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
The 4/13/2026 "Reply" elects without traverse and identifies claims 1-14 and 16 as being drawn to Species I2. Accordingly, Examiner has withdrawn claim 15 from further consideration as being drawn to a non-elected invention. See, for example, 37 CFR § 1.142(b).
The 2/18/2026 restriction requirement is proper, is maintained, and is hereby made final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2 recites the insulating material can further include fluorine which was already recited in claim 1. As such, claim 2 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kariyada (US Pub. No. 2019/0172513).
Regarding claims 1-2, in FIG. 1, Kariyada discloses a magnetoresistive element comprising: a first magnetic layer (22, paragraph [0049]) stacked on a base layer (e.g. any underlying layer); a second magnetic layer (24A/24C, paragraph [0056]); and a first nonmagnetic layer (23, paragraph [0036]) arranged between the first magnetic layer and the second magnetic layer, wherein the first nonmagnetic layer includes an insulating material including fluorine (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 4, in FIG. 1, Kariyada discloses that a perpendicular magnetization film is used for both the first magnetic layer and the second magnetic layer, or any one of the first magnetic layer (see claim 1) or the second magnetic layer.
Regarding claim 5, in FIG. 1, Kariyada discloses that the first nonmagnetic layer includes at least any one kind of fluoride of MgF2, CaF2 (paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 16, in FIG. 1, Kariyada discloses a magnetic memory comprising: the magnetoresistive element according to claim 1.
Claims 1-2, 5, 9, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nishiyama (US Pub. No. 2003/0185046).
Regarding claims 1-2, in FIG. 2A, Nishiyama discloses a magnetoresistive element comprising: a first magnetic layer (6, paragraph [0058]) stacked on a base layer (2); a second magnetic layer (10, paragraph [0058]); and a first nonmagnetic layer (8, paragraphs [0058] and [0085]) arranged between the first magnetic layer and the second magnetic layer, wherein the first nonmagnetic layer includes an insulating material including fluorine (paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 5, in FIG. 2A, Nishiyama discloses that the first nonmagnetic layer includes at least any one kind of fluoride of MgF2, CaF2 (paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 9, in FIG. 2A, Nishiyama discloses a third nonmagnetic layer (12) on the second magnetic layer, wherein the third nonmagnetic layer includes at least any one kind of fluoride of MgF2, CaF2 (paragraph [0085]).
Regarding claim 10, in FIG. 2A, Nishiyama discloses a third magnetic layer (14, paragraph [0058]) on the third nonmagnetic layer.
Regarding claim 16, in FIG. 2A, Nishiyama discloses a magnetic memory comprising: the magnetoresistive element according to claim 1.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kariyada (US Pub. No. 2019/0172513) in view of Jeong (US Pub. No. 2018/0205008).
Regarding claim 7, Kariyada appears not to explicitly disclose that the first nonmagnetic layer includes LiF.
The art however well recognized LiF to be suitable for use as a tunnel barrier (or “first nonmagnetic layer”) layer. See, for example, Jeong, paragraph [0049].
According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, it 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 to have formed the first nonmagnetic layer with LiF for its recognized suitability as a tunnel barrier.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US Pub. No. 2003/0185046) in view of Nagase (US Pub. No. 2007/0086121).
Regarding claim 11, Nishiyama appears not to explicitly disclose that as the first magnetic layer, the second magnetic layer, and the third magnetic layer, a magnetic thin film having a bcc (001) crystal structure is used.
The art however well recognized a magnetic thin film having a bct (001) crystal structure to be suitable for use as a magnetic layer in a magnetoresistive element. See, for example, Nagase, paragraphs [0070] and [0213], claims 14 and 19.
According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, it 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 to have formed the first magnetic layer, the second magnetic layer, and the third magnetic layer, from a magnetic thin film having a bcc (001) crystal structure for its recognized suitability as a magnetic layer in a magnetoresistive element.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US Pub. No. 2003/0185046) in view of Hayashi (US Pub. No. 2002/0167766).
Regarding claim 12, Nishiyama appears not to explicitly disclose that as the first magnetic layer, the second magnetic layer, and the third magnetic layer, a magnetic thin film having an amorphous structure is used.
The art however well recognized an amorphous structure to be suitable for use as a fixed layer (or “first magnetic layer” and “third magnetic layer”) and a free layer (or “second magnetic layer”). See, for example, Hayashi, paragraph [0045].
According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, it 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 to have formed the first magnetic layer, the second magnetic layer, and the third magnetic layer, from a magnetic thin film having an amorphous structure for its recognized suitability as a fixed and free magnetic layer in a magnetoresistive element.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kariyada (US Pub. No. 2019/0172513) in view of Nagase (US Pub. No. 2007/0086121).
Regarding claim 13, Kariyada appears not to explicitly disclose that as the first magnetic layer, a magnetic thin film having a bct (001) crystal structure is used.
The art however well recognized a magnetic thin film having a bct (001) crystal structure to be suitable for use as storage/free (or “first magnetic layer”) layer. See, for example, Nagase, claims 14 and 19.
According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, it 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 to have formed the first magnetic layer using a magnetic thin film having a bct (001) crystal structure for its recognized suitability as a storage/free layer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kariyada (US Pub. No. 2019/0172513) in view of Nagase (US Pub. No. 2007/0086121) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Tomioka (US Pub. No. 2012/0032288).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kariyada and Nagase appears not to explicitly disclose that as the base layer, Ir is used.
The art however well recognized Ir to be suitable for use as an electrode (or “baser layer”) layer in a magnetoresistive element. See, for example, Tomioka, paragraph [0027].
According to well-established patent law precedents (see, for example, M.P.E.P. § 2144.07), therefore, it 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 to have formed the base layer from Ir for its recognized suitability as an electrode in a magnetoresistive element.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 6, and 8 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 claims 3, 6, and 8, the prior art failed to disclose or reasonably suggest the claimed magnetoresistive element particularly characterized by a second nonmagnetic layer between the first nonmagnetic layer and the second magnetic layer, wherein the second nonmagnetic layer includes a nonmagnetic layer having a stacked structure in which a fluoride insulator, an oxide insulator, or a nitride insulator is used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUCKER J WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3234. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Matthew Landau can be reached at 571-272-1731. 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.
/TUCKER J WRIGHT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2891
Prosecution Insights