Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/559,624

MAGNETIC METAMATERIAL, SPIN CURRENT CONTROL APPARATUS, AND SPIN CURRENT CONTROL METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 08, 2023
Examiner
GONZALES, VICENTE ROLANDO
Art Unit
2899
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
National University Corporation Tokai National Higher Education And Research System
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-68.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
16
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
54.6%
+14.6% vs TC avg
§102
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
§112
20.5%
-19.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida et al (JP 6164658 B2) in view of Adami et al (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.92.134506, see provided copy of document). Regarding Claim 1, Uchida teaches: a magnetic metamaterial comprising a perpendicularly magnetized film that is isotropic with respect to light (Uchida, fig. 1b teaches a perpendicularly magnetized film (layers 12 and 13, magnetized perpendicular to spin current Js). Paragraph 0039 (see provided translation) teaches 12 can be Fe, and paragraph 0047 teaches 13 can be Pt. The applicant’s own spec (paragraph 0025) teaches the perpendicularly magnetized film can be a multilayer film of Fe and Pt. Because these are the same materials used in the same manner, the structure will be isotropic with respect to light), wherein the perpendicularly magnetized film has a plurality of unit structures arranged in an in-plane direction (Figure 1b teaches unit structures 14 in layer 12. Further, figure 3 (a-d) shows the unit structures (element 23 in this picture, which becomes 14 after processing) are in the same plane), and wherein each of the plurality of unit structures has a size equal to or less than a wavelength of irradiated light (Paragraph 0058 teaches the unit structures have an average diameter of about 70 nm, which is below the example range of 300 nm to 2000 nm given in the Applicant’s own specification (paragraph 0019)). Uchida fails to specifically teach the unit structures being periodically arranged in an in-plane direction and having three-fold rotational symmetry. However, Adami teaches a magnetic metamaterial (composed of a layer of Al covered with a layer of copper. Uchida, along with Fe and Pt as taught above, also teaches the magnetized film can be composed of Al or Cu) having unit structures being periodically arranged in an in-plane direction and having three-fold rotational symmetry (Adami, fig. 1 teaches unit structures periodically arranged in an in-plane direction. Paragraph 1 of the experimental details section (see provided article) teaches the unit structures with an equilateral triangle shape (having sides of 0.8 µm or 1.2 µm), which has three-fold rotational symmetry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Adami into the method of Uchida by forming a perpendicularly magnetized film having a plurality of unit structures periodically arranged in an in-plane direction, and wherein each of the plurality of unit structures has three-fold rotational symmetry. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Uchida in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of tuning the electrical and magnetic properties such as (current density) of the magnetic metamaterial to achieve desired device performance (Adami, abstract). Regarding Claim 2, Uchida in view of Adami teaches the magnetic metamaterial according to claim 1, wherein the perpendicularly magnetized film has a plurality of openings forming the plurality of unit structures (Adami, paragraph 1 of the experimental details section teaches the plurality of unit structures are formed of a triangular array of openings (holes)). Regarding Claim 3, Uchida in view of Adami teaches the magnetic metamaterial according to claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of openings is equilaterally triangular (Adami, paragraph 1 of the experimental details section teaches the plurality of openings are in the shape of an equilateral triangle). Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida in view of Amadi as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Araki et al (JP 2013113793 A). Regarding Claim 4, Uchida in view of Amadi teaches the magnetic metamaterial according to claim 1. Uchida in view of Amadi fails to teach a spin current control apparatus comprising a light irradiation unit configured to irradiate the magnetic metamaterial with light, wherein the light irradiation unit is configured to control an ellipticity angle and an azimuth angle of light irradiating the magnetic metamaterial. However, Araki teaches a spin control apparatus comprising a light irradiation unit configured to irradiate the magnetic metamaterial with light, wherein the light irradiation unit is configured to control an ellipticity angle and an azimuth angle of light irradiating the magnetic metamaterial (Araki, paragraph 0041 (see provided translation) teaches the light irradiation unit having the capability to control the azimuth angle and the ellipticity angle of the light irradiating an object, which can be a magnetic metamaterial). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Araki into the method of Uchida in view of Amadi by forming a spin current control apparatus having a light irradiation unit configured to irradiate the magnetic metamaterial with light, wherein the light irradiation unit is configured to control an ellipticity angle and an azimuth angle of light irradiating the magnetic metamaterial. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Uchida in view of Amadi in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of providing a three-dimensional measuring instrument capable of measuring the magnetic metamaterial with high accuracy and irradiating the surface of the magnetic material with light (Araki, abstract). Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida in view of Amadi and Araki. Regarding Claim 5, Uchida teaches a method of controlling a spin current, the method comprising: A magnetic metamaterial comprising a perpendicularly magnetized film that is isotropic with respect to light (Uchida, fig. 1b teaches a perpendicularly magnetized film (layers 12 and 13, magnetized perpendicular to spin current Js). Paragraph 0039 (see provided translation) teaches 12 can be Fe, and paragraph 0047 teaches 13 can be Pt. The applicant’s own spec (paragraph 0025) teaches the perpendicularly magnetized film can be a multilayer film of Fe and Pt. Because these are the same materials used in the same manner, the structure will be isotropic with respect to light), wherein the perpendicularly magnetized film has a plurality of unit structures arranged in an in-plane direction (Figure 1b teaches unit structures 14 in layer 12. Further, figure 3 (a-d) shows the unit structures (element 23 in this picture, which becomes 14 after processing) are in the same plane), and wherein each of the plurality of unit structures has a size equal to or less than a wavelength of irradiated light (Paragraph 0058 teaches the unit structures have an average diameter of about 70 nm, which is below the example range of 300 nm to 2000 nm given in the Applicant’s own specification (paragraph 0019)). Uchida fails to specifically teach the unit structures being periodically arranged in an in-plane direction and having three-fold rotational symmetry. However, Adami teaches a magnetic metamaterial (composed of a layer of Al covered with a layer of copper. Uchida, along with Fe and Pt as taught above, also teaches the magnetized film can be composed of Al or Cu) having unit structures being periodically arranged in an in-plane direction and having three-fold rotational symmetry (Adami, fig. 1 teaches unit structures periodically arranged in an in-plane direction. Paragraph 1 of the experimental details section (see provided article) teaches the unit structures with an equilateral triangle shape (having sides of 0.8 µm or 1.2 µm), which has three-fold rotational symmetry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Adami into the method of Uchida by forming a perpendicularly magnetized film having a plurality of unit structures periodically arranged in an in-plane direction, and wherein each of the plurality of unit structures has three-fold rotational symmetry. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Uchida in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of tuning the electrical and magnetic properties such as (current density) of the magnetic metamaterial to achieve desired device performance (Adami, abstract). Uchida in view of Amadi fails to teach irradiating a magnetic metamaterial with light whose ellipticity angle and azimuth angle are controlled. However, Araki teaches a spin control apparatus comprising a light irradiation unit configured to irradiate the magnetic metamaterial with light, wherein the light irradiation unit is configured to control an ellipticity angle and an azimuth angle of light irradiating the magnetic metamaterial (Araki, paragraph 0041 (see provided translation) teaches the light irradiation unit having the capability to control the azimuth angle and the ellipticity angle of the light irradiating an object, which can be a magnetic metamaterial). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to incorporate the teachings of Araki into the method of Uchida in view of Amadi by forming a spin current control apparatus having a light irradiation unit configured to irradiate the magnetic metamaterial with light, wherein the light irradiation unit is configured to control an ellipticity angle and an azimuth angle of light irradiating the magnetic metamaterial. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to modify Uchida in view of Amadi in the manner set forth above for at least the purpose of providing a three-dimensional measuring instrument capable of measuring the magnetic metamaterial with high accuracy and irradiating the surface of the magnetic material with light (Araki, abstract). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VICENTE R GONZALES whose telephone number is (571)272-3365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm. 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, Zandra Smith can be reached at (571) 272-2429. 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. /V.R.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2899 /JOHN M PARKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 08, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 08, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

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
Grant Probability
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 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