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 .
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement is made of the claim set received 1/23/26. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and no claims were amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/23/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 7) that Sonobe does not disclose perpendicular shape anisotropy. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is allowed to be their own lexicographer. In the specification applicant defines PSA as follows [0039] As used herein, the term “perpendicular shape anisotropy” is used to describe the magnetic anisotropy of an MTJ in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface. By this definition, Sonobe clearly teaches (see figure 13) a magnetic anisotropy (arrows) of an MTJ (10) in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface (as clearly shown in figure 13) which is Applicants definition of PSA.
Applicant argues that PMA and PSA are distinct physical mechanisms. The Examiner turns to Applicants disclosure for the definition of the claim terms. In the specification applicant defines PSA as follows [0039] As used herein, the term “perpendicular shape anisotropy” is used to describe the magnetic anisotropy of an MTJ in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface. Applicant submits that Sonobe does not anticipate a PSA structure from claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons above.
Applicant provides numerous articles (some of which don’t exist, and none of which are cited in an IDS) describing the difference between PSA and PMA (pages 8-9). These definitions are not persuasive because Applicant is allowed to be their own lexicographer. MPEP 2173.05(a)III states that “Consistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings if the written description clearly redefines the terms. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ("While we have held many times that a patentee can act as his own lexicographer to specifically define terms of a claim contrary to their ordinary meaning," in such a situation the written description must clearly redefine a claim term "so as to put a reasonable competitor or one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the patentee intended to so redefine that claim term."); Hormone Research Foundation Inc. v. Genentech Inc., 904 F.2d 1558, 15 USPQ2d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” Applicant’s written description clearly defines the term PSA as follows [0039] As used herein, the term “perpendicular shape anisotropy” is used to describe the magnetic anisotropy of an MTJ in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface. By this definition, Sonobe clearly teaches (see figure 13) a magnetic anisotropy (arrows) of an MTJ (10) in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface (as clearly shown in figure 13) which is Applicants definition of PSA. The examiner respectfully disagrees. For the reasons above.
Additionally, MPEP 2111.01 III states “The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. See, e.g., In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50, 104 USPQ2d 1337, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2012)” (emphasis added)
Applicant argues (page 9)
The originally filed Specification expressly distinguishes perpendicular shape anisotropy (PSA) from perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (PMA). Table 1 describes MTJ structures employing PSA (including PSA with DSF and PSA with ACFL) and explicitly states that PMA is optional in both cases. This disclosure confirms that PSA devices do not require PMA and that PSA represents a distinct mechanism of perpendicular anisotropy arising from device geometry rather than material or interfacial properties.
The Examiner acknowledges the argument that Table 1 provides that PMA is optional in a device with PSA. However it is not persuasive because Applicant’s written description clearly defines the term PSA as follows [0039] As used herein, the term “perpendicular shape anisotropy” is used to describe the magnetic anisotropy of an MTJ in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface. By this definition, Sonobe clearly teaches (see figure 13) a magnetic anisotropy (arrows) of an MTJ (10) in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface (as clearly shown in figure 13) which is Applicants definition of PSA. The Examiner must examine the application as it is filed, and all of the claim terms (of claim 1) are anticipated by Sonobe.
The argument that “this disclosure confirms that PSA devices do not require PMA and that PSA represents a distinct mechanism of perpendicular anisotropy arising from device geometry rather than material or interfacial properties” is not persuasive because Applicant’s disclosure does not teach a distinct mechanism of perpendicular anisotropy arising from device geometry. The word geometry does not appear anywhere in applicant’s disclosure or claims, so it is unclear how one would draw this conclusion.
Applicant argues (page 9)
Because the specification teaches that PSA structures may operate without PMA, a reference that merely discloses PMA-based perpendicular anisotropy does not teach or suggest PSA. Sonobe describes perpendicular magnetic anisotropy in thin-film MTJ structures, but does not disclose a geometry-driven PSA structure. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, PSA cannot be interpreted as encompassing any PMA device. Accordingly, Sonobe does not disclose the claimed MTJ structure comprising perpendicular shape anisotropy
The argument that because the specification teaches that PSA structures may operate without PMA, a reference that merely discloses PMA-based perpendicular anisotropy does not teach or suggest PSA is not persuasive because Applicants specification defines PSA as follows: [0039] As used herein, the term “perpendicular shape anisotropy” is used to describe the magnetic anisotropy of an MTJ in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface. By this definition, Sonobe clearly teaches (see figure 13) a magnetic anisotropy (arrows) of an MTJ (10) in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface (as clearly shown in figure 13) which is Applicants definition of PSA.
The argument that Sonobe describes perpendicular magnetic anisotropy in thin-film MTJ structures, but does not disclose a geometry-driven PSA structure is not persuasive because a geometry-driven PSA is not claimed. The Examiner notes that the words geometry-driven do not appear anywhere Applicant’s original disclosure. Applicant argues “Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, PSA cannot be interpreted as encompassing any PMA device. Accordingly, Sonobe does not disclose the claimed MTJ structure comprising perpendicular shape anisotropy” This is not persuasive because PSA was interpreted using Applicants definition. (see Specification [0039]). Sonobe anticipates each and every claim term consistent with the specification.
Applicant describes (pages 9-10) broadest reasonable interpretation and argues that the scientific articles provided adequately describe PSA and that there is no need to add additional clarification for PSA. However, Applicant explicitly provided a definition for PSA in the Specification (as noted above). Additionally, MPEP 2111.01 III states “The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification – the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms. See, e.g., In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50, 104 USPQ2d 1337, 1342-43 (Fed. Cir. 2012)” (emphasis added). MPEP 2111.01 III also teaches Moreover, when the specification is clear about the scope and content of a claim term, there is no need to turn to extrinsic evidence for claim interpretation. 3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Tredegar Corp., 725 F.3d 1315, 1326-28, 107 USPQ2d 1717, 1726-27 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Hence, the MPEP provides that the external references provided are not needed for claim interpretation, since Applicant has clearly defined PSA (as above).
Applicant argues (page 10): As indicated above, the scientific references and the Specification both make it explicitly clear that PMA is not equivalent to PSA. Accordingly, interpreting PMA to be equivalent to PSA is not "consistent with the specification" as required by MPEP § 2111. As the provided evidence shows, consistent with the ordinary and customary meaning of PSA and PMA as understood by one skilled in the art, and consistent with the Specification, PMA is not equivalent to PSA. This argument is not persuasive because the scientific references and the Specification do not teach the same thing. The scientific references teach one definition of PSA and the Specification teaches [0039] As used herein, the term “perpendicular shape anisotropy” is used to describe the magnetic anisotropy of an MTJ in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface. The claim interpretation is consistent with the definition provided in the Specification, as required by the MPEP which states: when the specification is clear about the scope and content of a claim term, there is no need to turn to extrinsic evidence for claim interpretation. By this definition, Sonobe clearly teaches (see figure 13) a magnetic anisotropy (arrows) of an MTJ (10) in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface (as clearly shown in figure 13) which is Applicant’s definition of PSA.
Applicants argument that Sonobe discloses a magnetic tunnel junction exhibiting perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (PMA). However, claim 1 requires an MTJ structure comprising perpendicular shape anisotropy (PSA). As shown, PMA and PSA are distinct physical mechanisms is not persuasive because Applicant’s Specification teaches [0039] As used herein, the term “perpendicular shape anisotropy” is used to describe the magnetic anisotropy of an MTJ in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface. The claim terms as defined by Applicant are anticipated by the Sonobe reference.
Applicant describes (pages 10-11) a definition of PMA and a definition of PSA and describes the Sonobe reference in detail while arguing that Sonobe doesn’t teach PSA devices which rely on tall aspect ratio geometries and does teach geometric shape effects. 1) geometric shape effects are not claimed nor are the a part of Applicant’s disclosure and 2) tall aspect ratio geometries are not claimed nor are the a part of Applicant’s disclosure. The Examiner notes that high aspect ratios are mentioned but not mentioned, but not as part of Applicant’s definition of a PSA. The claim interpretation is consistent with the definition provided in the Specification, as required by the MPEP. The MPEP states: when the specification is clear about the scope and content of a claim term, there is no need to turn to extrinsic evidence for claim interpretation. Applicant’s Specification teaches [0039] As used herein, the term “perpendicular shape anisotropy” is used to describe the magnetic anisotropy of an MTJ in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface. By this definition, Sonobe clearly teaches (see figure 13) a magnetic anisotropy (arrows) of an MTJ (10) in which the direction of easy magnetic axes is perpendicular to the layer (or film) surface (as clearly shown in figure 13) which is Applicant’s definition of PSA. The Examiner notes, that Applicant’s original disclosure makes no mention of geometric effects, demagnetizing fields or lateral dimensions. These would all be considered new matter, if claimed, which they are not.
Additionally, Applicant’s argues (page 11): Because Sonobe fails to disclose the claimed exchange energy range of a physical free layer and fails to disclose PSA, Sonobe does not disclose every element of claim 1. Accordingly, Sonobe does not appear to anticipate claim 1. This argument is not persuasive because Sonobe teaches every element of claim 1, as detailed below, including the claimed exchange energy range of the free layer.
Additionally, Applicant’s (page 12) argues that Sonobe does not anticipate the exchange energy range of claim 1. This argument is not persuasive. Sonobe clearly teaches the free layer further comprising an exchange energy Aex having a range of 0.5 to 1.0 merg/cm inclusive (as described in [0062] exchange energy is 1 merg /cm). In context, Sonobe explicitly teaches [0052] “Calculations for the free layer 25 of the comparative example and the free layer 15 of some embodiments were performed under the following conditions of calculation.” as well as [0062] “Material Constants (Comparative Example and Experimental Example 1: Commonness” and [0065] “Magnetic exchange stiffness coupling constant: A=1×10−6 erg/cm.” Clearly the exchange energy provided is for the free layer of the embodiments in the reference. Applicant incredibly argues that “Thus, the phrase "the free layer 15 of some embodiments" merely identifies the subject of the calculation, not that each listed calculation parameter is an express structural property of the physical free layer itself”. This argument is not persuasive, as any person of ordinary skill in the art reading the section would understand that the parameters are for the free layer of the embodiment. Applicant argues that: Without disclosure of the material system or fabrication conditions corresponding to the modeled value, the reference does not disclose a free layer having the claimed exchange energy. Numerical assumptions used for simulation cannot anticipate a structural limitation of a device claim. This argument is not persuasive since the material system or fabrication conditions are not claimed. The reference anticipates the claim limitations.
Applicants arguments with respect to Apalkhov are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sonobe et al. (previously cited) hereinafter referred to as Sonobe.
Per Claim 1 Sonobe discloses a memory device, comprising
a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) structure (including 13, 14, and 15) comprising perpendicular shape anisotropy (see figure 1 and [0044]), and the MTJ structure further comprising:
a first reference layer (13) comprising a first (bottom) side and a second (top) side that is opposite to the first side of the first reference layer;
a non-magnetic spacer (14) comprising a first (bottom) side and a second (top) side, the first side of the non-magnetic spacer being on the second side of the first reference layer; (as shown in figure 1) and
free layer (15) comprising a first (bottom) side and a second (top) side, the first side of the free layer being on the second side of the non-magnetic spacer, (as shown in figure 2A) the free layer further comprising an exchange energy Aex having a range of 0.5 to 1.0 merg/cm inclusive (as described in [0062] exchange energy is 1 merg /cm)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 10-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JAMI VALENTINE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/JVM/
/Jami Valentine Miller/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2894
Prosecution Insights