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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 14-15 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.
► With respect to claim 14, “wherein….. and the spacer layer includes at least one of GaCo, AlRh, AlIr, of GaRh and GaIr.” Renders the claim indefinite. It is not clear that the spacer actually includes which claimed material.
► With respect to claim 15,
“the tunnel barrier” lacking antecedent basis renders the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination, claim 15 should depend on claim 2 – not claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al [US 2023/0111057]
► With respect to claims 1, 6, 17 and 19 Lee et al (fig 1, text [0001]-[0090]) discloses the claimed A MRAM storage device comprising a magnetic tunnel junction device, the claimed magnetic tunnel junction device comprising:
a seed layer (110);
a free layer structure (130) on the seed layer, the free layer structure comprising a first free layer (131), a spacer layer(132) formed on the first free layer, and a second free layer (133) formed on the spacer layer, wherein the first and second free layers each include an ordered magnetic alloy (text [0030]-[0032]: HCP lattice structure magnetic alloy); wherein the ordered magnetic alloy is a Heusler alloy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 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 s, kill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al [US 2023/0111057] in view of Jeong et al [us 2021/0175416]
► With respect to claim 2, Lee et al substantially discloses the claimed MTJ device but does not expressly teach a tunnel barrier layer on the free layer structure; and a reference layer structure on the tunnel barrier layer.
However, Jeong et al (fig 8, text [0001]-[0048]) teaches a tunnel barrier layer (840) on the free layer structure (810); and a reference layer structure (850) on the tunnel barrier layer.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for those skilled in the art to modify the MTJ device of Lee et al by using the tunnel barrier layer and the reference structure as being claimed, per taught by Jeong et al, to provide designed MTJ structure with thermal stability of magnetic junction while maintaining a small thickness and size (see Jeong et al, text [0045] for details).
► With respect to claim 15, MgO is a conventional material for the tunnel barrier layer in MTJ device. Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a
prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301. See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a
known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was
held to be obvious).
► With respect to claim 9, the parameters of claimed thickness of the first free layer and the second free layer would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 3-5, 7, 14, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al [US 2023/0111057] in views of Jeong et al [US 2022/0223783]
► With respect to claims 3-4, Lee et al substantially discloses the claimed MTJ device but does not expressly teach base seed layer, the seed layer is formed on the base seed layer; wherein the base seed layer comprises <001> texture MgO.
However, Jeong et al (fig 2B, text [0001]-[0077]) teaches the seed layer (210B, CoAl, text [0055])) on the base seed (220, <001> texture MgO, text [0055], [0052], [0037], [0030]).
Therefore, it would have obvious for those skilled in the art to modify the MTJ device of Lee et al using the base seed layer as being claimed, to provide the improved free layer for improving the performance of magnetic junction.
► With respect to claims 5 and 18, the same reason given above, Jeong et al teaches the crystalline, non-magnetic chemical templating layer comprising CoAl for the seed layer.
► With respect to claims 7 and 20, Mn3Ge, Mn3Ga, Co2MnSn, Mn3Sn and Mn3Sb are known materials for free layers in MTJ device. Selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301. See also In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious).
Claims 10, 13 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over Lee et al [US 2023/0111057] in views of Lim et al [US 2012/0018825]
► With respect to claims 10, 13 and 16, the claimed parameters of lattice constants would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan practicing the invention because, absent evidence of disclosure of criticality for the range giving unexpected results, it is not inventive to discover optimal or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, it appears that these changes produce no functional differences and therefore would have been obvious. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 11 and 12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANHHA S PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-1696. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, William Partridge can be reached at 571-270-1402. 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.
/THANHHA S PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2812
Prosecution Insights