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 .
Status of the Application
Acknowledgement is made of the amendment received 7/13/26. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 16 were amended, claim 3 was cancelled in the amendment received 7/13/26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/13/26 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection..
Specification
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in light of the amendment received 7/13/26.
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 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 of this title, 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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US Patent Application Publication No 2018/0358547) hereinafter referred to as Yang.
Per Claim 16 Yang discloses a device, comprising (see figure 20A)
a first metallization layer (192) comprising a first conductive feature;
a second metallization layer (126) comprising a second conductive feature; and
a third metallization layer (212/102’/202/204/200) between the first metallization layer and the second metallization layer, the third metallization layer comprising:
a first electrode (212) connected to the first conductive feature;
a second electrode (124/128) connected to the second conductive feature, the second electrode having a greater resistance than the first electrode; and
a magnetic tunnel junction (202/204/200) stack between the second electrode and the first electrode.
Yang does not disclose the second electrode having a greater thickness than the first electrode.
Notwithstanding, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the recited relative thickness dimensions through routine experimentation and optimization. Applicant has not disclosed that the dimensions are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical, and it appears prima facie that the process would possess utility using another dimension. Indeed, it has been held that mere dimensional limitations are prima facie obvious absent a disclosure that the limitations are for a particular unobvious purpose, produce an unexpected result, or are otherwise critical. See, for example, In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). See also MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B).
Per Claim 18 Yang discloses the device of claim 16 including where (see figure 20A) the second electrode (124/128) comprises more layers than the first electrode (212).
Per Claim 20 Yang discloses the device of claim 16 including where (see figure 20A) a width of the second electrode (124/128) is less than a width of the first electrode (212). (note that 124 is less wide than 212, see figure 20A)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 19 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. Claims 1-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. The closest prior art appears to be Yang (previously cited) which teaches an analogous device including a device, comprising a first memory cell comprising: (see figure 20A) a first bottom electrode (212); a first magnetic tunnel junction stack (202/204/200) over the first bottom electrode; and a first top electrode (102’) comprising first conductive layers (124, 126) and a first dielectric layer (128) between the first conductive layers: (see Fig 20A)
Yang does not disclose a second memory cell comprising: a second bottom electrode; a second magnetic tunnel junction stack over the second bottom electrode; and a second top electrode over the second magnetic tunnel junction stack, the second top electrode comprising second conductive layers, however this limitation would have been found obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art since its simple the duplication of parts.
Yang does not disclose the second conductive layers physically contacting one another, the first top electrode having a greater resistance than the second top electrode, as recited by independent claim 8, in combination with the other elements/steps of the claim. No prior art was found that taught the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMI VALENTINE MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-9786. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 7am-5pm.
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, Eva Montalvo can be reached on (571) 270-3829. 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.
/Jami Valentine Miller/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights