg
§112
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103
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 . Response to Amendment & Claims’ Status The Amendment filed on 2/4/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-12 and 15-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-4 and 6-12 are currently being examined, with Claims 5 and 15-20 withdrawn to due to the election without traverse on 10/6/2025. Claims 1-2, 8, 10, and 15 have been amended. Claims 13-14 have been cancelled by the Applicant. No claims have been newly added. The objection of Claim 14 in the previous office action is now moot, due to Claim 14’s cancellation. 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 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doris et al (US 2021/0091300 A1, of record, hereafter Doris) in view of Wang et al (US 2022/0310902 A1, hereafter Wang). Re Claim 1, Doris discloses a MRAM structure (FIG. 15; [0078]-[0089]) comprising: a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) stack, the MTJ stack comprising, vertically from a bottom to a top thereof, a bottom electrode layer (48; [0067]), a first ferromagnetic layer (54L; [0079]), a tunnel barrier layer (56L; [0079]), a second ferromagnetic layer (58L; [0079]), and a top electrode layer (60L; [0078]), wherein the second ferromagnetic layer (58L) is directly on top of the tunnel barrier layer (56L; [0079]) and has a sidewall ([0079], left sidewall, see FIG. Z1 below), and a peripheral portion (outer portions, see FIG. Z1 below) of the tunnel barrier layer (56L) surrounds at least a first portion of the sidewall (bottom left sidewall; [0079], see FIG. Z1 below) of the second ferromagnetic layer (58L; [0079]), and wherein the first ferromagnetic layer (54L) has a sidewall ([0079], left sidewall, see FIG. Z1 below). Doris does not explicitly disclose wherein a conformal liner covers the sidewall of the first ferromagnetic layer (54L, left sidewall). However, Wang teaches an MRAM structure (FIG. 1; [0016]-[0022]) comprising wherein a conformal liner (118; [0021]) covers the sidewall of the first ferromagnetic layer (within 112; [0021], covers in the horizontal direction). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the limitations taught by Doris with the limitations taught by Wang to include a conformal liner to provide increased physical and electrical separation/isolation along the MTJ’s sidewalls as taught by Wang ([0021]). PNG media_image1.png 401 641 media_image1.png Greyscale FIG. Z1: Annotated version of FIG. 15 of Doris Re Claim 2, Doris and Wang teach the structure according to Claim 1, while Doris further teaches wherein the first ferromagnetic layer (54L) has a sidewall ([0079], left sidewall, see FIG. Z1), and the sidewall of the first ferromagnetic layer (54L, left sidewall) is not coplanar with the sidewall of the second ferromagnetic layer (58L, left sidewall; [0079]). Re Claim 3, Doris and Wang teach the structure according to Claim 1, while Doris further teaches wherein the sidewall of the second ferromagnetic layer (58L, left sidewall) is angled relative to a bottom surface of the second ferromagnetic layer (58L; [0079]), forming an obtuse angle between about 120 degrees and about 150 degrees ([0076]). Re Claim 4, Doris and Wang teach the structure according to Claim 1, while Doris further teaches the first ferromagnetic layer (54L) is a reference layer ([0079]) and the second ferromagnetic layer (58L) is a free layer ([0079]). Re Claim 6, Doris and Wang teach the structure according to Claim 1, while Doris further teaches the sidewall of the second ferromagnetic layer (58L, left sidewall) has a second portion (58L, top left sidewall; [0079], see FIG. Z1) that is not surrounded by the tunnel barrier layer (56L; [0079]) and is not coplanar with the first portion of the sidewall of the second ferromagnetic layer (58L, bottom left sidewall; [0079]). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doris and Wang, as applied to Claim 6, further in view of Ha (US 2019/0214546 A1, of record). Re Claim 7, Doris and Wang teach the structure according to Claim 6, but they do not explicitly disclose a metal hard mask layer between the second ferromagnetic layer (Doris: 58L) and the top electrode layer (Doris: 60L). However, Ha teaches a structure (FIG. 2F; [0050]-[0082]) comprising a metal hard mask layer (108’; [0065]) between the second ferromagnetic layer ([0067]) and the top electrode layer (109’; [0066]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the structure according to Claim 6 with the limitations taught by Ha to include a hard mask layer for patterning purposes of underlying layers as taught by Ha ([0065]). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-12 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Re Claim 8, the prior art cannot anticipate, or render obvious, the limitations of: wherein […] a conformal liner covers the sidewall of the first ferromagnetic layer, in combination with the additionally claimed features of Claim 8. In Re Claims 9-12, they are allowable due to their dependence from Claim 8. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 2, para. 6 to pg. 3, para. 2, filed 2/4/2026, with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) 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 Doris and Wang under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicant’s arguments have been reconsidered in light of the new rejection, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON whose telephone number is (703)756-1897. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 12:30-9:30 EST. 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, DREW N RICHARDS can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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. /COLIN RUSSELL MCCUTCHEON/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 /NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 22, 2022
Application Filed
May 13, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 03, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jan 20, 2026
Interview Requested
Jan 28, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Jan 28, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 04, 2026
Response Filed
Feb 23, 2026
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 31, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 07, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 07, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 10, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12598865
DISPLAY DEVICE INCLUDING ELECTRICALLY CONNECTED PAD ELECTRODES AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588273
STACKED ELECTRONIC DEVICES HAVING INDEPENDENT GATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575151
GATE-ALL-AROUND INTEGRATED CIRCUIT STRUCTURES HAVING DOPED SUBFIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12575189
SILICON-CONTROLLED RECTIFIERS WITH A SEGMENTED FLOATING REGION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12568692
SEMICONDUCTOR CONTROLLED RECTIFIER AND METHOD TO FORM SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
83%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+24.0%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 35 resolved cases by this examiner