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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The Examiner notes that claim 19 recite nominal apparatus limitations, in combination with product limitations encompassing those of claim 16. As such, there is presently no undue burden in examining these, technically, divergent statutory classes of invention. Should Applicants' amend these claims to include non-nominal apparatus limitations, these newly added claims may be subject to restriction by original presentation.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 10-15 and 21 has been amended to now depend from independent claims 16. Claims 10-15 and 21 are rejoined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in the specification to recite the magnetic layer and the paramagnetic conductive layer overlap in a radial direction of the magnetic wire.
PNG
media_image1.png
502
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From the annotated figure 5, from the center of the magnetic wire and outwards, which corresponds to the claimed radial direction, only one layer is present. Thereby, there is no overlap of two layers as presently claimed.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites “wherein the magnetic layer and the paramagnetic conductive layer overlap in a radial direction of the magnetic wire”. Radial direction is based from a central point. It is not clear where the central point of the magnetic wire is located. This is because “radial direction” is based on perspective, and thus the direction seen from any central point of the magnetic wire can be interpreted to be “radial direction”. Additionally, the overall structure of the magnetic wire is T-shaped bar. It is not clear how there is an overlap of magnetic layer and paramagnetic conductive layer being overlap in a “radial direction” from any central point of the magnetic wire. Further clarification is needed.
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.
Claims 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama et al. (Geometry dependence on inverse spin Hall effect induced by spin pumping in Ni81Fe19/Pt films) in view of IBM (Spintronics Devices Research).
Regarding claim 10, Nakayama in view of IBM discloses the magnetic wire further comprises an opposing edge portion in the magnetic layer, in a predetermined width ratio relative to a total width of the magnetic wire. Given that Nakayama in view of IBM discloses the claimed structure as claimed (Nakayama: Fig. 1a), Nakayama in view of IBM discloses that a magnetic domain wall of the magnetic wire does not tilt due to an Oersted field during current application.
It has been held that where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to show that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where the rejection is based on inherency under 35 USC § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 430. (CCPA 1977).
Regarding the limitation “edge portion is cut”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). Nakamura discloses the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Nakamura discloses the predetermined width ratio of ¼ of the total width of the magnetic wire.
Regarding claims 12-15, Nakamura discloses a thickness as claimed. Regarding the limitation “edge portion is cut…”, “edge portion is cut to 0.0075% of the total width of the magnetic wire”, and “magnetic wire is etched down”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). Given that Nakamura discloses the structure as claimed in combination with IBM application of the magnetic field to a magnetic wire, Nakamura in view of IBM would disclose the current flows as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, Nakayama discloses a magnetic wire for a spintronics application comprising a magnetic layer of soft magnetic material Ni81Fe19 and a Pt paramagnetic conductive layer, layered with the magnetic layer, wherein a width of the magnetic layer is less than a width of the paramagnetic conductive layer (Fig. 1a). Although Nakayama discloses spintronics application (I. Introduction), Nakayama fails to disclose that the magnetic wire is specifically directed to racetrack memory. Therefore, Nakayama fails to explicitly disclose that the magnetic wire does not require power to persistently store bits in the magnetic layer and configured to allow the bits to move within the magnetic wire when current is applied to the magnetic wire, and a paramagnetic conducive layer is configured to receive the current.
IBM discloses nano-wires are used in racetrack memory, wherein racetrack memory falls under spintronics (representative Figure, all paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakayama’s magnetic wire to be use in a specific spintronic application of racetrack memory, thereby the magnetic wire would be configured as claimed, since IBM discloses that racetrack memory is a known spintronic application and in order for the magnetic wire be a powerful storage-class memory.
Regarding claim 17, Nakayama discloses that the width of the conductive layer is at least twice the width of the magnetic layer (Fig. 5 and 7).
Regarding claim 18, Nakayama in view of IBM discloses the bits have an order, and wherein the magnetic wire is configured to allow the bits to retain their order while the bits move within the magnetic wire (IBM: representative Fig; It is noted that IBM discloses an animated racetrack memory in the Figure depicting the bits movements on the website).
Regarding claim 19, Nakayama in view of IBM discloses reading element, writing element, and electrodes as claimed (IBM: representative Fig).
Regarding claim 20, Nakayama in view of IBM discloses the magnetic wire comprises a linear section comprising the conductive layer and the magnetic layer, the linear section comprising opposing edges of the paramagnetic conductive layer that are further apart than opposing edges of the magnetic layer (Nakayama: Fig. 1a). Given that Nakayama in view of IBM discloses the structure of the magnetic wire as claimed, Nakayama in view of IBM would inherently comprise magnetic walls between the bits have less tilt due to an Oersted field when being moved by the current, than if for the same current applied to the magnetic wire, the widths of the paramagnetic conductive layer and the magnetic layer were the same.
It has been held that where claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to show that prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess characteristics of claimed products where the rejection is based on inherency under 35 USC § 102 or on prima facie obviousness under 35 USC § 103, jointly or alternatively. In re Best, Bolton, and Shaw, 195 USPQ 430. (CCPA 1977).
Regarding claim 21, Nakayama discloses wherein the width of the paramagnetic conductive layer is the total width of the magnetic wire (Fig. 1a).
Regarding claim 22, Nakayama discloses that the paramagnetic conductive layer is thicker than that of the magnetic layer in a thickness direction (Fig. 1a). Therefore, Nakayama discloses the magnetic layer and the paramagnetic conductive layer overlap in a radial direction of the magnetic wire as presently claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 16 under 103 over Rial 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 Nakamura in view of IBM.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785