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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of invention I, claims 1-23, in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 24 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/12/2026.
Claim 25 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/12/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of invention III, claim 25, in the reply filed on 01/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden to examination. This is not found persuasive because there is serious search burden because the invention requires different classification and different field of search from other inventions. See pages 3 to 4 of Office Action mailed on 11/10/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: the text “a maximum ≤ 10 Angstroms + 10%” is suggested to be changed to “a maximum ≤ 10 Angstroms ± 10%”. See paragraph [0059] in the specification of the instant application.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 23 recites: The magnetoresistive random-access memory array of Claim 20. However, there is no magnetoresistive random-access memory array in claim 20.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2019/0305040) in view of Chu (US 2022/0406992).
Regarding claim 1, Jeong discloses, in FIG. 9 and in related text, a magnetoresistive random-access memory cell, comprising:
a substrate;
a seed layer (MnxN), outward of the substrate (see Jeong, [0026]-[0027]);
a templating layer, outward of the sub-monolayer nitride layer, comprising a binary alloy (CoAl) having a B1 structure (see Jeong, [0027]). Since B1 structure has an alternating layer lattice structure (see, for example, Wikipedia, Cubic crystal system, 28 December 2022), Jeong discloses a binary alloy having an alternating layer lattice structure.
Jeong discloses a Heusler layer (Mn3Ge) located outward of the templating layer, the Heusler layer comprising a Heusler compound (Mn3Ge) and exhibiting perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (PMA) (see Jeong, [0027], [0034]);
a tunnel barrier (MgO) outward of the Heusler layer; and
a magnetic layer (CoFeB) outward of the tunnel barrier (see Jeong, [0034]).
Jeong discloses a seed layer. Jeong does not explicitly disclose the seed layer is a sub-monolayer nitride layer, having a sub-monolayer nitride layer thickness less than 10 Angstroms.
Chu teaches a seed layer of TaN with a thickness in a range from about 10 angstrom to about 30 angstrom (see Chu, [0030]). Thus Chu teaches a sub-monolayer nitride layer, having a sub-monolayer nitride layer thickness less than 10 Angstroms.
Jeong and Chu are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Jeong with the features of Chu because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jeong to include a sub-monolayer nitride layer, having a sub-monolayer nitride layer thickness less than 10 Angstroms, as taught by Chu, to promote a smooth and uniform grain structure in overlying layers (see Chu, [0030]).
Regarding claim 2, Jeong in view of Chu teaches the memory cell of claim 1.
Jeong discloses wherein: the Heusler layer (Mn3Ge) comprises a storage (free) layer; and the magnetic layer (CoFeB) comprises a reference layer (see Jeong, [0034]).
Regarding claim 3, Jeong in view of Chu teaches the memory cell of claim 2.
Jeong discloses wherein the Heusler compound (Mn3Ge) is selected from the group consisting of Mn3Ge, Mn3Sn, Mn3Sb, Mn2CoSn, Mn2FeSb, Mn3CoAl, Mn2CoGe, Mn2CoSi, Mn2CuSi, Co2CrAl, Co2CrSi, Co2MnSb, and Co2MnSi (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Jeong in view of Chu teaches the memory cell of claim 2.
Jeong discloses wherein the Heusler compound (Mn3Ge) comprises Mn3Ge (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Jeong in view of Chu teaches the memory cell of claim 3.
Jeong discloses wherein the Heusler layer (Mn3Ge) has a thickness (10 angstrom) of less than 5 nm (see Jeong, [0034]).
Regarding claim 6, Jeong in view of Chu teaches the memory cell of claim 5.
Jeong discloses wherein the tunnel barrier (MgO) is selected from the group consisting of magnesium oxide and magnesium aluminum oxide (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 7, Jeong in view of Chu teaches the memory cell of claim 6.
Jeong discloses wherein the tunnel barrier (MgO) comprises magnesium oxide (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 8, Jeong in view of Chu teaches the memory cell of claim 6.
Jeong discloses wherein the tunnel barrier comprises Mg1-zAl2+(2/3)zO4, wherein -0.5 < z < 0.5 (see Jeong, [0034], here z = 0).
Regarding claim 9, Jeong in view of Chu teaches the memory cell of claim 6.
Jeong discloses wherein the binary alloy (CoAl) is represented by A1-xEx, wherein A (cobalt) is a transition metal element and E (aluminum) is a main group element including at least one of aluminum and gallium (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Jeong does not explicitly disclose wherein x is in the range from 0.42 to 0.55. However, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also, MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Jeong in view of Chu teaches the memory cell of claim 1.
Chu teaches the sub-monolayer nitride in TaN (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Chu does not explicitly teach wherein the sub-monolayer nitride layer has over-stoichiometric nitrogen composition. However, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also, MPEP § 2144.05.
Claims 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Chu, and further in view of Toh (US 2016/0233333).
Regarding claim 10, Jeong in view of Chu teaches the memory cell of claim 1.
Jeong discloses that the Heusler layer (Mn3Ge) being a storage (free) layer of a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) and the magnetic layer (CoFeB) being a reference layer of the MTJ (see Jeong, [0034]). That is, Jeong discloses a top-pinned MTJ element (reference or pinned layer is above storage or free layer). See Jeong, FIG. 9.
Jeong does not explicitly disclose wherein: the Heusler layer comprises a reference layer; and the magnetic layer comprises a storage layer. Jeong does not explicitly disclose a bottom-pinned MTJ element (reference or pinned layer is below storage or free layer).
Toh teaches that an MTJ element can be either top-pinned or bottom-pinned (see Toh, [0024]-[0025]). Thus Toh together with Jeong teaches wherein: the Heusler layer comprises a reference layer; and the magnetic layer comprises a storage layer.
Jeong and Toh are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Jeong with the features of Toh because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jeong to include wherein: the Heusler layer comprises a reference layer; and the magnetic layer comprises a storage layer, as taught by Toh, because the fixed and free layers of an MTJ are interchangeable (see Toh, [0025]).
Regarding claim 11, Jeong in view of Chu, and further in view of Toh teaches the memory of claim 10.
Jeong discloses wherein the Heusler compound (Mn3Ge) is selected from the group consisting of Mn3Ge, Mn3Sn, Mn3Sb, Mn2CoSn, Mn2FeSb, Mn3CoAl, Mn2CoGe, Mn2CoSi, Mn2CuSi, Co2CrAl, Co2CrSi, Co2MnSb, and Co2MnSi (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 12, Jeong in view of Chu, and further in view of Toh teaches the memory of claim 10.
Jeong discloses wherein the Heusler compound (Mn3Ge) comprises Mn3Ge (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Jeong in view of Chu, and further in view of Toh teaches the memory of claim 11.
Jeong discloses wherein the Heusler layer (Mn3Ge) has a thickness (10 angstrom) of less than 5 nm (see Jeong, [0034]).
Regarding claim 14, Jeong in view of Chu, and further in view of Toh teaches the memory of claim 13.
Jeong discloses wherein the tunnel barrier (MgO) is selected from the group consisting of magnesium oxide and magnesium aluminum oxide (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, Jeong in view of Chu, and further in view of Toh teaches the memory of claim 14.
Jeong discloses wherein the tunnel barrier (MgO) comprises magnesium oxide (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 16, Jeong in view of Chu, and further in view of Toh teaches the memory of claim 14.
Jeong discloses wherein the tunnel barrier comprises Mg1-zAl2+(2/3)zO4, wherein -0.5 < z < 0.5 (see Jeong, [0034], here z = 0).
Regarding claim 17, Jeong in view of Chu, and further in view of Toh teaches the memory of claim 14.
Jeong discloses wherein the binary alloy (CoAl) is represented by A1-xEx, wherein A (cobalt) is a transition metal element and E (aluminum) is a main group element including at least one of aluminum and gallium (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Jeong does not explicitly disclose wherein x is in the range from 0.42 to 0.55. However, generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also, MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong in view of Chu, and further in view of McAIieter (A.J. McAIieter, The Al-Co (Aluminum-Cobalt) System, Bulletin of Alloy Phase Diagrams Vol. 10 No. 6 1989, pp. 646-650).
Regarding claim 18, Jeong in view of Chu teaches the memory cell of claim 1.
Jeong discloses that the alternating layer lattice structure of the templating layer (CoAl) is a B1 structure (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Jeong does not explicitly disclose wherein the alternating layer lattice structure of the templating layer comprises a cesium chloride structure.
McAIieter teaches that CoAl can have a CsCl structure (see McAIieter, Table 2). Thus McAlieter together with Jeong teaches wherein the alternating layer lattice structure of the templating layer comprises a cesium chloride structure.
Jeong and McAIieter are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic materials and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Jeong with the features of McAIieter because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jeong to include wherein the alternating layer lattice structure of the templating layer comprises a cesium chloride structure, as taught by McAlieter, because it is obvious to try, by choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (lattice structures), with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP § 2143.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2019/0305040) in view of Chu (US 2022/0406992).
Regarding claim 20, Jeong discloses, in FIG. 9 and in related text, a magnetoresistive random-access memory cell, comprising:
a substrate;
a seed layer (MnxN), outward of the substrate (see Jeong, [0026]-[0027]);
a templating layer, outward of the tantalum nitride layer, comprising a binary alloy (CoAl) having a B1 structure (see Jeong, [0027]). Since B1 structure has an alternating layer lattice structure (see, for example, Wikipedia, Cubic crystal system, 28 December 2022), Jeong discloses a binary alloy having an alternating layer lattice structure.
Jeong discloses a Heusler layer (Mn3Ge) located outward of the templating layer, the Heusler layer comprising a Heusler compound (Mn3Ge) and exhibiting perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (PMA) (see Jeong, [0027], [0034]);
a tunnel barrier (MgO) outward of the Heusler layer; and
a magnetic layer (CoFeB) outward of the tunnel barrier (see Jeong, [0034]).
Jeong discloses a seed layer. Jeong does not explicitly disclose a tantalum nitride layer, having a tantalum nitride layer thickness ranging from a sub-monolayer to a maximum ≤ 10 Angstroms + 10%.
Chu teaches a seed layer of TaN with a thickness in a range from about 10 angstrom to about 30 angstrom (see Chu, [0030]). Thus Chu teaches a tantalum nitride layer, having a tantalum nitride layer thickness ranging from a sub-monolayer to a maximum ≤ 10 Angstroms + 10%.
Jeong and Chu are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Jeong with the features of Chu because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jeong to include a tantalum nitride layer, having a tantalum nitride layer thickness ranging from a sub-monolayer to a maximum ≤ 10 Angstroms + 10%, as taught by Chu, to promote a smooth and uniform grain structure in overlying layers (see Chu, [0030]).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong (US 2019/0305040) in view of Chu (US 2022/0406992) and Toh (US 2016/0233333).
Regarding claim 21, Jeong discloses, in FIG. 9 and in related text, a magnetoresistive random-access memory array, comprising:
a magnetoresistive random-access memory cell comprising:
a substrate;
a seed layer (MnxN), outward of the substrate (see Jeong, [0026]-[0027]);
a templating layer, outward of the seed layer, comprising a binary alloy (CoAl) having a B1 structure (see Jeong, [0027]). Since B1 structure has an alternating layer lattice structure (see, for example, Wikipedia, Cubic crystal system, 28 December 2022), Jeong discloses a binary alloy having an alternating layer lattice structure;
Jeong discloses a Heusler layer (Mn3Ge) located outward of the templating layer, the Heusler layer comprising a Heusler compound (Mn3Ge) and exhibiting perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (PMA) (see Jeong, [0027], [0034]);
a tunnel barrier (MgO) outward of the Heusler layer; and
a magnetic layer (CoFeB) outward of the tunnel barrier (see Jeong, [0034]).
Jeong discloses a seed layer. Jeong does not explicitly disclose a sub-monolayer nitride layer, having a sub- monolayer nitride layer thickness less than 10 Angstroms.
Chu teaches a seed layer of TaN with a thickness in a range from about 10 angstrom to about 30 angstrom (see Chu, [0030]). Thus Chu teaches a sub-monolayer nitride layer, having a sub- monolayer nitride layer thickness less than 10 Angstroms.
Jeong and Chu are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Jeong with the features of Chu because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jeong to include a sub-monolayer nitride layer, having a sub- monolayer nitride layer thickness less than 10 Angstroms, as taught by Chu, to promote a smooth and uniform grain structure in overlying layers (see Chu, [0030]).
Jeong discloses a magnetoresistive random-access memory cell.
Jeong does not disclose: a plurality of magnetoresistive random-access memory cells, each of the plurality of magnetoresistive random-access memory cells comprising. However, the limitation is mere duplication of parts and would have been found obvious since the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See also, MPEP § 2144.04.
Jeong does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of bit lines and a plurality of 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 magnetoresistive random-access memory cells located at each of the plurality of cell locations, each of the magnetoresistive random-access memory cells being electrically connected to a corresponding bit line and selectively interconnected to a corresponding one of the complementary bit lines under control of a corresponding one of the word lines.
Here, Toh teaches:
a plurality of bit lines (BL1, BL2) and a plurality of complementary bit lines (SL1, SL2) forming a plurality of bit line-complementary bit line pairs;
a plurality of word lines (WL1, WL2) intersecting the plurality of bit line pairs at a plurality of cell locations;
a plurality of magnetoresistive random-access memory cells (110) located at each of the plurality of cell locations, each of the magnetoresistive random-access memory cells being electrically connected to a corresponding bit line and selectively interconnected to a corresponding one of the complementary bit lines under control of a corresponding one of the word lines (see Toh, FIGS. 1c-1d, [0023]-[0037]).
Jeong and Toh are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Jeong with the features of Toh because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Jeong to include a plurality of bit lines and a plurality of 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 magnetoresistive random-access memory cells located at each of the plurality of cell locations, each of the magnetoresistive random-access memory cells being electrically connected to a corresponding bit line and selectively interconnected to a corresponding one of the complementary bit lines under control of a corresponding one of the word lines, as taught by Toh, to form a memory array (see Toh, [0035]).
Regarding claim 22, Jeong in view of Chu and Toh teaches the array of claim 21.
Jeong discloses the Heusler layer (Mn3Ge) comprises a storage (free) layer; and the magnetic layer (CoFeB) comprises a reference layer (see Jeong, [0034]);
the Heusler compound (Mn3Ge) is selected from the group consisting of Mn3Ge, Mn3Sn, Mn3Sb, Mn2CoSn, Mn2FeSb, Mn3CoAl, Mn2CoGe, Mn2CoSi, Mn2CuSi, Co2CrAl, Co2CrSi, Co2MnSb, and Co2MnSi (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIH TSUN A CHOU whose telephone number is (408)918-7583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-16:00 Arizona Time.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/SHIH TSUN A CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811