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 4/6/26. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 17 and 19-20 were amended in the amendment received 8/10/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/6/26, with respect to claims shave been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) stack at a second area of the metallic wire”. It is unclear what is meant by a second area because it is not defined with respect to the other parts of the device. One reasonable interpretation is that the second area is along the width of the device. Another 7reasonable interpretation is that the second area overlaps with the first area. Another reasonable interpretation is that the second area is different than the first area. Since multiple reasonable interpretations exist, one of ordinary skill in the relevant art would not know what structures/steps are covered by the limitation. For these reasons, the claim is indefinite.
Claims 2-16 depend from rejected claim 1, include all limitations of claim 1 and therefore are rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 11 and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2007/0045758) hereinafter referred to as Cao.
Per Claim 1 Cao discloses a MRAM structure device, comprising (see figure 2)
a metallic wire (31), the metallic wire having a width between a first (left) side and a second (right) side (as shown in figure 8); a length between a first (top) end and a second (bottom) end; and a lengthwise axis (through the center of 31), and being symmetric with respect to the lengthwise axis; (as shown in figure 2)
a conductive via (14) directly contacting a first area of a bottom surface of the metallic wire; and
a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) stack (11) at a second area (top) of the metallic wire, and placed asymmetric with respect to the lengthwise axis (as shown in figure 2)
PNG
media_image1.png
355
462
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 2 Kim discloses the device of claim 1, including where the metallic wire (31 includes 24, 25 and 26) is a first metallic wire (25), further comprising a second metallic wire (24) next to the first side of the first metallic wire (see [0019-21] and figure 2)
Per Claim 3 Kim discloses the device of claim 2, including where the first metallic wire comprises a metal having an atomic number greater than 54 ((25) can be Ta, and Ta has atomic number 73), and the second metallic wire (24) comprises a metal having an atomic number less than 30 ((24) can be TiW and Ti has atomic number 22)
Per Claim 11 Kim discloses the device of claim 1, including where the conductive via (14) and the MTJ stack (11) are separated along the lengthwise axis of the metallic wire. (as shown in figure 2)
Per Claim 12 Kim discloses the device of claim 1, including where the MTJ stack is placed substantially close to or over an edge at the first side of the metallic wire and covers less than one half of the width of the metallic wire. (as shown in figure 2)
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 5 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim as above.
Per Claim 5 Kim discloses the device of claim 3, including where the MTJ stack includes a free layer (35), a tunnel barrier layer (34) on the free layer, and a reference layer (33) on the tunnel barrier layer, wherein the free layer is placed on at least one of the first and the second metallic wire (as in figure 2)
Kim does not teach where the tunnel barrier layer on top of the free layer, and the reference layer on top of the tunnel barrier layer.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the device of Kim such that the reference layer is on top of the tunnel barrier layer which is on top of the free layer, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-10 and 13-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 17-20 are allowed.
Cited Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicants are directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
De Brosse (US 20140264513) is cited as an analogous device that teaches the features of claim 1 including (see figure 1B) a MRAM structure comprising: a metallic wire (152), the metallic wire having a width between a first side and a second side (as shown in figure 2); a length between a first end and a second end and a lengthwise axis, and being symmetric with respect to the lengthwise axis (as shown in figure 2); a conductive via (110) directly contacting a first area of a bottom surface of the metallic wire; and a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) stack (104/106/108) at a second area of the metallic wire and placed asymmetric with respect to the lengthwise axis (as shown). This reference was not applied because there is ambiguity as to whether the source of FET is the equivalent of a conductive via.
The Examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of the Applicant.
Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply.
Conclusion
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 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 at (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