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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on 2/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/23/2026.
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.
(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, 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikeda (US 2013/0028013).
Regarding claim 1, Ikeda discloses, in FIGS. 1 and 2A-2C and in related text, a magnetic memory device comprising:
an electrode (11, 13); and
a magnetoresistance effect element (41, 10 ,42) provided on the electrode,
wherein
the electrode includes a first electrode portion (11) and a second electrode portion (13) provided between the magnetoresistance effect element and the first electrode portion and containing a metal element selected from molybdenum (Mo) and ruthenium (Ru) (see Ikeda, [0011], [0026]-[0027], [0029]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 3, Ikeda discloses the device of claim 1.
Ikeda discloses a hard mask (cap layer 14) provided on the magnetoresistance effect element (41, 10 ,42) (see Ikeda, FIG. 1, [0026]).
Regarding claim 5, Ikeda discloses the device of claim 1.
Ikeda discloses wherein the magnetoresistance effect element includes a first magnetic layer (42) having a variable magnetization direction (63), a second magnetic layer (41) having a fixed magnetization direction (62), and a nonmagnetic layer (10) provided between the first magnetic layer and the second magnetic layer (see Ikeda, FIGS. 2A-2C, [0027], [0029]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 6, Ikeda discloses the device of claim 1.
Ikeda discloses a switching element (111) connected in series to the magnetoresistance effect element (110) (see Ikeda, FIG. 7, [0071]-[0072]).
Claims 1, 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamane (US 2012/0056283).
Regarding claim 1, Yamane discloses, in FIGS. 2-3 and in related text, a magnetic memory device comprising:
an electrode (14); and
a magnetoresistance effect element (15, 16, 17) provided on the electrode,
wherein
the electrode (14) includes a first electrode portion (Ta) and a second electrode portion (Ru) provided between the magnetoresistance effect element and the first electrode portion and containing a metal element selected from molybdenum (Mo) and ruthenium (Ru) (see Yamane, [0087]-[0092], [0192]-[0197]).
Regarding claim 3, Yamane discloses the device of claim 1.
Yamane discloses a hard mask (cap layer 18) provided on the magnetoresistance effect element (15, 16, 17) (see Yamane, FIG. 3, [0192]-[0197]).
Regarding claim 5, Yamane discloses the device of claim 1.
Yamane discloses wherein the magnetoresistance effect element includes a first magnetic layer (17) having a variable magnetization direction, a second magnetic layer (15) having a fixed magnetization direction, and a nonmagnetic layer (16) provided between the first magnetic layer and the second magnetic layer (see Yamane, FIGS. 2-3, [0087]-[0090]).
Regarding claims 6-7, Yamane discloses the device of claim 1.
Yamane discloses a switching element (selection transistor including gate electrode 1, source region 7, drain region 8) connected in series to the magnetoresistance effect element (3), a first wiring line (6) extending in a first direction; and a second wiring line (9) extending in a second direction intersecting the first direction, wherein the magnetoresistance effect element and the switching element are provided between the first wiring line and the second wiring line (see Yamane, FIG. 1, [0155]-[0160], [0177]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane in view of Yun (US 2019/0140163).
Regarding claim 2, Yamane discloses the device of claim 1.
Yamane discloses the first electrode portion contains Tantalum (Ta) (see Yamane, FIG. 3, [0192]-[0197]).
Yamane does not explicitly disclose wherein the first electrode portion contains carbon (C).
Yun teaches that electrode material can be tantalum or carbon (see Yun, [0027]). Therefore, Yun teaches wherein the first electrode portion contains carbon (C).
Yamane and Yun are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Yamane with the features of Yun because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamane to include wherein the first electrode portion contains carbon (C), as taught by Yun, because it is simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (as an electrode of a magnetic memory device). See MPEP § 2143.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamane in view of Chuang (US 2022/0157886).
Regarding claim 4, Yamane discloses the device of claim 1.
Yamane discloses the magnetoresistance effect element (15, 16, 17) and the lower electrode (14) (see Yamane, FIGS. 2-3 and discussion on claim 1 above).
Yamane does not explicitly disclose a sidewall insulating layer provided along a side surface of the magnetoresistance effect element and a side surface of the second electrode portion.
Chuang teaches a sidewall insulating layer (SiN layer 210) enclosing a magnetic memory element (190’) and its lower electrodes (180’) (see Chuang, FIG. 9, [0028], [0034], [0038]). Therefore, Chuang together with Yamane teaches a sidewall insulating layer provided along a side surface of the magnetoresistance effect element and a side surface of the second electrode portion.
Yamane and Chuang are analogous art because they both are directed to magnetic memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Yamane with the features of Chuang because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Yamane to include a sidewall insulating layer provided along a side surface of the magnetoresistance effect element and a side surface of the second electrode portion, as taught by Chuang, in order to provide a spacer layer (see Chuang, [0038]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIH TSUN A CHOU whose telephone number is (408)918-7583. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-16:00 Arizona Time.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at (571) 272-1670. 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.
/SHIH TSUN A CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights