DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
IDS
The IDS document(s) filed on April 17, 2024 and January 16, 2025 have been considered. Copies of the PTO-1449 documents are herewith enclosed with this office action.
Claim Rejections 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
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 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by van der Straten et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0044333 A1), hereafter “van der Straten”.
As to claim 15, van der Straten teaches:
A seed layer. Van der Straten teaches an optional blanket layer of metal seed material is formed beneath the pinned layer 20L. See van der Straten, FIG. 6A, ¶ [0068].
A pinned layer 20L on the seed layer.
A free layer 24L facing the pinned layer.
A tunnel barrier layer 22L between the pinned layer and the free layer.
Wherein the seed layer is a single layer comprising rhenium (Re) alloy having a hexagonal closed-packed (HCP) structure. Id. at ¶ [0071]. Although van der Straten does not explicitly teach a HCP structure, the Examiner takes Official Notice that rhenium crystallizes in a HCP structure.
As to claim 16, van der Straten teaches the rhenium alloy includes an alloy of rhenium and platinum. Id.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
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.
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 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over van der Straten.
As to claim 15, van der Straten teaches:
A seed layer. Van der Straten teaches an optional blanket layer of metal seed material is formed beneath the pinned layer 20L. See van der Straten, FIG. 6A, ¶ [0068].
A pinned layer 20L on the seed layer.
A free layer 24L facing the pinned layer.
A tunnel barrier layer 22L between the pinned layer and the free layer.
Wherein the seed layer is a single layer comprising rhenium (Re) alloy. Id. at ¶ [0071].
However, van der Straten does not teach a HCP structure.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a HCP rhenium alloy structure, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
As a matter of design choice, there are a limited number of materials that can provide the HCP rhenium structure. Thus, the use of the HCP rhenium structure is merely a matter of routine skill in the choosing of a material based on its common properties and its suitability for the intended use, and as such, the invention is “the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). “Granting patent protection to advances that would occur in the ordinary course without real innovation retards progress.” Id. at 419. Nothing in Applicant’s disclosure establishes that HCP rhenium alloy presents a novel or unexpected result, thus selection of it based upon suitability for the intended use is a design choice consideration within the skill of the art.
As to claim 16, van der Straten teaches the rhenium alloy includes an alloy of rhenium and platinum. See van der Straten, ¶ [0071].
As to claim 17, van der Straten does not teach a material with the claimed ratios.
On the other hand, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use a rhenium alloy having 50% atomic percent rhenium and 50% atomic percent of the at least one metal, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: claims 1-14 and 18-20 are indicated as being allowable because prior art fails to teach “one of the first seed layer and the second seed layer comprises rhenium (Re) and the other of the first seed layer and the second seed layer comprises ruthenium (Ru)” (claim 1) and “one of the first seed layer and the second seed layer comprises rhenium (Re) and the other of the first seed layer and the second seed layer comprises ruthenium (Ru)” (claim 19).
Prior Art Not Relied Upon
The following prior art was not relied upon but is made of record:
Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0287052 A1)
MTJ structure with seed layer(s)
Tanaka et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0151438 A1)
Teaches a second seed layer comprises ruthenium (paragraph [0029]) but does not teach a first seed layer comprising rhenium.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUBERR CHI whose telephone number is (571)270-3955. The examiner can normally be reached 10am to 6pm.
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, Sue Purvis can be reached on (571) 272-1236. 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.
/SUBERR L CHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights