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 .
Drawings
The applicant’s argument with respect to objection to the drawings is persuasive, therefore, the objection to the drawings is hereby withdrawn.
Specification
The amendments to the specification received on January 20, 2026 are accepted by the examiner, therefore, the objection to the specification is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-18 and 20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein each of the two layers of iron has a thickness of at least 0.5nm,” on page 2 lines 28-29, this limitation introduces new matter because iron layers having a thickness of at least 0.5nm is not disclosed. The examiner first points out that the specification discloses a range of thickness for the iron layers of about 0.3nm to about 1.0nm in paragraph 24. “Further for example, the iron layers 5122 may each be formed to have a thickness between about 0.3nm and about 1.0nm.” See paragraph 24. The examiner next points out that the specification emphasizes the importance of the range of thickness for the iron layers of about 0.3nm to about 1.0nm in paragraph 24. “This range of thickness is important as well as it ensures that the iron layers 5122 have sufficient magnetic power or force to couple with each other and with the first and the second CoFeB layer 511 and 513 below and above the spacer layer 512.” See paragraph 24. The examiner now points out that the upper bound of at least 0.5nm exceeds the disclosed upper bound of about 1.0nm. Therefore, this limitation introduces new matter because the specification does not disclose this limitation.
Claims 2-6 also contain new matter because claims 2-6 depend from claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a middle layer of the three layers of the refractory metal has a thickness of less than 0.3nm,” on page 2 lines 30-31, this limitation introduces new matter because refractory metal layers having a thickness of less than 0.3nm is not disclosed. The examiner first points out that the specification discloses a range of thickness for the refractory metal layers of about 0.05nm to about 0.4nm in paragraph 24. “During formation of the spacer layer 512, the refractory metal layers 5121 may each be formed to have a thickness between about 0.05nm and about 0.4nm.” See paragraph 24. The examiner next points out that the specification emphasizes the importance of the range of thickness for the refractory metal layers of about 0.05nm to about 0.4nm in paragraph 24. “This range of thickness is important as it ensures that the spacer layer 512 formed thereby may have adequate amount of refractory metal to provide sufficient absorption of boron while in the meantime not causing the iron layers 5122 placed above and below the refractory metal layers 5121 to be decoupled magnetically from each other due to thickness of the refractory metal layers 5121.” See paragraph 24. The examiner now points out that the lower bound of less than 0.3nm is less than the disclosed lower bound of about 0.05nm. Therefore, this limitation introduces new matter because the specification does not disclose this limitation.
Claims 2-6 also contain new matter because claims 2-6 depend from claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “two outer layers of the three layers of the refractory metal has a thickness of at least 0.1nm,” on page 2 lines 32-33, this limitation introduces new matter because refractory metal layers having a thickness of at least 0.1nm is not disclosed. The examiner first points out that the specification discloses a range of thickness for the refractory metal layers of about 0.05nm to about 0.4nm in paragraph 24. “During formation of the spacer layer 512, the refractory metal layers 5121 may each be formed to have a thickness between about 0.05nm and about 0.4nm.” See paragraph 24. The examiner next points out that the specification emphasizes the importance of the range of thickness for the refractory metal layers of about 0.05nm to about 0.4nm in paragraph 24. “This range of thickness is important as it ensures that the spacer layer 512 formed thereby may have adequate amount of refractory metal to provide sufficient absorption of boron while in the meantime not causing the iron layers 5122 placed above and below the refractory metal layers 5121 to be decoupled magnetically from each other due to thickness of the refractory metal layers 5121.” See paragraph 24. The examiner now points out that the upper bound of at least 0.1nm exceeds the disclosed upper bound of about 0.4nm. Therefore, this limitation introduces new matter because the specification does not disclose this limitation.
Claims 2-6 also contain new matter because claims 2-6 depend from claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “two layers of iron with each having a thickness of at least 0.5nm,” on page 3 lines 1-2, this limitation introduces new matter because iron layers having a thickness of at least 0.5nm is not disclosed. The examiner first points out that the specification discloses a range of thickness for the iron layers of about 0.3nm to about 1.0nm in paragraph 24. “Further for example, the iron layers 5122 may each be formed to have a thickness between about 0.3nm and about 1.0nm.” See paragraph 24. The examiner next points out that the specification emphasizes the importance of the range of thickness for the iron layers of about 0.3nm to about 1.0nm in paragraph 24. “This range of thickness is important as well as it ensures that the iron layers 5122 have sufficient magnetic power or force to couple with each other and with the first and the second CoFeB layer 511 and 513 below and above the spacer layer 512.” See paragraph 24. The examiner now points out that the upper bound of at least 0.5nm exceeds the disclosed upper bound of about 1.0nm. Therefore, this limitation introduces new matter because the specification does not disclose this limitation.
Claims 8-14 also contain new matter because claims 8-14 depend from claim 7.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a thickness of the layer of the refractory metal between the two layer of iron is equal to or less than 0.3nm,” on page 3 lines 3-4, this limitation introduces new matter because refractory metal layers having a thickness equal to or less than 0.3nm is not disclosed. The examiner first points out that the specification discloses a range of thickness for the refractory metal layers of about 0.05nm to about 0.4nm in paragraph 24. “During formation of the spacer layer 512, the refractory metal layers 5121 may each be formed to have a thickness between about 0.05nm and about 0.4nm.” See paragraph 24. The examiner next points out that the specification emphasizes the importance of the range of thickness for the refractory metal layers of about 0.05nm to about 0.4nm in paragraph 24. “This range of thickness is important as it ensures that the spacer layer 512 formed thereby may have adequate amount of refractory metal to provide sufficient absorption of boron while in the meantime not causing the iron layers 5122 placed above and below the refractory metal layers 5121 to be decoupled magnetically from each other due to thickness of the refractory metal layers 5121.” See paragraph 24. The examiner now points out that the lower bound equal to or less than 0.3nm is less than the disclosed lower bound of about 0.05nm. Therefore, this limitation introduces new matter because the specification does not disclose this limitation.
Claims 8-14 also contain new matter because claims 8-14 depend from claim 7.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “wherein each of the three layers of the refractory metal has a thickness of at least 0.1nm,” on page 5 lines 32-33, this limitation introduces new matter because refractory metal layers having a thickness of at least 0.1nm is not disclosed. The examiner notes that claim 15 appears to define the range of the thickness for the layer of refractory metal between the two layers of iron as from 0.1nm to 0.3nm. The examiner first points out that the specification discloses a range of thickness for the refractory metal layers of about 0.05nm to about 0.4nm in paragraph 24. “During formation of the spacer layer 512, the refractory metal layers 5121 may each be formed to have a thickness between about 0.05nm and about 0.4nm.” See paragraph 24. The examiner next points out that the specification emphasizes the importance of the range of thickness for the refractory metal layers of about 0.05nm to about 0.4nm in paragraph 24. “This range of thickness is important as it ensures that the spacer layer 512 formed thereby may have adequate amount of refractory metal to provide sufficient absorption of boron while in the meantime not causing the iron layers 5122 placed above and below the refractory metal layers 5121 to be decoupled magnetically from each other due to thickness of the refractory metal layers 5121.” See paragraph 24. The examiner now points out that the upper bound of at least 0.1nm exceeds the disclosed upper bound of about 0.4nm. Therefore, this limitation introduces new matter because the specification does not disclose this limitation.
Claims 16-18 and 20 also contain new matter because claims 16-18 and 20 depend from claim 15.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “each of the two layers of iron has a thickness of at least 0.5nm,” on page 5 lines 33-34, this limitation introduces new matter because iron layers having a thickness of at least 0.5nm is not disclosed. The examiner first points out that the specification discloses a range of thickness for the iron layers of about 0.3nm to about 1.0nm in paragraph 24. “Further for example, the iron layers 5122 may each be formed to have a thickness between about 0.3nm and about 1.0nm.” See paragraph 24. The examiner next points out that the specification emphasizes the importance of the range of thickness for the iron layers of about 0.3nm to about 1.0nm in paragraph 24. “This range of thickness is important as well as it ensures that the iron layers 5122 have sufficient magnetic power or force to couple with each other and with the first and the second CoFeB layer 511 and 513 below and above the spacer layer 512.” See paragraph 24. The examiner now points out that the upper bound of at least 0.5nm exceeds the disclosed upper bound of about 1.0nm. Therefore, this limitation introduces new matter because the specification does not disclose this limitation.
Claims 16-18 and 20 also contain new matter because claims 16-18 and 20 depend from claim 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 and 13-14 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the spacer layer includes an alloy of the refractory metal and iron,” on page 3 lines 1-2. This limitation renders claim 2 indefinite because it is unclear whether this limitation refers to the refractory metal and iron in the space layer that independent claim 1 has been amended to recite or whether this limitation include another alloy of the refractory metal and iron in the spacer layer.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the spacer layer is formed from a stack of alternating layers of the refractory metal and iron, with each of the alternating layers of iron having a thickness between about 0.3nm and about 1.0nm and each of the alternating layers of the refractory metal having a thickness between 0. nm and 0.3nm providing absorption of boron without decoupling the alternating layers of iron,” on page 5 lines 6-10. The limitation renders claim 13 indefinite because the limitation recites a structure for the space layer that contradicts the structure of the spacer layer that claim 7 has been amended to recite.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “wherein the spacer layer is formed through a sputtering deposition process using an alloy target, the alloy target comprising the refractory metal and iron, and the iron having a concentration level ranging from 20 at. %to 80 at. %,” on page 5 lines 13-16. The limitation renders claim 14 indefinite because the limitation recites a structure for the space layer that contradicts the structure of the spacer layer that claim 7 has been amended to recite.
Conclusion
****** Note - no prior art has been applied as the amendments in combination, with the previous limitations, overcome the prior art. As described above, the amendments raise 112(a) and 112(b) rejections. Once these rejections are overcome, it is possible that the claims would be in condition for allowance.
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 BRETT SQUIRES whose telephone number is (571)272-8214. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Dale Page can be reached at 571-270-7877. 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.
/CALEEN O SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2899