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 amendment received 4/10/26. Claims 1-25 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 11 were amended in the amendment received 4/10/26. The examiner notes that claims 13-14 have the status indicator of currently amended, were noted in Applicants arguments as being amended, however they do not appear to be amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/10/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 9) that the combination of Jeong and Leitz is premised on an impermissible hindsight reconstruction. The examiner respectfully disagrees. While it is true that Jeong does not teach the templating structure comprising: a layer of a binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum (PtAl), Leitz teaches an analogous device including a layer of a binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum (PtAl). (110 may include or consist essentially of a metal or a metal alloy, e.g., Pd, platinum (Pt), aluminum (Al), or silver (Ag); see [0057]). All of the component parts are known in Jeong and Leitz. The only difference is the combination of the old elements into a single device, by using the binary alloy material of Leitz in the device of Jeong. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the binary alloy material of Leitz in the device of Jeong, since a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.
Applicant argues that the “Leitz does not disclose or suggest using PtAl as a templating structure for a Heusler compound, much less one "configured to promote ordered phase formation" of such a compound”. The claim does not require using PtAl as a templating structure configured to promote ordered phase formation. The claim requires that the templating structure comprise a crystalline structure (one that is configured to promote ordered phase formation) as well as a layer of binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum. If that is what applicant intends, then it needs to be properly claimed.
The examiner notes that the claim includes functional limitations that do not distinguish the claimed device over the prior art, since it appears that the limitations can be performed by the prior art structure of Jeong in view of Leitz. A claim term is functional when it recites a feature "by what it does rather than by what it is" and functional limitations must be evaluated and considered, just like any other limitation of the claim, for what it fairly conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art in the context in which it is used. In this case, Jeong specifically teaches these functional limitations: “the templating structure has a crystal structure configured to template the resistive insertion layer and/or the Heusler compound” (see [0016]) and “the templating structure 110A may also be considered to template the Heusler compound of magnetic layer” (see [0028]). Jeong does not teach the templating structure comprising: a layer of a binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum (PtAl). However Leitz teaches an analogous device including a crystalline layer of a binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum (PtAl). (110 may include or consist essentially of a metal or a metal alloy, e.g., Pd, platinum (Pt), aluminum (Al), or silver (Ag); see [0057]).
Applicant further argues “Critically, the claims do not merely recite the presence of a templating layer and a PtAl material in isolation. Rather, the claims require that the PtAl layer forms part of a templating structure whose crystalline structure is specifically "configured to promote ordered phase formation of the Heusler compound.” This interpretation of the claims is at odds with the actual claim language. In claim 1, the templating structure comprises a crystalline structure and it also comprises a layer of binary alloy. However the claim does not make clear that these two are the same element. It is the crystalline structure that is configured to promote ordered phase formation of the Heusler compound, not the layer of binary alloy. The claim is clear. If the argument is what applicant intends, then it needs to be properly claimed.
Applicant further argues “The Office has not identified, and the cited references do not disclose, any teaching that a PtAl layer is configured to promote ordered phase formation of a Heusler compound.” and “There is no showing here that the use of PtAl in the cited art necessarily results in promoting ordered phase formation of a Heusler compound, as expressly required by the claims”. This argument is not persuasive since Jeong specifically teaches these functional limitations: “the templating structure has a crystal structure configured to template the resistive insertion layer and/or the Heusler compound” (see [0016]) and “the templating structure 110A may also be considered to template the Heusler compound of magnetic layer” (see [0028]). Applicant has used the term ordered phase formation, however this terminology is not in Applicants disclosure and is new matter. It is unclear what an ordered phase formation means and how it would be different than a templating structure that has a crystal structure configured to template the resistive insertion layer and/or the Heusler compound, as taught by Jeong
Applicant further argues “The Office's rationale appears to reduce to a general substitution of one binary alloy for another within Jeong's templating layer”. This argument is not persuasive. Jeong teaches all of the limitations except that Jeong does not teach the templating structure comprising: a layer of a binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum (PtAl). However Leitz teaches an analogous device including a crystalline layer of a binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum (PtAl). (110 may include or consist essentially of a metal or a metal alloy, e.g., Pd, platinum (Pt), aluminum (Al), or silver (Ag); see [0057]). All of the component parts are known in Jeong and Leitz. The only difference is the combination of the old elements into a single device, by using the binary alloy material of Leitz in the device of Jeong. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the binary alloy material of Leitz in the device of Jeong, since a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant further argues “Here, there is no teaching or suggestion in Jeong that would motivate one of ordinary skill in the art to select PtAl specifically for the purpose of promoting ordered phase formation in a Heusler compound. Nor does Leitz provide any such motivation, as it does not address Heusler compounds, magnetic tunnel junctions, or phase ordering in spintronic materials”. This argument is not persuasive because the claim does not require the use of PtAl for the purpose of promoting ordered phase formation in a Heusler compound.( as detailed above).
Regarding claim 11 Applicant argues “The deficiency is even more pronounced with respect to independent method Claim 11, which requires "templating a Heusler compound through the templating structure," wherein the crystalline structure of the templating structure is configured to promote ordered phase formation of the Heusler compound. This claim requires a specific fabrication interaction, namely, that the templating structure comprising PtAl actively participates in the formation of the Heusler compound in a manner that promotes ordered phase formation”. This interpretation of the claims is at odds with the actual claim language. Claim 11 (as amended) recites: wherein the templating structure includes a crystalline structure, wherein the forming the templating structure comprises: forming a layer of a binary alloy including platinum-aluminum (PtAl); and forming a first magnetic layer comprising: templating a Heusler compound through the templating structure, wherein the crystalline structure of the templating structure is configured to promote ordered phase formation of the Heusler compound in the first magnetic layer. Hence the templating structure includes a crystalline structure, a binary alloy and a first magnetic layer; and it is the crystalline structure that is configured to promote ordered phase formation. The claim is clear. This is at odds with Applicants argument that the templating structure participates in the formation of the Heusler compound in a manner that promotes ordered phase formation. If that is what applicant intends, then it needs to be properly claimed. The remining arguments have already been addressed in the response to claim 1.
Regarding claim 23 Applicant argues: Independent Claim 23 similarly recites an MRAM device in which each MRAM stack includes a templating structure comprising a PtAl binary alloy layer. For the same reasons discussed above, the cited references fail to teach or suggest the claimed templating structure and its relationship to the Heusler compound. The rejection does not identify any disclosure in Jeong or Leitz of a PtAl-based templating structure in an MRAM stack, nor any suggestion to modify Jeong in that manner. These arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above.
Regarding claim 23 Applicant further argues: Assignee's Representative respectfully submits that the rejection of Claim 23 is inconsistent with the indicated allowability of Claim 21. Claim 21 recites a computer system comprising MRAM devices, wherein each MRAM device includes a first magnetic layer comprising a Heusler compound and a templating structure comprising a crystalline structure configured to promote ordered phase formation, the templating structure further comprising a PtAl binary alloy layer. Claim 23 recites an MRAM device comprising MRAM stacks including the same structural limitations. Thus, Claim 23 recites the same inventive features as Claim 21, but in a narrower form, directed specifically to the MRAM device rather than a system incorporating such devices. The Office has not identified any additional prior art or reasoning that would render Claim 23 unpatentable while allowing Claim 21. Where a broader claim is allowable, a narrower claim including the same limitations cannot be properly rejected absent additional distinguishing prior art or reasoning. See In re Gartside, 203 F.3d 1305, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 23 is unsupported and should be withdrawn. This argument is not persuasive. Because claim 23 is not narrower than claim 21. Claim 21 has features that claim 23 does not, i.e. a computer system comprising: one or more processing devices; one or more memory devices communicatively and operably coupled to the one or more processing devices. No reference was found that anticipated nor rendered obvious the subject matter of claim 21. And claim 23 is properly rejected. It should be noted that examiners doe not examine based on broadness. 37 C.F.R. 1.104(a) states: Examiner's action. (1) On taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner shall make a thorough study thereof and shall make a thorough investigation of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention. The examination shall be complete with respect both to compliance of the application or patent under reexamination with the applicable statutes and rules and to the patentability of the invention as claimed, as well as with respect to matters of form, unless otherwise indicated. And 37 C.F.R. 1.104(c) states Rejection of claims. (1) If the invention is not considered patentable, or not considered patentable as claimed, the claims, or those considered unpatentable will be rejected. (2) In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness, the examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.
Applicant further argues In sum, the cited references do not teach or suggest (1) a templating structure comprising a PtAl binary alloy layer, in combination with (2) a crystalline structure configured to promote ordered phase formation of a Heusler compound, nor (3) the claimed fabrication method involving templating of the Heusler compound through such a structure. The rejection relies on hindsight and lacks the requisite articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that, how this rejection should be withdrawn. The Examiner notes that this summary differs from the earlier arguments, in that it acknowledges that the PtAl binary alloy layer is a separate element from the crystalline structure. This is consistent with the claims, but diverges from Applicant’s arguments. Also, the limitations are anticipated, as detailed in the rejection below.
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.
Claims 1-17 are 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. The amendments recite “wherein the crystalline structure of the templating structure is configured to promote ordered phase formation of the Heusler compound in the first magnetic layer”. The specification does not mention phase formation hence this is new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-9, 11-13 and 23 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2022/0223783) hereinafter referred to as Jeong in view of Leitz et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2010/0270653) hereinafter referred to as Leitz.
Per Claim 1 Jeong discloses a magnetic random access memory (MRAM) stack device, comprising (see figure 2A)
a first magnetic layer (230/130A) comprising a Heusler compound; and
one or more seed layers (210A/110A) comprising:
a templating structure (210A/110A) comprising a crystalline structure (220/120A) configured to template the Heusler compound, (see [0030])
wherein the first magnetic layer (230/130A) is formed over the templating structure, (fig.2A)
wherein the crystalline structure of the templating structure (210A/110A) is configured to promote ordered phase formation of the Heusler compound in the first magnetic layer layer (230/130A). This limitation is clearly anticipated by Jeong which teaches “the templating structure has a crystal structure configured to template the resistive insertion layer and/or the Heusler compound” (see [0016]) and “the templating structure 110A may also be considered to template the Heusler compound of magnetic layer” (see [0028])
the templating structure comprising: a layer of a binary alloy ([0048] teaches that 210A can be a binary alloy, but doesn’t teach that the binary allow is PtAl.)
Additionally, claim 1 recites the performance properties of the device (i.e. wherein the crystalline structure of the templating structure is configured to promote ordered phase formation of the Heusler compound in the first magnetic layer layer). This functional limitation does not distinguish the claimed device over the prior art, since it appears that this limitation can be performed by the prior art structure of Jeong. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2114. Further, MPEP 2111.04 states that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. It appears that the claim language “configured to” does not limit a claim to a particular structure.
Jeong does not teach the templating structure comprising: a layer of a binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum (PtAl).
Leitz teaches an analogous device including a crystalline layer of a binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum (PtAl). (110 may include or consist essentially of a metal or a metal alloy, e.g., Pd, platinum (Pt), aluminum (Al), or silver (Ag); see [0057])
All of the component parts are known in Jeong and Leitz. The only difference is the combination of the old elements into a single device, by using the binary alloy material of Leitz in the device of Jeong. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the binary alloy material of Leitz in the device of Jeong, since a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
PNG
media_image1.png
530
424
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Jeong Figure 2A
Per Claim 2 Jeong in view of Leitz discloses the device of claim 1 including a second magnetic layer (250); and a tunnel barrier (240) positioned between, and in contact with, one or more of the first magnetic layer (230) and the second magnetic layer (250), wherein: the first magnetic layer comprises a storage (free) layer; the second magnetic layer comprises a reference (reference) layer; and the first magnetic layer, the tunnel barrier, and the second magnetic layer define a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) (ss described in [0048])
Per Claim 3 Jeong in view of Leitz discloses the device of claim 2 including where the tunnel barrier is formed from compounds selected from the group consisting of MgO and Mg1-zAl2+(2/3)zO4, wherein -0.5 < z < 0.5. [0049]
Per Claim 5 Jeong in view of Leitz discloses the device of claim 1 including where the first magnetic layer defines a thickness dimension, and wherein: the first magnetic layer has a magnetization (252) which is orientated perpendicular to the thickness dimension (as shown in figure 2A); and the first magnetic layer and has a thickness of less than 5 nanometers (nm). ([0041] describes that (130) may be less than 5 nanometers thick.)
Per Claim 6 Jeong in view of Leitz discloses the device of claim 1 including where the first magnetic layer (230/130) is formed from compounds of Mn3Z, wherein: Z is an element selected from the group consisting of germanium (Ge), tin (Sn), and antimony (Sb); and the compounds of Mn3Z are selected from the group consisting of Mn3.3-xGe, Mn3.3-xSn, and Mn3.3-xSb, x in a range from 0 to 1.1. (described in [0014])
Per Claim 8 Jeong in view of Leitz discloses the device of claim 1 including where the Heusler compound is chosen from the group consisting of Mn3Al, Mn3Ga, Mn3In, Mn2FeSb, Mn3CoAl, Mn2CoGe, Mn2CoSi, Mn2CuSi, Mn2CoSn, Co2CrAl, Co2CrSi, Co2MnSb, and Co2MnSi. [0014]
Per Claim 9 Jeong in view of Leitz discloses the device of claim 1 including where the Heusler compound is Mn3Ge. [0014]
Per Claim 11 Jeong in view of Leitz discloses a method of fabricating a magnetic random access memory (MRAM) stack, comprising (see figure 2A)
forming one or more seed layers (210A/110A) comprising:
forming a templating structure (210A/110A) above a substrate, wherein the templating structure includes a crystalline structure (220/120A) (see [0030])
wherein the forming the templating structure (210A/110A) comprises:
forming a layer of a binary alloy ([0048] teaches that 210A can be a binary alloy, but doesn’t teach that the binary alloy is PtAl.); and
forming a first magnetic layer (230/130A) comprising: (fig.2A)
templating a Heusler compound through the templating structure [0016]
wherein the crystalline structure of the templating structure (210A/110A) is configured to promote ordered phase formation of the Heusler compound in the first magnetic layer layer (230/130A). This limitation is clearly anticipated by Jeong which teaches “the templating structure has a crystal structure configured to template the resistive insertion layer and/or the Heusler compound” (see [0016]) and “the templating structure 110A may also be considered to template the Heusler compound of magnetic layer” (see [0028])
Additionally, claim 1 recites the performance properties of the device (i.e. wherein the crystalline structure of the templating structure is configured to promote ordered phase formation of the Heusler compound in the first magnetic layer layer). This functional limitation does not distinguish the claimed device over the prior art, since it appears that this limitation can be performed by the prior art structure of Jeong. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2114. Further, MPEP 2111.04 states that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. It appears that the claim language “configured to” does not limit a claim to a particular structure.
Jeong does not teach the templating structure comprising: the binary alloy including platinum-aluminum (PtAl).
Leitz teaches an analogous device including a layer of a binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum (PtAl). (110 may include or consist essentially of a metal or a metal alloy, e.g., Pd, platinum (Pt), aluminum (Al), or silver (Ag); see [0057])
All of the component parts are known in Jeong and Leitz. The only difference is the combination of the old elements into a single device, by using the binary alloy material of Leitz in the device of Jeong. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the binary alloy material of Leitz in the device of Jeong, since a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Per Claim 12 Jeong in view of Leitz discloses the device of claim 1 including templating the Heusler compound over the templating structure. (Jeong [0016])
Per Claim 13 Jeong in view of Leitz discloses the device of claim 1 including forming a tunnel barrier (240) over the first magnetic layer (230) and forming a second magnetic layer (250) over the tunnel barrier (240), thereby positioning the tunnel barrier between, and in contact with, the first magnetic layer and the second magnetic layer (as shown in Jeong figure 2A), wherein: the first magnetic layer defines a storage (free) layer; the second magnetic layer define a reference (reference) layer; and the first magnetic layer, the tunnel barrier, and the second magnetic layer define a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ). (ss described in Jeong [0048])
Per Claim 23 Jeong discloses a plurality of MRAM stacks (Jeong [0002] describes plurality of memories), each MRAM stack of the plurality of MRAM stacks comprising: (see figure 2A)
a first magnetic layer (230/130A) comprising a Heusler compound; and
one or more seed layers (210A/110A) comprising:
a templating structure (210A/110A) comprising a crystalline structure (220/120A) configured to template the Heusler compound, (see [0030])
wherein the first magnetic layer (230/130A) is formed over the templating structure, (fig.2A)
the templating structure comprising: a layer of a binary alloy ([0048] teaches that 210A can be a binary alloy, but doesn’t teach that the binary allow is PtAl.)
Jeong does not teach the templating structure comprising: a layer of a binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum (PtAl).
Leitz teaches an analogous device including a layer of a binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum (PtAl). (110 may include or consist essentially of a metal or a metal alloy, e.g., Pd, platinum (Pt), aluminum (Al), or silver (Ag); see [0057])
All of the component parts are known in Jeong and Leitz. The only difference is the combination of the old elements into a single device, by using the binary alloy material of Leitz in the device of Jeong. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the binary alloy material of Leitz in the device of Jeong, since a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Leitz (as above) and further in view of Fuji et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2013/0242435) hereinafter referred to as Fuji.
Per Claim 18 Jeong discloses a plurality of magnetic random access memory (MRAM) cells, each MRAM cell of the plurality of MRAM cells comprising (see figure 2A)
a first magnetic layer (230/130A) comprising a Heusler compound; and
one or more seed layers (210A/110A) comprising:
a templating structure (210A/110A) comprising a crystalline structure (220/120A) configured to template the Heusler compound, (see [0030])
wherein the first magnetic layer (230/130A) is formed over the templating structure, (fig.2A)
the templating structure comprising: a layer of a binary alloy ([0048] teaches that 210A can be a binary alloy, but doesn’t teach that the binary allow is PtAl.)
Additionally, claim 1 recites the performance properties of the device (i.e. a templating structure comprising a crystalline structure configured to template the Heusler compound). This functional limitation does not distinguish the claimed device over the prior art, since it appears that this limitation can be performed by the prior art structure of Jeong. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2114. Further, MPEP 2111.04 states that claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. It appears that the claim language “configured to” does not limit a claim to a particular structure.
Jeong does not teach the templating structure comprising: a layer of a binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum (PtAl).
Leitz teaches an analogous device including a layer of a binary alloy comprising platinum-aluminum (PtAl). (110 may include or consist essentially of a metal or a metal alloy, e.g., Pd, platinum (Pt), aluminum (Al), or silver (Ag); see [0057])
All of the component parts are known in Jeong and Leitz. The only difference is the combination of the old elements into a single device, by using the binary alloy material of Leitz in the device of Jeong. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the binary alloy material of Leitz in the device of Jeong, since a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Jeong in view of Leitz does not teach a magnetic random-access memory (MRAM) array, comprising: a plurality of bit lines and a plurality of corresponding complementary bit lines forming a plurality of bit line-complementary bit line pairs; a plurality of word lines intersecting the plurality of bit line pairs at a plurality of cell locations; a plurality of MRAM cells located at each cell location of the plurality of cell locations, each MRAM cell of the plurality of MRAM cells being electrically connected to a corresponding bit line of the plurality of bit lines and selectively interconnected to a corresponding one of the plurality of the complementary bit lines under control of a corresponding one of the word lines of the plurality of word lines.
Fuji teaches an analogous device including (see figure 29-30)
a magnetic random-access memory (MRAM) array [0406], comprising: a plurality of bit lines (323) and a plurality of corresponding complementary bit lines (332) forming a plurality of bit line-complementary bit line pairs; a plurality of word lines (334) intersecting the plurality of bit line pairs at a plurality of cell locations; (as shown in figure 29)
a plurality of MRAM cells (110) located at each cell location of the plurality of cell locations, each MRAM cell of the plurality of MRAM cells being electrically connected to a corresponding bit line of the plurality of bit lines and selectively interconnected to a corresponding one of the plurality of the complementary bit lines under control of a corresponding one of the word lines of the plurality of word lines [0406-0407]
PNG
media_image2.png
317
443
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fuji figure 29
All of the component parts are known in Jeong in view of Leitz and Fuji. The only difference is the combination of the old elements into a single device, by using the bit/word array of Fuji in the device of Jeong in view of Leitz. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the bit/word array of Fuji in the device of Jeong in view of Leitz, since a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Per Claim 19 Jeong in view of Leitz in view of Fuji discloses the device of claim 18 including
a second magnetic layer (250); and
a tunnel barrier (240) positioned between, and in contact with, one or more of the first magnetic layer (230) and the second magnetic layer, (see Jeong figure 2A) wherein:
the first magnetic layer comprises one of a storage (free) layer and a reference layer; (as shown in Jeong figure 2A)
the second magnetic layer comprises one of a reference (reference) layer and a storage layer in opposition to the first magnetic layer; (as shown in Jeong fig. 2A) and
the first magnetic layer, the tunnel barrier, and the second magnetic layer define a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ). (as shown in Jeong figure 2A)
Per Claim 20 Jeong in view of Leitz in view of Fuji discloses the device of claim 18 including the plurality of word lines, the plurality of MRAM cells, and the plurality of bit line-complementary bit line pairs (as above). Additionally, claim 20 recites the performance properties of the device (i.e. each word line of the plurality of word lines is configured to receive one or more signals to cause a first subset of the plurality of MRAM cells to store logical ones and a second subset of the plurality of MRAM cells to store logical zeroes; and each bit line-complementary bit line pair of the plurality of bit line-complementary bit line pairs is configured to read the stored logical ones and zeroes). This functional limitation does not distinguish the claimed device over the prior art, since it appears that this limitation can be performed by the prior art structure of Jeong, Leitz, and Fuji. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429,1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997) See MPEP 2114.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 7, 10, 14-17 are 24-25 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 21-22 are allowed.
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 JAMI VALENTINE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9786. The examiner can normally be reached on 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.
/Jami Valentine Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights