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 1-13, in the reply filed on 6/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 6/3/2026.
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, 5, 7-8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lille (US 2021/0408114).
Regarding claim 1, Lille discloses, in FIG. 10C and in related text, a magnetic memory device comprising:
a switching element (134) (see Lille, [0051], [0084]);
a magnetoresistive effect element (15) (see Lille, [0076], [0087]); and
an electrode provided between the switching element and the magnetoresistive effect element, wherein the electrode includes
a first sub-electrode (136, 142) in (electrical) contact with the switching element (134),
a second sub-electrode (146) in contact with the magnetoresistive effect element (15), and
a third sub-electrode (144) provided between the first sub-electrode and the second sub-electrode, wherein
the first sub-electrode (136: amorphous carbon; 142: TaC) and the second sub-electrode (146: amorphous carbon) include at least one element or one compound selected from carbon (C) and carbon nitride (CN) (see Lille, [0051], [0057]-[0059], [0078]-[0079], [0081], [0084]) and wherein
the third sub-electrode (144: ruthenium) includes at least one element or one compound selected from a high melting point metal element and a compound of the high melting point metal element (see Lille, [0079]). Here, ruthenium has a higher melting point (2334 °C) than that of iron (1538 °C) and cobalt (1495 °C) and is considered as having a high melting point. See page 16 of Specification of the instant Application. See also, Wikipedia, Melting points of the elements (data page), archived on 6 October 2022.
Regarding claim 3, Lille discloses the device of claim 1.
Lille discloses wherein each of the first sub-electrode (136: amorphous carbon; 142: TaC) and the second sub-electrode (146: amorphous carbon) has an amorphous structure (see discussion on claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, Lille discloses the device of claim 1.
Lille discloses wherein a height (3 nm) from an upper surface to a lower surface of the first sub-electrode (136, 142) is from 2 nanometers (nm) to 20 nanometers (nm) (see Lille, [0051], [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, Lille discloses the device of claim 1.
Lille discloses wherein a height (2 nm) from an upper surface to a lower surface of the third sub-electrode (144) is from 0.1 nanometers (nm) to 3 nanometers (nm) (see Lille, [0058]).
Regarding claim 8, Lille discloses the device of claim 1.
Lille discloses wherein the magnetoresistive effect element (15) is provided opposite to a substrate (18) with respect to the switching element (134) (see Lille, FIG. 10C, [0043], and discussion on claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Lille discloses the device of claim 1.
Lille discloses wherein the switching element (134) is a two-terminal switching element (between first sub-electrode 136, 142, and conductive line 12) (see Lille, FIG. 10C, [0049], and discussion on claim 1 above).
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.
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lille in view of Nagase (US 2020/0083285).
Regarding claim 9, Lille discloses the device of claim 1.
Lille discloses wherein the magnetoresistive effect element includes
a first ferromagnetic layer (free layer 156),
a second ferromagnetic layer (reference layer 152),
a first nonmagnetic layer (154) provided between the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer wherein the first nonmagnetic layer includes an oxide of magnesium (Mg) (see Lille, [0060]-[0061], [0063]-[0064], [0076]).
Lille does not explicitly disclose a third ferromagnetic layer provided opposite to the first ferromagnetic layer with respect to the second ferromagnetic layer, a second nonmagnetic layer provided between the second ferromagnetic layer and the third ferromagnetic layer.
Nagase teaches a third ferromagnetic layer (45) provided opposite to the first ferromagnetic layer (41) with respect to the second ferromagnetic layer (43), a second nonmagnetic layer (44) provided between the second ferromagnetic layer (43) and the third ferromagnetic layer (45) (see Nagase, FIG. 5, [0069]).
Lille and Nagase 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 Lille with the features of Nagase 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 Lille to include a third ferromagnetic layer provided opposite to the first ferromagnetic layer with respect to the second ferromagnetic layer, a second nonmagnetic layer provided between the second ferromagnetic layer and the third ferromagnetic layer, as taught by Nagase, to provide a synthetic anti-ferromagnetic structure to cancel influence of stray magnetic field (see Nagase, [0078]).
Regarding claim 10, Lille in view of Nagase teaches the device of claim 9.
Nagase teaches wherein the second nonmagnetic layer (44) includes at least one element selected from ruthenium (Ru), osmium (Os), rhodium (Rh), iridium (Ir), vanadium (V), and chromium (Cr) (see Nagase, [0075]), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Lille in view of Nagase teaches the device of claim 9.
Lille discloses that magnetoresistive element (15) is positioned above the switching element (134) and a substrate (8) with the first ferromagnetic layer (156) most distant from the substrate (see Lille, FIG. 10C, [0043], and discussion on claim 1 above). Nagase teaches the magnetoresistive element including the first nonmagnetic layer (42), the second ferromagnetic layer (43) and the third ferromagnetic layer (45) stacked in sequence, thus Nagase together with Lille teaches the third ferromagnetic layer is provided between a substrate and the second ferromagnetic layer, with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 9.
Regarding claim 12, Lille in view of Nagase teaches the device of claim 9.
Nagase teaches wherein the second ferromagnetic layer (43) and the third ferromagnetic layer (45) are antiferromagnetically coupled (see Nagase, [0078]), with the same analogous prior art and field of endeavor statement and the same motivation as provided for in claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4 and 6 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:
The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “wherein the high melting point metal element and the compound of the high melting point metal element include titanium (Ti), tantalum (Ta), tungsten (W), titanium nitride (TiN), tantalum nitride (TaN), and tungsten nitride (WN)” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 2.
The prior art of record, Lille, discloses wherein a height from a lower surface to an upper surface of the first sub-electrode is less than a height from a lower surface to an upper surface of the electrode. The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “wherein a height from a lower surface to an upper surface of the first sub-electrode is half or more of a height from a lower surface to an upper surface of the electrode” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 4.
The prior art of record, Lille, discloses wherein a height from an upper surface to a lower surface of the second sub-electrode is from 20 nanometers (nm) to 50 nanometers (nm). The prior art of records, individually or in combination, do not disclose nor teach “wherein a height from an upper surface to a lower surface of the second sub-electrode is from 0.1 nanometers (nm) to 3 nanometers (nm)” in combination with other limitations as recited in claim 6.
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