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 .
Response to Amendments
2. The Amendments filed February 19th, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/20/2025 are noted.
Applicant’s amendment(s) to the Claims have overcome the objection(s) to minor informalities previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/20/2025, so the objection(s) to minor informalities have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are noted.
3. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application; Claims 8-10 are now withdrawn.
4. Claims 1-7 have been fully considered in examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7 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.
Amended claim 1 recites the newly-added limitation(s) “wherein the ferromagnetic free layer has a plurality of pinning regions arranged at intervals, orthographic projections of the plurality of pinning regions on a plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located do not overlap orthographic projections of the antiferromagnetic pinning layers on the plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located;
and the orthographic projections of the plurality of pinning regions on the plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located overlap with orthographic projections of the nonmagnetic barrier layer and the ferromagnetic reference layer on the plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located; and
wherein the orthographic projections of the plurality of pinning regions on the plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located fall within the spin orbit coupling layer.”
With respect to the underlined limitation(s) above, Figure 1 of the instant application and corresponding descriptions in the instant application’s Specification appear to suggest “a plurality of pinning regions arranged at intervals”. Figure 1 shows “the orthographic projections of the plurality of pinning regions on the plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located overlap with orthographic projections of the nonmagnetic barrier layer and the ferromagnetic reference layer on the plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located”, however, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art from Figure 1 of the instant application what exactly “the plurality of pinning regions” are such that they “do not overlap orthographic projections of the antiferromagnetic pinning layers on the plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located”.
Further, it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art how to understand, from Figure 1 of the instant application alone, the limitation(s) “wherein the orthographic projections of the plurality of pinning regions on the plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located fall within the spin orbit coupling layer” – because the corresponding description in the instant application does not explicitly define “a plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located” or the term “fall within” such that “the orthographic projections of the plurality of pinning regions fall within the spin orbit coupling layer” can be understood in the context of Figure 1 of the instant application; it is unclear how to understand “the orthographic projections … fall within the spin orbit coupling layer” from Figure 1 alone.
Therefore, due to the insufficiencies of Figure 1 and Figure 2 of the instant application, Applicant must amend the instant application’s disclosure, in a manner supported by the Application as originally filed, to establish clear support for at least the limitation(s) “orthographic projections of the plurality of pinning regions on a plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located do not overlap orthographic projections of the antiferromagnetic pinning layers on the plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located” and “wherein the orthographic projections of the plurality of pinning regions on the plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located fall within the spin orbit coupling layer” in order to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, as it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art from Figure 1 and Figure 2 of the instant application alone how these are supported.
Claims 2-7 are also rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Newly-recited terms like "orthographic", "projection", “plane”, "overlap", "fall", "within" (as claimed), etc. are not explicitly recited in the Specification. In order to properly support the limitation(s) recited in the claims, Applicant is required to disclose where the language of these amendments is supported by the Application, as originally filed. If Applicant is able to establish proper support, Applicant is further required to incorporate the amended portions into the instant application’s Specification, i.e., by incorporating the language in a specific paragraph (of applicant's choosing), so that it is be clear to the public where the support exists in their specification.
See also discussion of the particular amended limitation(s) which should be explicitly clarified in the written description of the instant application’s Specification in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-7 are indicated as containing allowable subject matter over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is considered to contain allowable subject matter over the prior art because the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the claimed limitation(s) “orthographic projections of the plurality of pinning regions on a plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located do not overlap orthographic projections of the antiferromagnetic pinning layers on the plane where the spin orbit coupling layer is located” in the context of claim 1. Claims 2-7 are also considered to contain allowable subject matter by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
All references made available on the PTO-892 form (of record) are considered relevant to the present disclosure because they all feature magnetic tunnel junctions with at least some of the claimed features.
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 SEAN AYERS WINTERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30 am - 7:00 pm (EST).
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, N. Drew Richards can be reached at (571) 272-1736. 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.
/SEAN AYERS WINTERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2892 06/17/2026
/NORMAN D RICHARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2892
Prosecution Insights