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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Embodiment of Fig. 2C (Claims 1-13 and 20) in the reply filed on 03/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant argues that the search of the all claims in the application could be made without serious burden and as the identified species include similar limitations.
In response to the Applicant's election argument, the traversal is not found persuasive because the fields of search for method and device claims may overlap, but they are not coextensive. Also, search strategies for device and method claims are different. Thus, separate searches are required.
The determinations of the patentability of method and device claims are different, that is process limitations and device limitations are given weight differently in determining the patentability of the claimed inventions.
Restriction by species require the distinction if they are patentably independent or distinct (see MPEP § 806.04) as a burden. Each species require different and separate search strategies for their distinctiveness. Each patentable distinct species invention may have similar features, but do not share everything in common, therefore it is a burden to locate each different distinct features in each set of distinct claimed invention, a serious searching burden on the examiner. Thus, separate searches are required.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-19 have withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/19/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/02/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 6 and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oh et al. (US 2007/0176251).
As for claim 1, Oh et al. disclose in Fig. 2 and the related text a device, comprising:
a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) 100 including a reference layer 120, a tunneling barrier layer 130, and a top free layer 140, wherein the tunneling barrier layer 130 is formed on the reference layer 120, the top free layer 140 is formed over the tunneling barrier layer 130, and the top free layer 140 includes an Mn-Sb compound [0035]; and
a capping layer 160 formed over the top free layer 140 of the MTJ (Fig. 2).
As for claim 6, Oh et al. disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the tunneling barrier layer 130 includes MgO [0033].
As for claim 9, Oh et al. disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the capping layer 160 includes at least one of MgO, Mg-Al-Ox, Zr-Ox, Hf-Ox, Al-Ox, Ta-Ox, Ca-Ox, Ta, Mo, W, Ru, CoFeB, TaB, TiN, TaN, ScN, or VN [0049].
As for claim 10, Oh et al. disclose device of claim 1, further comprising a seed 110 layer formed below the reference layer 120 of the MTJ (Fig. 2).
As for claim 11, Oh et al. disclose the device of claim 10, wherein the seed layer 110 includes at least one of Pt, Ru, Ir, Ta, CoFeB, CoFeBTa, TaB, TiN or TaN ([0032] and [0049]).
As for claim 12, Oh et al. disclose the device of claim 1, further comprising an insertion layer 150 formed between the tunneling barrier layer and the top free layer, or between the top free layer 140 and the capping layer 160 (Fig. 2).
As for claim 13, Oh et al. disclose the device of claim 12, wherein the insertion layer 150 includes at least one of Co, Fe, Ni, Ta, Mo, W, Mn, a Co-containing alloy, an Fe-containing alloy, an Ni-containing alloy, or an Mn-containing alloy [0051].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al..
As for claims 2-4, Oh et al. disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the Mn-Sb compound includes MnxSb, where x = 1.5 - 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the Mn-Sb compound includes MnxSb, where x = 1.5 - 3, in order to reduce the resistivity of the device.
Generally, differences in concentration do not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989), and In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As for claims 5, Oh et al. disclose the device of claim 1, wherein the top free layer has a thickness of 0.5 - 10 nm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the top free layer has a thickness of 0.5 - 10 nm, in order to optimize the performance of the device.
Futhermore, it has been held that discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980); In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Claims 7-8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oh et al. in view of Faleev et al. (US 2023/0317129).
As for claims 7-8 and 20, Oh et al. disclose in Fig. 2 and the related text an electronic device comprising a magnetic tunnel junction (MTJ) 100 including a reference layer 120, a tunneling barrier layer 130, and a free layer 140, wherein the free layer 140 includes an Mn-Sb compound [0035]; and a capping layer 160 formed over the free layer 140 of the MTJ (Fig. 2).
Oh et al. do not disclose the electronic device comprising a processor; the tunneling barrier layer includes MgAl2O4; and the tunneling barrier layer includes Mg1-zAl2+(2/3)zO4, where -0.5 < z < 0.5).
Faleev et al. teach in Figs. 11 and 13 and the related text an electronic device comprising a processor [0085] and a memory device; a tunneling barrier layer includes MgAl2O4; and the tunneling barrier layer includes Mg1-zAl2+(2/3)zO4, where -0.5 < z < 0.5 [0061].
Oh et al. and Faleev et al. are analogous art because they both are directed memory devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify Oh et al. because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Oh et al. to include the limitations as taught by Faleev et al., in order to operate the memory device, and to provide high desirable of the magnetic layer (Faleev et al. [0085] and [0034]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG Q TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3259. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynne Gurley can be reached on 5712721670. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRANG Q TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights