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 1, 11, 17 and 19 were amended in the amendment received 4/6/26.
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 first area of a bottom surface of the metallic wire”. It is unclear what is meant by a first area of a bottom surface of the metallic wire because there are multiple definitions of the metallic wire. According to claim 1, the metallic wire has:
a first side
a second side
a first end
a second end
a lengthwise axis
a first area of a bottom surface, and
a second area
Due to this unconventional detailed labeling, it is not clear if each of these sides, ends and areas are the same or different, or if they overlap one another. Its unclear if the first area of a bottom surface of the metallic wire is at the second end or another location. 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, 5, 11 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chang et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2021/0111333) hereinafter referred to as Chang.
Per Claim 1 Chang discloses a MRAM structure device, comprising (see figure 8)
a metallic wire (110 which includes 212/214), 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 (x) (through the center of (110)), and being symmetric with respect to the lengthwise axis; (as shown in figure 8)
a conductive via (108) directly contacting a first area of a bottom surface of the metallic wire; and
a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) stack (120) at a second area (top) of the metallic wire, and placed asymmetric with respect to the lengthwise axis (as shown in figure 8)
PNG
media_image1.png
508
680
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Per Claim 2 Kim discloses the device if claim 1, including where the metallic wire (110) is a first metallic wire (212), further comprising a second metallic wire (214) next to the first side of the first metallic wire
Per Claim 3 Kim discloses the device if claim 2, including where the first metallic wire comprises a metal having an atomic number greater than 54 ((212) can be Ta, atomic number 73), and the second metallic wire (214)comprises a metal having an atomic number less than 30 ((214) can be Ti, atomic number 22)
Per Claim 5 Kim discloses the device if claim 3, including where the MTJ stack includes a free layer, a tunnel barrier layer on top of the free layer, and a reference layer on top of the tunnel barrier layer, wherein the free layer is placed on at least one of the first and the second metallic wire
Per Claim 11 Kim discloses the device if claim 1, including where the conductive via and the MTJ stack are symmetrically placed with respect to the lengthwise axis of the metallic wire. (as shown on the left side of figure 8)
Per Claim 16 Kim discloses the device if claim 1, including where the metallic wire (which includes 212 and 214) is not straight and includes one or more bends from the first end to the second end (as shown in figures 2-7).
Claims 17-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2015/0325622) hereinafter referred to as Zhang.
Per Claim 17 Zhang discloses a MRAM structure device, comprising (figs 4-5 &10-13)
a bimetallic wire (including 40 and 56) having a first (40) and a second (56) metallic wire, a right side of the first metallic wire in physical contact with a left side of the second metallic wire (The limitation as written is anticipated as shown in figures 4-5. The examiner notes that (40) has a U shape and as such has two left sides and two right sides).
a conductive via (18) contacting a first area (bottom) of the bimetallic wire; (The examiner notes that the term "contacting" includes "directly contacting" (no intermediate materials, elements or space disposed therebetween) and "indirectly contacting" (intermediate materials, elements or space disposed therebetween)) and
a magnetic tunnel junction stack (96) contacting a second area (top) of the bimetallic wire,
wherein the first metallic wire (40) comprises a first metal element having an atomic number greater than 54, ([0018] discloses that (40) may be formed from a transition metal, including tantalum (atomic number 78)) and
the second metallic wire (56) comprises a second metal element having an atomic number less than 30 ([00119-20] discloses that (50/56) may be formed from Copper (atomic no. 29)).
Per Claim 18 Kim discloses the device of claim 17 including where the conductive via (18) is on the first metallic wire (40), and the MTJ stack (96) is on the second metallic wire (56). The examiner notes that the term "on" includes "directly on" (no intermediate materials, elements or space disposed therebetween) and "indirectly on" (intermediate materials, elements or space disposed therebetween). The limitations “placed” are "product-by-process" limitations. While product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17(footnote 3). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See also in re Brown, 173 USPQ 685: In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324: In re Avery, 186 USPQ 116 in re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 254 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289 final product per se which must be determined in a "product by, all of" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not. Note that Applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
Per Claim 19 Zhang discloses a MRAM structure device, comprising (see figures 4-5 and 10-13)
a bimetallic wire (including 40 and 56) having a first (40) and a second (56) metallic wire, a right side of the first metallic wire in physical contact with a left side of the second metallic wire (The limitation as written is anticipated as shown in figures 4-5. The examiner notes that (40) has a U shape and as such has two left sides and two right sides).
a conductive via (18) contacting a first area (bottom) of the bimetallic wire; (The examiner notes that the term "contacting" includes "directly contacting" (no intermediate materials, elements or space disposed therebetween) and "indirectly contacting" (intermediate materials, elements or space disposed therebetween)) and
a magnetic tunnel junction stack (96 which includes (91, 92, and 93)) contacting a second area (top) of the bimetallic wire,
wherein the first metallic wire (40) is made of tungsten (W), platinum (Pt), or tantalum (Ta), ([0018] discloses that (40) may be formed from a transition metal, including tantalum) and
the second metallic wire (56) is made of copper (Cu) or aluminum (Al) ([00119-20] discloses that (50/56) may be formed from copper).
Per Claim 20 Kim discloses the device of claim 19 including (see figure 10) where the MTJ stack (96 which includes (91, 92, and 93)) is over an interface between the first metallic wire (40) and the second metallic area (56) (as shown in figure 10). The limitation “placed” is "product-by-process" limitation. While product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17(footnote 3). The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) See also in re Brown, 173 USPQ 685: In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessmann, 180 USPQ 324: In re Avery, 186 USPQ 116 in re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 254 does not deal with this issue); and In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289 final product per se which must be determined in a "product by, all of" claim, and not the patentability of the process, and that an old or obvious product, whether claimed in "product by process" claims or not. Note that Applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6-10 and 12-15 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.
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.
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
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 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