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 Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-16) in the reply filed on 11/12/23 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that expenses would be imposed upon the applicant is not found persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 1-16 are examined in this Office action.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made that the information disclosure statement has been received and considered by the examiner. If the applicant is aware of any prior art or any other co-pending applications not already of record, he/she is reminded of his/her duty under 37 CFR 1.56 to disclose the same.
Drawings
There are no objections or rejections to the drawings.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2022//0223783) hereinafter referred to as Jeong in view of Sukegawa et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2020/0357985) hereinafter referred to as Sukegawa.
Per Claim 1 Jeong discloses a magnetic random-access memory (MRAM) device, comprising (see figure 3B)
a substrate (301)
a bottom magnetic reference layer (350) above the substrate;
a tunnel barrier layer (340) above the bottom magnetic reference layer; and
a top magnetic free layer (100C, which includes 310B, 330 and 320) above the tunnel barrier layer, the top magnetic free layer comprising: (The examiner notes that the term " above " includes "directly above" (no intermediate materials, elements or space disposed therebetween) and "indirectly above” (intermediate materials, elements or space disposed therebetween). Directional terminology, such as "above," "below," "front," "back," etc., is used. Because components of the claimed invention can be positioned in a number of different orientations, the directional terminology used is not particularly limiting)
a chemical templating layer (310B) on the tunnel barrier layer; and
a magnetic layer (330) on the chemical templating layer, the magnetic layer comprising a Heusler compound having substantially perpendicular magnetic anisotropy (see fig. 3B)
Jeong does not teach where the chemical templating layer comprising a binary alloy of FeyX, wherein y is in a range from 0.9 to 3.3;
Sukegawa teaches an analogous magnetic tunnel junction device, including a chemical templating layer comprising a binary alloy of FeyX, wherein y is in a range from 0.9 to 3.3 (Fe3Al, see [0053]).
All of the component parts are known in Jeong and Sukegawa. The only difference is the combination of the old elements into a single device, by using the Fe3Al chemical templating layer of Sukegawa in the device of Jeong. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the Fe3Al chemical templating layer of Sukegawa in the device of Jeong, since a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.--, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Per Claim 2 Jeong in view of Sukegawa discloses the device of claim 1 including where he binary alloy of FeyX has a BiF3 prototype structure. (see Sukegawa [0053])
Per Claim 3 Jeong in view of Sukegawa discloses the device of claim 1 including where X is selected from the group consisting of aluminum (Al), germanium (Ge), and gallium (Ga). (Fe3Al, Sukegawa [0053])
Per Claim 4 Jeong in view of Sukegawa discloses the device of claim 1 including where the tunnel barrier layer comprises a material selected from the group consisting of MgO, MgAlOx, and AlN. [0039]
Per Claim 5 Jeong in view of Sukegawa discloses the device of claim 1 including where an oxide layer (320) on the magnetic layer. Jeong [0021] teaches that the resistive insertion layer may include at least one of MgO Mg-Al-Oxide, Mg-Ti-Oxide, Mg-Fe-Oxide, and others.
Per Claim 6 Jeong in view of Sukegawa discloses the device of claim 1 including where the Heusler compound is selected from the group consisting of Mn3Sn, Mn3Sb, Mn2CoSn, Mn2FeSb, Mn2CoAl, Mn2CoGe, Mn2CoSi, Mn2CuSi, Co2CrAl, Co2CrSi, Co2MnSb, and Co2MnSi. [0021]
Per Claim 7 Jeong in view of Sukegawa discloses the device of claim 1 including where the Heusler compound is Mn3Ge. [0021]
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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
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 on 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 on (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