Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/829,636

MAGNETIC TUNNEL JUNCTION STRUCTURE AND MAGNETIC MEMORY DEVICE INCLUDING THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jun 01, 2022
Examiner
JAHAN, BILKIS
Art Unit
2817
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
4-5
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
788 granted / 892 resolved
+20.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
43 currently pending
Career history
935
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.5%
-39.5% vs TC avg
§103
51.4%
+11.4% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 892 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Attorney Docket number: 8947-001764-US Filling Date: 06/01/2022 Priority Date: 03/21/22 Inventor: Kim et al Examiner: Bilkis Jahan DETAILED ACTION 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. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/3/26 has been entered. 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Worledge (US 2017/0098762 A1) in view of Zhang et al (US 2022/0238147 A1). Regarding claim 1, Worledge disclose a magnetic tunnel junction structure (Fig. 1), comprising: a first spacer layer 15 (Para. 32); a first magnetic layer 20 (Para. 25) on the first spacer layer 15; a second spacer layer 25 (Paras. 19, 32) on the first magnetic layer 20; and a metal layer 5 (Para. 32) in direct contact with a lower surface of the first spacer layer 15, wherein the first spacer layer 15 and the second spacer layer 25 comprise a same material (Para. 19, MgO), a thickness of the first spacer layer 15 ranges from 1 nm to 3.5 nm (Para. 32), the thickness of the first spacer layer 15 (Para. 32) and a thickness of the first magnetic layer 20 (Para. 25); wherein the metal layer is platinum (Pt) 5 (Para. 32), and wherein the first spacer layer 15 is magnesium oxide (MgO) (Para. 19); thickness of the first spacer layer 15 (Para. 32, 10 A° =1 nm, consider 5 A° which is 0.5 nm) and a thickness of the first magnetic layer 20 (Para. 25, 10A° =1 nm, consider 5 A° which is 0.5 nm); wherein the metal layer is platinum (Pt) 5 (Para. 32), and wherein the first spacer layer 15 is magnesium oxide (MgO) (Para. 19). Worledge does not explicitly disclose a thickness of the metal layer. However, Zhang discloses the metal layer thickness is 10 nm (Fig. 3, element 60, Para. 67). Therefore, metal layer has 10 nm thickness in Zhang reference and Worledge discloses the thicknesses of the first spacer layer and the first magnetic layer (0.5 nm each, Paras. 25, 32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to obtain a thickness of the metal layer is larger than the thickness of the first spacer layer and a thickness of the first magnetic layer for intended purposes. According to MPEP section 2144.05 [R-5], “thicknesses can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case. Iron Grip Barbell Co., Inc. v. USA Sports, Inc., 392 F.3d 1317, 1322, 73 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2004).” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine the teaching of Zhang with the teaching of Worledge to form a thickness of the metal layer is larger than the thickness of the first spacer layer and a thickness of the first magnetic layer. Also, although Worledge fails to specify the claimed a thickness of the metal layer is larger than the thickness of the first spacer layer and a thickness of the first magnetic layer, differences in this thickness will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. "Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the workable ranges by routine experimentation". In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454,456,105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Since similar layer with similar thickness is in common use in the art (see, e.g., Zhang: Fig. 3, element 60, Para. 67), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use this value in the device of Worledge. Claim(s) 1-5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al (US 2013/0140658 A1) in view of Dieny et al (US 2016/0155485 A1) and Worledge (US 2017/0098762 A1). Regarding claim 1, Yamane discloses a magnetic tunnel junction structure (Figures 6, 7A), comprising: a first spacer layer 16 (Para. 133); a first magnetic layer 17 (Para. 57) on the first spacer layer 16; and a second spacer layer 18 (Para. 137) on the first magnetic layer 17, wherein the first spacer layer 16 and the second spacer layer 18 comprise a same material (MgO), and a thickness of the first spacer layer ranges from 1 nm to 3.5 nm (0.9 nm rounds to 1 nm). Yamane does not explicitly disclose a metal layer in direct contact with a lower surface of the first spacer layer, and a thickness of the metal layer is larger than the thickness of the first spacer layer and a thickness of the first magnetic layer. However, Dieny discloses a metal layer 306, 305 (Fig. 19, Paras. 150-151) in direct contact with a lower surface of the first spacer layer 304 (Paras. 144-147, 130, 36-37, MgO, 3 nm), and a thickness of the metal layer 305, 306 (306 is several nm, Para. 151) is larger than the thickness of the first spacer layer 304 and a thickness of the first magnetic layer 411 (Fig. 19, Para. 153, 2 nm). Dieny teaches the above modification is used to obtain spin polarization of the device (Para. 150). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Yamane structure with Dieny metal layer as suggested above to obtain spin polarization of the device (Para. 150). Yamane does not explicitly disclose the metal layer is platinum (Pt), and wherein the first spacer layer is magnesium oxide (MgO). However, Worledge discloses the metal layer is platinum (Pt) 5 (Fig. 1, Para. 32), and wherein the first spacer layer is magnesium oxide (MgO) 15 (Paras. 19, 32). Worledge teaches the above modification is used to obtain anti-parallel magnetization of the device (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute Yamane in view of Dieny metal layer and first spacer layer with worledge metal layer and first spacer layer as suggested above to obtain anti-parallel magnetization of the device (Abstract). Regarding claim 2, Yamane discloses the magnetic tunnel junction structure of claim 1, wherein the first spacer layer 16 and the second spacer layer 18 comprise an oxide material or a nitride material, and the oxide material or the nitride material contains at least one of magnesium (Mg) (MgO), aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), titanium (Ti), zinc (Zn), and boron (B). Regarding claim 3, Yamane discloses the magnetic tunnel junction structure of claim 1, wherein the first spacer layer 16 and the second spacer layer 18 comprise one element selected from 3d transition metals, 4d transition metals, and 5d transition metals (same material as instant application, TiO2/SrTiO2 is a transition material, Paras. 133, 137). Regarding claim 4, Yamane further discloses the magnetic tunnel junction structure of claim 1, wherein the thickness of the first spacer layer 16 (0.9 nm) is larger than a thickness of the second spacer layer 18 (0.8 nm). Regarding claim 5, Yamane discloses the magnetic tunnel junction structure of claim 1, wherein a thickness of the first magnetic layer 17 (2.0 nm) is larger than a thickness of the second spacer layer 18 (0.8 nm, MgO). Regarding claim 8, Yamane further discloses the magnetic tunnel junction structure of claim 1, further comprising: a capping layer 18 (Fig. 7A, top layer Ta, 3 nm) on the second spacer layer 18 (MgO, bottom layer). Regarding claim 9, Yamane further discloses the magnetic tunnel junction structure of claim 8, wherein the capping layer 18 (Fig. 7A, top layer Ta, 3 nm) comprises a heavy metal material whose atomic number is greater than or equal to 30 (Ta material atomic number 73). Regarding claim 21, Dieny further discloses the magnetic tunnel junction structure of claim 1, wherein the metal layer comprises at least one of tantalum (Ta), platinum (Pt), bismuth (Bi), titanium (Ti), or tungsten (W) 305, 306 (Paras. 150, 151). Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al (US 2013/0140658 A1) in view of Dieny et al (US 2016/0155485 A1), Worledge (US 2017/0098762 A1) and further in view of Le et al (US 2020/0185596 A1). Regarding claim 22, Dieny further discloses the magnetic tunnel junction structure of claim 1, further comprising: wherein the first magnetic layer 411, the first spacer layer 304, and the metal layer 305, 306 are sequentially stacked on each other with the first spacer 304 layer between the first magnetic layer 411 and the metal layer 305, 306. Yamane does not explicitly disclose a polarization enhancement layer on an upper surface of the second spacer layer. However, Le discloses a polarization enhancement layer 366 (Fig. 2, Para. 34) on an upper surface of the second spacer layer 364 (Para. 39). Le teaches the above modification is used to improve switching of the device (Para. 68). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Yamane structure with Le polarization enhancement layer as suggested above to improve switching of the device (Para. 68). Claim(s) 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane et al (US 2013/0140658 A1) in view of Dieny et al (US 2016/0155485 A1), Worledge (US 2017/0098762 A1) and further in view of Yamane et al (US 2013/0163315 A1, Yamane1 hereinafter). Regarding claim 6, Yamane does not explicitly disclose the magnetic tunnel junction structure of claim 1, further comprising: a second magnetic layer on the second spacer layer, wherein the first magnetic layer is configured such that a magnetization direction thereof is changed by a current flow, and the second magnetic layer is configured such that a magnetization direction thereof is fixed regardless of a current flow. However, Yamane1 discloses a second magnetic layer 15U (Fig. 3B, Para. 159) on the second spacer layer 16U (Para. 158), wherein the first magnetic layer 17 (Para. 141) is configured such that a magnetization direction thereof is changed by a current flow , and the second magnetic layer 15U is configured such that a magnetization direction thereof is fixed regardless of a current flow (functional). Yamane1 teaches the above modification is used to improve spin transfer of the device (Para. 12). It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Yamane structure with Yamane1 second magnetic layer as suggested above to improve spin transfer of the device (Para. 12). Regarding claim 7, Yamane1 discloses the magnetic tunnel junction structure of claim 6, wherein the first magnetic layer 17 and the second magnetic layer 15U comprise a first material and a second material, the first material 17 (Para. 150) includes at least one of cobalt (Co) (Paras. 149, 150), iron (Fe), and nickel (Ni), and the second material 15U includes at least one of boron (B), zinc (Zn), aluminum (Al), titanium (Ti), ruthenium (Ru) (Para. 135), tantalum (Ta), silicon (Si), silver (Ag), gold (Au), copper (Cu), carbon (C), and nitrogen (N). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 and 21-22 have been considered 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 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BILKIS JAHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 am-5 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, Marlon T Fletcher can be reached at (571)272-2063. 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. BILKIS . JAHAN Primary Examiner Art Unit 2817 /BILKIS JAHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 01, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 20, 2025
Interview Requested
May 29, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
May 29, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Jun 30, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 05, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Sep 24, 2025
Interview Requested
Oct 02, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 02, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Nov 06, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Nov 24, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 15, 2025
Interview Requested
Dec 30, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 30, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Feb 03, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 10, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 17, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Apr 15, 2026
Interview Requested

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604563
LIGHT EMITTING DEVICE AND LIGHT EMITTING MODULE HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604588
LIGHT EMITTING ASSEMBLY AND METHOD OF TRANSFER PRINTING A MICRO-LED
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598842
Light Emitting Display Panel
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12581834
ORGANIC LIGHT-EMITTING DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12581772
STRAIN BALANCED DIRECT BANDGAP ALUMINUM INDIUM PHOSPHIDE QUANTUM WELLS FOR LIGHT EMITTING DIODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

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

Prosecution Projections

4-5
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+10.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 892 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month