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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants Argument: “It is respectfully submitted, however, that the lower electrode 210 and the intermediate electrode 310 of Park et al are not components of a "wiring line," but are electrodes.” (page 7)
Examiner’s Rebuttal: Please note that the BRI for a “wiring line” was used when interpreting claim 1. The BRI for “wiring line” is “any layer that contains electrical connections”. Please note that this BRI is in line with Applicant’s written description.
Thus, the designated first wiring line of prior art Park, used in previous rejection, which has at least first second and third conductive layer (CL1+ 210+310), are layers that contain electrical connections (i.e. wiring line).
Further, all three layers, CL1+ 210+310, extend in direction D1, as seen in fig. 22. It should be noted thar CL1 extends more in the direction D1, than 210 and 310. Please see rejection of newly amended claim 1 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park (20210167130).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a magnetic memory device comprising:
a first wiring line (fig. 4: CL1 + 210 + 310) extending in a first direction;
a second wiring line (fig. 4: CL2 + 220) provided on an upper layer side of the first wiring line and extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction; and
a memory cell provided between the first wiring line and the second wiring line and including a magnetoresistance effect element (par. 27-29; please note that MRAM is a type of VR) and a switching element (fig. 4: SW) which are stacked in a third direction intersecting the first direction and the second direction,
wherein the first wiring line includes a first conductive layer and a second conductive layer provided on the first conductive layer and formed of a material containing carbon (C) (par. 25), and
both of the first conductive layer and the second conductive layer extend in the first direction (CL1+ 210+310, extend in direction D1, as seen in fig. 22. It should be noted thar CL1 extends more in the direction D1, than 210 and 310).
Regarding claim 2, Park teaches a magnetic memory device of claim 1, wherein a resistivity of the first conductive layer is lower than a resistivity of the second conductive layer (par. 25 and 30).
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches a magnetic memory device of claim 1, wherein the first conductive layer is formed of a metal material containing a metal element (par. 25 and 30).
Regarding claim 4, Park teaches a magnetic memory device of claim 3, wherein the metal element is tungsten (W) or copper (Cu) (par. 25 and 30).
Regarding claim 5, Park teaches a magnetic memory device of claim 1, wherein a pattern of the first conductive layer and a pattern of the second conductive layer are aligned with each other as viewed from the first direction (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 6, Park teaches a magnetic memory device of claim 1, wherein the switching element is provided on a lower layer side of the magnetoresistance effect element (fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches a magnetic memory device of claim 1, wherein the switching element changes from an off state to an on state when a voltage applied between two terminals thereof becomes equal to or higher than a threshold voltage (par. 29).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches a magnetic memory device of claim 1, wherein the switching element includes an insulating switching material layer (par. 29).
Regarding claim 9, Park teaches a magnetic memory device of claim 8, wherein a main ingredient of the switching material layer is silicon oxide (par. 29 teaches SW can be composed of both Si, O and As).
Regarding claim 10, Park teaches a magnetic memory device of claim 9, wherein the switching material layer contains arsenic (As) (par. 29 teaches SW can be composed of both Si, O and As).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanaya (20220085281).
Regarding claim 11, Park teaches a magnetic memory device of claim 1.
Park does not explicitly teach:
the magnetoresistance effect element includes a first magnetic layer having a variable magnetization direction, a second magnetic layer having a fixed magnetization direction, and a nonmagnetic layer provided between the first magnetic layer and the second magnetic layer
Kanya teaches an MJT having the layers listed above (fig. 13B). Please note that Park and Kanya are related to similar fields of endeavor and the use of such an MJT, taught in Kanya, in Park would have been obvious due to MJTs ability to keep data without power, high sensitivity for sensors, low power use, and potential for faster/denser memory.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA, at the time of filing, to utilize aforementioned teachings of the prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s).
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 CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights