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 .
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson et al. U.S. Patent Number US 8,154,957 B1(hereinafter Katsnelson) in view of NPL documents, Induced anisotropy and positive exchange bias: A temperature, angular, and cooling field study by ferromagnetic resonance, Pechan et al., Phys. Rev. B 65, 064410(hereinafter Pechan).
Regarding Claim 1, Katsnelson discloses a method for fabricating a magnetic device, the method comprising: providing a layer stack (Fig. 1B), the layer stack comprising: a substrate (Fig. 1B i.e., substrate 10; Col. 10 lines 52-67 i.e., substrate 10 ), a first ferromagnetic layer disposed above the substrate (Fig. 1B i.e., FM, first 12; Col. 10 lines 52-67 i.e., free layer 12) but fails to explicitly disclose the first ferromagnetic layer comprising a uniaxial magnetic anisotropy including an easy axis in the same embodiment. However, Katsnelson in another embodiment teaches the first ferromagnetic layer comprising a uniaxial magnetic anisotropy including an easy axis (Fig. 4 i.e., ferrite 214; Col. 13 lines 3-6 i.e., Ferrite films containing Co ions exhibit a uniaxial magnetocrystalline anisotropy with an easy axis along about [110] axis.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the uniaxial magnetic anisotropy including an easy axis into the layer stack of the magnetic device in order to provide stable magnetization in ferromagnetic layers (Col. 13 lines 3-11).
Katsnelson further teaches a non-magnetic layer disposed on the first ferromagnetic layer (Fig. 1B i.e., Nonmagnetic 13; Col. 10 lines 52-67 and Col. 11 lines 1-4 i.e., conventional nonmagnetic metallic material 13 ), a second ferromagnetic layer disposed on the non-magnetic layer (Fig. 1B i.e., FM, second 14 Col. 10 lines 52-67 i.e., second 14), the second ferromagnetic layer comprising a unidirectional anisotropy (Col. 10 lines 8-15 i.e., ...unidirectional anisotropy through an exchange interaction between an antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic... ), and an antiferromagnetic layer disposed on the second ferromagnetic layer (Fig. 1B i.e., AFM 15; Col. 10 lines 52-67 and Col. 11 lines 1-4 i.e., AFM layer 15), the antiferromagnetic layer comprising a Néel temperature TN (Col. 2 lines 34-42 i.e., Neel point); heating the layer stack above the Neel temperature TN of the antiferromagnetic layer (Col. 2 lines 44-47 i.e., ...composite of FM and AFM materials is heated above some critical temperature... ); applying a magnetic field HCL to the layer stack(Col. 3 lines 14-20 i.e., The fabrication comprises: a deposition of the AFM layer on the FM layer at a high applied magnetic field…);cooling the layer stack below the Neel temperature TN of the antiferromagnetic layer with the magnetic field HCL applied (Col. 2 lines 34-43 i.e., ...ferromagnetic (FM)/antiferromagnetic (AFM). When the composite is cooled down to temperatures much lower than the Neel point...); and removing the magnetic field HCL (Col. 2 lines 45-47 i.e., ...cooled in an applied magnetic field.; The applied field is inherently removed after the annealing process.) but fails to explicitly disclose the magnetic field HCL comprising a magnetic field direction having an arbitrary angle with respect to the easy axis.
In an analogous art, Pechan teaches the magnetic field HCL comprising a magnetic field direction having an arbitrary angle with respect to the easy axis (Page 65 064410-1, Col. 1, para. 2 i.e., …the Fe and the AF-ordered MnF2, combined with the frustration arising from the twinned AF domains produces an Fe easy axis at 45° from a MnF2 easy direction.).
Pechan teaches perpendicular coupling between the Fe and the AF-ordered MnF2 produces an Fe easy axis at 45° from a MnF2 easy direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a magnetic field at a non-perpendicular angle, as disclosed in Pechan to achieve the claimed invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the reference to enhance predictable magnetic effects, such as coercivity, as recognized in the art (page 65 064410-1, Col. 1, para. 1).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson in view of Pechan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL documents, Exchange bias in Cr/Gd multilayers with TC<TN, Journal of Alloys and Compounds, Jiao et al., Volume 463, Issues 1–2, 2008, Pages 96-99(hereinafter Jiao).
Regarding Claim 2, Katsnelson as modified by Pechan teaches the method for fabricating a magnetic device in claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach the method for fabricating a magnetic device wherein: the Nëel temperature TN of the antiferromagnetic layer is less than a Curie temperature TM of the second ferromagnetic layer.
In an analogous art, Jiao teaches the Nëel temperature TN of the antiferromagnetic layer is less than a Curie temperature TM of the second ferromagnetic layer (1. Introduction, para. 1, i.e., Conventional exchange bias (EB) usually arises in the samples composed of ferromagnetic (FM) and antiferromagnetic (AFM) materials and is typically observed in AFM/FM bilayers in which the Curie temperature (TC) of the FM is higher than the Neel temperature (TN) of the AFM phase).
It is well known in the art that in conventional exchange bias systems the Curie temperature (TC) of the ferromagnet is higher than the Neel temperature (TN) of the antiferromagnet. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the feature of the material, as recited in claim 2, to achieve predictable exchange bias behavior.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson in view of NPL documents, Kohn et al. The antiferromagnetic structures of IrMn3 and their influence on exchange-bias. Sci Rep 3, 2412 (hereinafter Kohn).
Regarding Claim 3, Katsnelson as modified by Pechan teaches the method in claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the method for fabricating a magnetic device wherein: the Nëel temperature TN of the antiferromagnetic layer is greater than 300 K.
Kohn discloses the method wherein: the Nëel temperature TN of the antiferromagnetic layer is greater than 300 K (Page 1, second-to-last para. i.e., The Néel temperature of IrMn3 is high, around 730 K and 1000 K …).
It is well known in the art that certain antiferromagnetic materials, for example IrMn3, have the Néel temperature above 300K. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the operating temperature relative to the Néel temperature of the antiferromagnetic layer, for example by greater than 300K, in order to obtain thermal stability in information-storage devices (Kohn, Page 1, second-to-last para.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson in view of Pechan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number US20030179511A1(hereinafter Xiao).
Regarding Claim 4, Katsnelson as modified by Pechan teaches the method in claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the method for fabricating a magnetic device further comprising: providing the layer stack with a non-magnetic buffer layer between the substrate and the first ferromagnetic layer.
In an analogous art, Xiao teaches a magnetic device further comprising: providing the layer stack with a non-magnetic buffer layer between the substrate and the first ferromagnetic layer (Fig. 1A i.e., buffer layer 2; para. [0048] i.e., Pt (as the buffer layer 2)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the layer stack configuration in Xiao to the magnetic device in order to provide stable magnetization in ferromagnetic layers(Xiao, Col. 13 lines 3-11).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson.
Regarding Claim 5, Katsnelson discloses a magnetic device comprising: a layer stack (Fig. 1B) comprising: a substrate (Fig. 1B i.e., substrate 10; Col. 10 lines 52-67 i.e., substrate 10 ), a first ferromagnetic layer disposed above the substrate (Fig. 1B i.e., FM, first 12; Col. 10 lines 52-67 i.e., free layer 12) but fails to explicitly disclose the first ferromagnetic layer comprising a uniaxial magnetic anisotropy including an easy axis in the same embodiment. However, Katsnelson in another embodiment teaches the first ferromagnetic layer comprising a uniaxial magnetic anisotropy including an easy axis (Fig. 4 i.e., ferrite 214; Col. 13 lines 3-6 i.e., Ferrite films containing Co ions exhibit a uniaxial magnetocrystalline anisotropy with an easy axis along about [110] axis.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the uniaxial magnetic anisotropy including an easy axis into the layer stack of the magnetic device in order to provide stable magnetization in ferromagnetic layers (Col. 13 lines 3-11).
Katsnelson further discloses a non-magnetic layer disposed on the first ferromagnetic layer (Fig. 1B i.e., Nonmagnetic 13; Col. 10 lines 52-67 and Col. 11 lines 1-4 i.e., conventional nonmagnetic metallic material 13 ), a second ferromagnetic layer disposed on the non-magnetic layer (Fig. 1B i.e., FM, second 14 Col. 10 lines 52-67 i.e., second 14), the second ferromagnetic layer comprising a unidirectional anisotropy (Col. 10 lines 8-15 i.e., ...unidirectional anisotropy through an exchange interaction between an antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic... ), and an antiferromagnetic layer disposed on the second ferromagnetic layer(Fig. 1B i.e., AFM 15; Col. 10 lines 52-67 and Col. 11 lines 1-4 i.e., AFM layer 15).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson in view of Jiao.
Regarding Claim 6, Katsnelson teaches the magnetic device in claim 5 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the antiferromagnetic layer comprises a Néel temperature TN which is less than a Curie temperature TM of the second ferromagnetic layer.
In an analogous art, Jiao teaches the magnetic device wherein; the antiferromagnetic layer comprises a Néel temperature TN which is less than a Curie temperature TM of the second ferromagnetic layer (1. Introduction, para. 1, i.e., Conventional exchange bias (EB) usually arises in the samples composed of ferromagnetic (FM) and antiferromagnetic (AFM) materials and is typically observed in AFM/FM bilayers in which the Curie temperature (TC) of the FM is higher than the Neel temperature (TN) of the AFM phase).
It is well known in the art that in conventional exchange bias systems the Curie temperature (TC) of the ferromagnet is higher than the Neel temperature (TN) of the antiferromagnet. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the feature of the material, as recited in claim 6, to achieve predictable exchange bias behavior.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson in view of Kohn.
Regarding Claim 7, Katsnelson teaches the magnetic device in claim 5 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the magnetic device wherein; the antiferromagnetic layer comprises a Néel temperature TN which is greater than 300 K.
In an analogous art, Kohn teaches the magnetic device wherein; the antiferromagnetic layer comprises a Néel temperature TN which is greater than 300 K (Page 1, second-to-last para. i.e., The Néel temperature of IrMn3 is high, around 730 K and 1000 K …).
It is well known in the art that certain antiferromagnetic materials, for example IrMn3, have the Néel temperature above 300K. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the operating temperature relative to the Néel temperature of the antiferromagnetic layer, for example by greater than 300K, in order to obtain thermal stability in information-storage devices (Kohn, Page 1, second-to-last para.).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson in view of Xiao.
Regarding Claim 8, Katsnelson teaches the magnetic device in claim 5 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the magnetic device further comprising: a non-magnetic buffer layer disposed between the substrate and the first ferromagnetic layer.
In an analogous art, Xiao teaches the magnetic device further comprising: a non-magnetic buffer layer disposed between the substrate and the first ferromagnetic layer (Fig. 1A i.e., buffer layer 2; para. [0048] i.e., Pt (as the buffer layer 2)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the layer stack configuration in Xiao to the magnetic device in order to provide stable magnetization in ferromagnetic layers(Xiao, Col. 13 lines 3-11).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson in view of Xiao as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Watanabe et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number US20200303632A1(hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding Claim 9, Katsnelson as modified by Xiao teaches the magnetic device in claim 5 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the magnetic device wherein: one or both of the non-magnetic layer and the non-magnetic buffer layer comprises a superconducting material.
In an analogous art, Watanabe teaches the magnetic device wherein: one or both of the non-magnetic layer and the non-magnetic buffer layer comprises a superconducting material (para. [0062] i.e., … nonmagnetic…niobium (Nb)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a superconducting material in Watanabe, for example Niobium, in order to improve the electrical connectivity in the magnetic device(Watanabe, para. 62).
Claim(s) 10, 11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson in view of Pechan.
Regarding Claim 10, Katsnelson discloses a magnetic device, comprising: a layer stack (Fig. 1B) comprising: a substrate (Fig. 1B i.e., substrate 10; Col. 10 lines 52-67 i.e., substrate 10 ), a first ferromagnetic layer disposed on the substrate (Fig. 1B i.e., FM, first 12; Col. 10 lines 52-67 i.e., free layer 12), the first ferromagnetic layer comprising a first magnetization direction (Col. 10 lines 53-56 i.e., …mutual perpendicular directions of magnetization into the first 12 (free) … (fixed, with a fixed direction of magnetization, not shown) FM layers.), a non-magnetic layer disposed on the first ferromagnetic layer (Fig. 1B i.e., Nonmagnetic 13; Col. 10 lines 52-67 and Col. 11 lines 1-4 i.e., conventional nonmagnetic metallic material 13 ), a second ferromagnetic layer disposed on the non-magnetic layer (Fig. 1B i.e., FM, second 14 Col. 10 lines 52-67 i.e., second 14), the second ferromagnetic layer comprising a second magnetization direction (Col. 10 lines 53-56 i.e., … mutual perpendicular directions of magnetization into … the second 14 (fixed, with a fixed direction of magnetization, not shown) FM layers.), and an antiferromagnetic layer disposed on the second ferromagnetic layer (Fig. 1B i.e., AFM 15; Col. 10 lines 52-67 and Col. 11 lines 1-4 i.e., AFM layer 15) but fails to explicitly disclose the first magnetization direction and second magnetization directions are non-collinear including an arbitrary angle between them.
In an analogous art, Pechan teaches the first magnetization direction and second magnetization directions are non-collinear including an arbitrary angle between them (Page 65 064410-1, Col. 1, para. 2 i.e., …the Fe and the AF-ordered MnF2, combined with the frustration arising from the twinned AF domains produces an Fe easy axis at 45° from a MnF2 easy direction.).
Pechan teaches perpendicular coupling between the Fe and the AF-ordered MnF2 produces an Fe easy axis at 45° from a MnF2 easy direction. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a magnetic field at a non-perpendicular angle, as disclosed in Pechan to achieve the claimed invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the reference to enhance predictable magnetic effects, such as coercivity, as recognized in the art (page 65 064410-1, Col. 1, para. 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Katsnelson as modified by Pechan teaches the magnetic device in claim 10 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the magnetic device wherein: the first ferromagnetic layer comprises a uniaxial magnetic anisotropy. However, Katsnelson teaches the first ferromagnetic layer comprises a uniaxial magnetic anisotropy (Fig. 4 i.e., ferrite 214; Col. 13 lines 3-6 i.e., Ferrite films containing Co ions exhibit a uniaxial magnetocrystalline anisotropy …).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the uniaxial magnetic anisotropy including an easy axis into the layer stack of the magnetic device in order to provide stable magnetization in ferromagnetic layers (Col. 13 lines 3-11).
Katsnelson further teaches the second ferromagnetic layer comprises a unidirectional anisotropy (Col. 10 lines 8-15 i.e., ...unidirectional anisotropy through an exchange interaction between an antiferromagnetic and ferromagnetic... ).
Regarding Claim 16, Katsnelson as modified by Pechan teaches the magnetic device in claim 10 as discussed above. Katsnelson further disclose the use of magnetic device in a spin valve device (Col. 9 line 19-22 i.e., spin valve ) and a multiple state memory cell (Col. 1 line 39-47 i.e., memory cells), which fall within the claimed group of an electronic device, an electronic switching device, a spin valve device, a triplet spin valve device, a multiple state electronic device, a multiple state resistor, a multiple state memory cell, a synapse in an artificial neuron network, a superconducting spintronic device, a Josephson junction, or a triplet Josephson junction.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson in view of Pechan as applied to claims 10, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Jiao.
Regarding Claim 12, Katsnelson as modified by Pechan teaches the magnetic device in claim 10 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the antiferromagnetic layer comprises a Néel temperature TN which is less than a Curie temperature TM of the second ferromagnetic layer.
In an analogous art, Jiao teaches the magnetic device wherein; the antiferromagnetic layer comprises a Néel temperature TN which is less than a Curie temperature TM of the second ferromagnetic layer (1. Introduction, para. 1, i.e., Conventional exchange bias (EB) usually arises in the samples composed of ferromagnetic (FM) and antiferromagnetic (AFM) materials and is typically observed in AFM/FM bilayers in which the Curie temperature (TC) of the FM is higher than the Neel temperature (TN) of the AFM phase).
It is well known in the art that in conventional exchange bias systems the Curie temperature (TC) of the ferromagnet is higher than the Neel temperature (TN) of the antiferromagnet. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the feature of the material, as recited in claim 12, to achieve predictable exchange bias behavior.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson in view of Kohn.
Regarding Claim 13, Katsnelson teaches the magnetic device in claim 10 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the magnetic device wherein; the antiferromagnetic layer comprises a Néel temperature TN which is greater than 300 K.
In an analogous art, Kohn teaches the magnetic device wherein; the antiferromagnetic layer comprises a Néel temperature TN which is greater than 300 K (Page 1, second-to-last para. i.e., The Néel temperature of IrMn3 is high, around 730 K and 1000 K …).
It is well known in the art that certain antiferromagnetic materials, for example IrMn3, have the Néel temperature above 300K. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the operating temperature relative to the Néel temperature of the antiferromagnetic layer, for example by greater than 300K, in order to obtain thermal stability in information-storage devices (Kohn, Page 1, second-to-last para.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson in view of Pechan as applied to claims 10, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Xiao.
Regarding Claim 14, Katsnelson as modified by Pechan teaches the magnetic device in claim 10 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the magnetic device further comprising: a non-magnetic buffer layer disposed between the substrate and the first ferromagnetic layer.
In an analogous art, Xiao teaches the magnetic device further comprising: a non-magnetic buffer layer disposed between the substrate and the first ferromagnetic layer (Fig. 1A i.e., buffer layer 2; para. [0048] i.e., Pt (as the buffer layer 2)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the layer stack configuration in Xiao to the magnetic device in order to provide stable magnetization in ferromagnetic layers(Xiao, Col. 13 lines 3-11).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katsnelson in view of Pechan and further in view of Xiao as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Watanabe.
Regarding Claim 15, Katsnelson as modified by Pechan and Xiao teaches the magnetic device in claim 10 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the magnetic device wherein: one or both of the non-magnetic layer and the non-magnetic buffer layer comprises a superconducting material.
In an analogous art, Watanabe teaches the magnetic device wherein: one or both of the non-magnetic layer and the non-magnetic buffer layer comprises a superconducting material (para. [0062] i.e., … nonmagnetic…niobium (Nb)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a superconducting material in Watanabe, for example Niobium, in order to improve the electrical connectivity in the magnetic device(Watanabe, para. 62).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states:
Thus, the key point is that any angle between the magnetization vector M1 and
the magnetization vector M2 that is remanent (that is, one that persists even in the
absence of an external magnetic field) can be set. Applicant respectfully submits that
this process can be repeated any number of times with any angle. In the case of
Pechan, twin domains in the AF result in a 45° angle that cannot be changed.
See page 6 of the Response.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention,
The Examiner notes that Pechan explicitly teaches “magnetic field HCL comprising a magnetic field direction having an arbitrary angle with respect to the easy axis (Page 65 064410-1, Col. 1, para. 2 i.e., …the Fe and the AF-ordered MnF2, combined with the frustration arising from the twinned AF domains produces an Fe easy axis at 45° from a MnF2 easy direction.)” as recited in claim 1, because an arbitrary angle is an angle that is not assigned a specific value. Accordingly, the disclosed angle of 45° falls within the scope of the claimed arbitrary angle.
It is further noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., this process can be repeated any number of times with any angle.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claim 1 in the last paragraph on page 6, page 7, ,and paragraphs 1-4 on page 8, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument that the cited reference fails to teach “the first ferromagnetic layer comprising a uniaxial magnetic anisotropy including an easy axis”.
Because Katsnelson teaches a substrate (Fig. 1B i.e., substrate 10; Col. 10 lines 52-67 i.e., substrate 10 ) and a first ferromagnetic layer disposed above the substrate (Fig. 1B i.e., FM, first 12; Col. 10 lines 52-67 i.e., free layer 12).
Katsnelson further teaches magnetic layer structure including the first ferromagnetic layer comprising a uniaxial magnetic anisotropy including an easy axis (Fig. 4 i.e., ferrite 214; Col. 13 lines 3-6 i.e., Ferrite films containing Co ions exhibit a uniaxial magnetocrystalline anisotropy with an easy axis along about [110] axis.).
Katsnelson additionally teaches that the MOD 214(corresponding to the ferrite 214) will fix direction of the magnetic moment in the first 208 (corresponding to Fig. 1B i.e., FM, first 12) and second 212 FM layers using a magnetostatic interaction between a ferrite film and FM layers (Col. 17 lines 27-39) and the MOD 214 (corresponding to the ferrite 214) will be magnetostatically coupled with FM layers 208 (corresponding to Fig. 1B i.e., FM, first 12) and 212 (Col. 17 lines 65-67 and Col. 18 lines 1-3).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Therefore, the Katsnelson teaches an association between the ferrite 214 and FM layer by magnetostatically coupling, such that the FM layer has the claimed uniaxial magnetic anisotropy including an easy axis.
The examiner further notes that the limitation of “the first ferromagnetic layer comprising a uniaxial magnetic anisotropy including an easy axis” merely describes well-known structure and does not represent a distinguishing feature of the claimed invention.
In response to Applicant’s argument regarding claims 5 (see page 10) and 10 (see page 8) is not persuasive because claims 5 and 10 include the same limitations discussed above with respect to claim 1.
Applicant’s argument (see pages 9-12) that dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, and 11-16 are believed to be allowable because the cited references, Katsnelson and Pechan, fail to teach the limitations of the independent claims 1, 5, and 10 respectively are not persuasive. As explained above, the Examiner is not persuaded that the cited references, Katsnelson and Pechan, fail to teach the limitations of independent claims 1, 5, and 10 respectively. Therefore, the arguments directed to the dependent claims are not persuasive on the same basis.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 11am-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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571) 270-1210. 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.
/MICHELLE J. KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights