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 have been amended to now depend from independent claims 16. Claims 10-15 and 21 are rejoined.
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). Nakayama discloses the structure as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Nakayama discloses the predetermined width ratio of ¼ of the total width of the magnetic wire.
Regarding claims 12-15, Nakayama 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 Nakayama discloses the structure as claimed in combination with IBM application of the magnetic field to a magnetic wire, Nakayama 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Nakayama in view of IBM discloses the material, structure, and function of the overall magnetic wire, however, fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious that each individual layer of the magnetic wire provides the function as claimed in combination of the overall magnetic material and structure of the magnetic wire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has pointed out a clerical error in the Office Action. Applicant is correct that “Nakamura” is a clerical error and is intended to refer to as “Nakayama”. Accordingly, the Office Action has been remedied and is now correctly reflected as “Nakayama”.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to modify Nakayama’s magnetic wire to be implement as a racetrack memory of IBM. This is because Nakayama discloses an experimental spin-pumping measurement structure used to generate a spin current in Ni81Fe19 under microwave-driven ferromagnetic resonance and detect spin-to-charge conversion in the Pt layer via the inverse spin Hall effect. Applicant goes on to say that the Ni81Fe19/Pt bilayer is used solely for spin-current generation and ISHE detection and is not disclosed as storing data, representing information states, or performing memory operations. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although the examiner recognizes that Nakayama fails to explicitly disclose that the magnetic wire is used for racetrack memory, Nakayama explicitly discloses that the magnetic wire is used in spintronics application (Introduction) (emphasis added). While Nakayama discloses additional properties regarding to the specific geometry of the Ni81Fe19/Pt bilayer wire, the properties of Nakayama’s magnetic wire do not preclude from using in racetrack memory. The claims do not structurally or compositionally distinguish over the structure and material to that of Nakayama. Nakayama does not disparage the type of spintronic devices, thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the magnetic wire of Nakayama is applicable to any type of spintronics device, such as racetrack memory.
In fact, Nakayama recognizes that detection of spin currents in solid-state systems have attracted much attention in the field of spintronics.1-12. One of the references that Nakayama cited to be known in the field of spintronics is reference 10: K. Ando, H. Nakayama, Y. Kajiwara, D. Kikuchi, K. Sasage, K. Uchida, K. Ikeda, and E. Saitoh, J. Appl. Phys. 105, 07C913 (2009). Ando explicitly disclose “in the field of spintronics, the manipulation of spin current, a flow of electron spins in a solid, is the key technology that will allow the achievement of efficient magnetic memories and computing devices” (first paragraph, emphasis added). Ando also discloses the very same magnetic wire geometry (Fig. 1a) and the exact same ferromagnetic layer material, Ni81Fe19, as that of Nakayama. Although Nakayama fails to explicitly disclose that the magnetic wire is used in a specific spintronic device, Nakayama implicitly discloses that spintronics device encompasses magnetic memories.
Additionally, 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. Given that Nakayama implicitly recognizes that spintronics device encompasses magnetic memories and that IBM discloses that it is known in spintronic includes racetrack memory that uses magnetic wires, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the magnetic wire of Nakayama would be applicable to any spintronic device including racetrack memory with reasonable expectation of success and absence of evidence to the contrary.
Applicant argues that the claimed combination cannot change the principle of operation of the primary reference or render the reference inoperable for its intended purpose. This has been found unpersuasive. As set forth above, Nakayama implicitly recognizes that spintronic device encompasses magnetic memory, which thereby does not preclude the magnetic wire to be used in racetrack memory, nor does Nakayama disparage using magnetic memory.
With applicant’s argument Nakayama’s Pt layer is used to detect ISHE voltage, with electrode measuring the charge current generated by spin-to-charge conversion, that racetrack memory wire does not use the Pt layer for ISHE detection, it is noted that the discovery of new property of a known material does not give patentable weight. MPEP 2112 states, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004). While Nakayama discloses specific properties relating to the geometry of the magnetic wire and the materials of the bilayer, the claims do not structurally or compositionally distinguish over the structure and material that by Nakayama taken in view of IBM. Thus, arguments regarding functionality of Nakayama are not persuasive.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth above, the combination of Nakayama in view of IBM has been deemed proper.
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 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
Prosecution Insights