Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/479,226

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR HIGH OXIDATION TIME TO SUPPRESS BIT ERROR RATE

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Oct 02, 2023
Examiner
SCHOENHOLTZ, JOSEPH
Art Unit
2893
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Everspin Technologies Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 0m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
1179 granted / 1293 resolved
+23.2% vs TC avg
Minimal -5% lift
Without
With
+-5.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 0m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
1313
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.4%
-37.6% vs TC avg
§103
48.9%
+8.9% vs TC avg
§102
14.7%
-25.3% vs TC avg
§112
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1293 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s application 18/479,226 filed on October 2, 2023 in which claims 1 to 20 are pending. 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 . Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS), filed on March 19, 2024 and June 5, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein has been considered by the Examiner. Drawings The drawings submitted on October 2, 2023 have been reviewed and accepted by the Examiner. Notation References to patents will be in the form of [C:L] where C is the column number and L is the line number. References to pre-grant patent publications will be to the paragraph number in the form of [xxxx]. 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. PNG media_image1.png 398 300 media_image1.png Greyscale Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2015/0236253 (Whig). Regarding claim 1 and referring to annotated Figure 2, Whig discloses a magneto-resistive stack, 200 [0035], comprising: a fixed magnetic region, 209/210/212 [0035], wherein the fixed magnetic region includes a reference layer 209 [0035, 40]; an interfacial layer, 218 [0040] e.g., 5A [0036], disposed above the reference layer, as shown, the interfacial layer including cobalt (Co) [0040]; an intermediate layer, 206 [0038], disposed above the interfacial layer, as shown; and a free magnetic region, 204 [0035], disposed above the intermediate layer, as shown. Regarding claim 3 which depends upon claim 1, Whig teaches the reference layer, 209, includes one or more elements with an electronegativity greater than the electronegativity of iron (Fe), e.g. boron [0035, 40]. Regarding claim 4 which depends upon claim 1, Whig teaches the interfacial layer has a thickness ranging from approximately 0.5 angstrom (Å) to approximately 5 Å at [0036]. Regarding claim 5 which depends upon claim 1, Whig teaches the interfacial layer, 218, is disposed on and in contact with the reference layer, 209, as shown in Figure 2, and wherein the intermediate layer, 206, is disposed on and in contact with the interfacial layer, as shown. Regarding claim 6 which depends upon claim 1, Whig teaches the intermediate layer includes a tunnel barrier, the tunnel barrier including magnesium oxide (MgOx) [0038], see also Figure 5. Regarding claim 7 which depends upon claim 6, Whig teaches the intermediate layer has a thickness ranging from approximately 8 Å to approximately 20 Å at [0038], i.e. 3 times 1 to 10 angstroms of metal that is oxidized. Regarding claim 8 which depends upon claim 1, Whig teaches the interfacial layer consists of cobalt (Co) at [0040]. Regarding claim 9 which depends upon claim 8, Whig teaches the reference layer, 209, of the fixed magnetic region includes cobalt (Co), iron (Fe), and boron (B) at [0035]. Claims 1-2, 6, 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2021/0159393 (Law). Regarding claim 1 and referring to annotated Figure 2A, Law discloses a magneto-resistive stack, 100 [0024], comprising: PNG media_image2.png 511 905 media_image2.png Greyscale a fixed magnetic region, 110 [0038], wherein the fixed magnetic region includes a reference layer 110 [0038]; an interfacial layer, 216 [0040], disposed above the reference layer, as shown, the interfacial layer including cobalt (Co) [0040]; an intermediate layer, 120 e.g., MgO [0032], disposed above the interfacial layer, as shown; and a free magnetic region, 130 [0024], disposed above the intermediate layer, as shown. Regarding claim 2 which depends upon claim 1, Law teaches the fixed magnetic region further includes: a first magnetic region, 112 [0038]; a coupling layer, 113 [0037] disposed on and in contact with the first magnetic region, as shown; a second magnetic region, 114 [0038], disposed on and in contact with the coupling layer, as shown; and a transition layer, 215 [0039], disposed above the second magnetic region, as shown. Regarding claim 6 which depends upon claim 1, Law teaches the intermediate layer includes a tunnel barrier, the tunnel barrier including magnesium oxide (MgOx) [0032]. Regarding claim 8 which depends upon claim 1, Law teaches the interfacial layer consists of cobalt (Co) at [0040]. Regarding claim 18 Law discloses a method of manufacturing a magneto-resistive device, comprising: forming a first electrically conductive material, 205, above a substrate, 180 [0034]; forming a fixed magnetic region, 110 [0038], above the first electrically conductive material, the fixed magnetic region having a fixed magnetic state, [0038]; forming an interfacial layer, 216 [0040], on or above the fixed magnetic region, as shown, the interfacial layer including cobalt (Co), [0040]; forming an intermediate layer, 120 [0032] e.g., MgO, on or above the interfacial layer, as shown, the intermediate layer including a tunnel barrier [0032]; and forming a free magnetic region, 130 [0024], above the intermediate layer, as shown, the free magnetic region having a first magnetic state and a second magnetic state [0042]. 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. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whig. Regarding claim 18 Whig teaches and suggests a method of manufacturing a magnetoresistive device, comprising: forming a first electrically conductive material, 216 [0035], a base electrode would be understood by an artisan as conductive, above a substrate, implied; forming a fixed magnetic region, 209/210/212 [0035], above the first electrically conductive material, as shown, the fixed magnetic region having a fixed magnetic state, i.e., pinned; forming an interfacial layer, 218 [0040], on or above the fixed magnetic region, as shown, the interfacial layer including cobalt (Co), as described at [0040]; forming an intermediate layer, 206 [0035], on or above the interfacial layer, as shown, the intermediate layer including a tunnel barrier, e.g. MgO; and forming a free magnetic region, 204 [0035], above the intermediate layer, the free magnetic region having a first magnetic state and a second magnetic state, as shown by the double headed arrow. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-17 are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to disclose the method of claim 10 wherein forming the intermediate layer includes (a) depositing a layer of oxidizable material on or above the interfacial layer, and (b) oxidizing the deposited layer of oxidizable material to form a layer of oxidized material, wherein a delay of time is introduced after step (a) but before step (b), i.e. the deposition and oxidation are done at least three times in sequence. Claims 11-17 depend directly or indirectly on claim 10 and are allowable on that basis. Claims 19-20 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 19 the prior art fails to disclose the method of claim 18, wherein forming the intermediate layer includes (a) depositing a layer of oxidizable material on or above the interfacial layer, and (b) oxidizing the deposited layer of oxidizable material to form a layer of oxidized material, wherein a delay of time is introduced after step (a) but before step (b). Claim 20 depends upon claim 19 and is allowable on that basis. Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.” Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is listed on the notice of references cited. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joe Schoenholtz whose telephone number is (571)270-5475. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 7 AM to 7 PM PST. 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, Ms. Yara Green can be reached at (571) 272-3035. 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. /J.E. Schoenholtz/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 02, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604634
DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604628
DISPLAY SUBSTRATE AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF, AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604631
DISPLAY BACKPLANE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THE SAME, AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12604636
DISPLAY MODULE AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12598896
DISPLAY DEVICE AND METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (-5.0%)
2y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1293 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month