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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the feature of claim 4 where at least one of the inner side and outer side has a polygonal shape and the geometry of the inner side differs from the geometry of the outer side of the cross-sectional shape must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. The closest drawings of the instant application, figures 10 and 11, show both the inner and outer sides having the same geometry. Alternatively, the figures that show the inner and outer sides having different geometries (12A, 13A, 14A, 15A, and 16A), do not show either of the sides having polygonal shape.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 references “the inner lateral size (Dint)”. This lacks proper antecedent basis. It is suggested to change it to “an inner lateral size (Dint)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7, 9, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites “the additional geometrical feature” (singular) “is arranged symmetrically with respect to the center of the cross-sectional shape.” As it is only a singular element, it is unclear how the positioning of it can be symmetric, making the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination this was interpreted to mean that the shape of the geometric feature is symmetric with respect to the center of the cross-sectional shape.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites that “the cross-sectional shape (202) comprises two additional geometrical features”. It is unclear if these features are in addition to the previously recited “additional geometrical feature” of claim 6, resulting in 3 total geometrical features, or if the additional feature of claim 6 is included in these additional features of claim 9, as is depicted in the drawings and described in the specification of the instant application (such as figures 12A and 13A, and description in paragraphs 0023, 0025, 0059, and 0060 of the instant application). As such, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination, it was interpreted in the latter manner, with the 2 additional features introduced in claim 9 including the previously introduced feature of claim 6.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites that “the cross-sectional shape comprises two additional geometrical features”. It is unclear if these features are in addition to the previously recited “additional geometrical feature” of claim 6, resulting in three total geometrical features, or if the additional feature of claim 6 is included in these additional features of claim 10, as is depicted in the drawings and described in the specification of the instant application (such as figures 12A and 13A, and description in paragraphs 0023, 0025, 0059, and 0060 of the instant application). As such, the scope of the claim is indefinite. For examination, it was interpreted in the latter manner, with the two additional features introduced in claim 10 including the previously introduced feature of claim 6.
Claim 10 also recites “each comprising a cut, of flat portion, arranged…”. It is unclear whether this is supposed to read “a cut, or flat portion,” or if it is supposed to mean “a cut of a flat portion”, or something else, making the claim indefinite. For examination, it was interpreted as “a cut, or flat portion,”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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, 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
524
844
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
765
805
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
290
937
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
541
776
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nita et al. (JP 2005223158 A), hereinafter referred to as "Nitta", in view of Gibson (US 20100232219 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Gibson".
Regarding claim 1, Nitta discloses a magnetoresistive element comprising: a tunnel barrier layer (15 in Nitta figure 4) sandwiched between a ferromagnetic reference layer (13 in figure 4) o in figure 1) and an inner side defining a width of the cross-sectional shape (inner sides define ring width L in figure 1); wherein the outer lateral size is between 1 µm and 5 µm (The outer size of H3 is 2 µm. Nitta page 4, 3rd paragraph. The inner diameter plus twice the ring thickness gives the total outer lateral size, so 0.6*2 + 0.8 = 2µm); such that the sense magnetization has a coreless vortex configuration (figure 3b) and such that the magnetoresistive element has zero remanence at zero external magnetic field (see figure 2 curve H3. There is no memory of either of the onion states at zero magnetic field).
Nitta does not explicitly disclose that the reference layer has a fixed magnetization or that the H3 ring has a width of between 0.2 µm and 0.3 µm.
Gibson teaches that MRAM devices have a tunneling current that travels between a high coercivity layer and a low coercivity layer (Gibson 0003). The signal is derived from the different resistance states of these layers being aligned or anti-aligned (Gibson paragraph 003).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have one of the layers be a high coercivity (fixed magnetization) layer in order to integrate the magnetic tunnel junction into an MRAM.
Regarding the width of the ring, while Nitta does not disclose the H3 ring having a width within the claimed range, the ring H4 does have a width in that range (0.2 µm, see Nitta page 4, 3rd paragraph). Nitta also teaches that the narrowing width of the ring steepens the hysteresis curve and makes the three states more defined (Nitta page 4, 3rd paragraph), making the width of the ring a result-effective variable. Furthermore, the hysteresis curve of H4 shows substantially zero remanence at zero magnetic field (see figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to decrease the width of the H3 ring disclosed in Nitta to be within 0.2 µm – 0.3 µm by routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05) while retaining the property of having zero remanence at zero magnetic field in order to steepen the hysteresis of the ring and have more sharply defined magnetic states, which is useful for memory applications.
Regarding claim 2, Nitta in view of Gibson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Nitta further discloses that the cross-sectional shape is ring-shaped (see figures 1and 4) and the inner lateral size and the outer lateral size are, respectively, the inner and outer diameters of the inner and outer sides (di and do in figure 1).
Regarding claim 3, Nitta in view of Gibson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Nitta further teaches that at least one of the inner side and outer side has a polygonal shape with a number of polygonal sides less or equal to eight (Nitta translation page 11, 4th paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Nitta in view of Gibson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Nitta further discloses that the width of the cross-sectional shape is constant (See figures 1 and 4; the ring has a constant thickness L).
PNG
media_image5.png
746
274
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Nitta in view of Gibson teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Nitta does not explicitly disclose additional features for reducing the width of the cross-sectional shape.
Gibson teaches a sense layer where the cross-sectional shape comprises an additional geometrical feature configured to locally reduce the width of the of the cross-sectional shape (see 800 and 1000 in Gibson figures 8 and 10), such as to avoid the formation of a vortex core in the sense magnetization (they promote the switching between the onion state and the vortex state, and thus avoids the vortex core formation in the ring, Gibson paragraph 0040).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the additional geometrical feature of the structural defects from Gibson in order to facilitate the switching between the onion and coreless vortex states.
Gibson does not explicitly teach that this reduction is by less than 50%, however, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the size of the defects to optimize the switching behavior of the element through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 7, Nitta in view of Gibson teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Gibson further teaches that the additional geometrical feature is arranged symmetrically (see 112b rejection above) with respect to the center of the cross-sectional shape (the feature 1000 in Gibson figure 10 is in a symmetric arc with respect to the center of the cross-section).
Regarding claim 12, Nitta in view of Gibson teaches all of the limitations of a magnetoresistive element according to claim 1. Nitta further describes the switching of the magnetic layer between different onion states O1 and O2 and vortex state V (see figure 3b). Therefore, it satisfies being a magnetic switch.
PNG
media_image6.png
388
300
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta in view of Gibson as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Dieny et al. (US 20120075031 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Dieny".
Regarding claim 4, Nitta in view of Gibson teaches all of the limitations of claim 3. It is not explicitly taught by Nitta whether the polygonal or triangular shape of the free layer is just one of the outer and inner sides or both the outer and inner side.
Gibson teaches that structural defects that compress the width of the ring can provide pinning sites which facilitate switching between onion and vortex states (Gibson paragraph 0040).
Dieny teaches a free layer in a tunnel junction with exemplary options for the shape in which the geometry of the inner side differs from the geometry of the outer side of the cross-sectional shape (see Dieny figure 5, 5’’, and 6). Dieny also teaches that this generates dissymmetries in the ring (Dieny paragraph 0099). As such, these geometries taught by Dieny can be recognized as providing the same benefit as taught by Gibson, namely promoting switching between the onion and vortex states.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inner and outer sides have different geometries in order to promote switching between onion and vortex states.
PNG
media_image7.png
212
467
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
767
383
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta in view of Gibson as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Nakatani and Yamamoto ("Magnetization Reversal with In-Plane Magnetic Field in Asymmetric Ring Dots"), hereinafter referred to as "Nakatani".
Regarding claim 8, Nitta in view of Gibson teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Gibson doesn’t explicitly teach how the additional feature is arranged relative to the applied magnetic field.
Nakatani teaches an additional geometrical feature (the cut portion of the ring in Nakatani figure 1) which is arranged perpendicular to the applied magnetic field (see Nakatani figure 3 and caption). Nakatani also teaches that this helps facilitate switching between magnetic states controllably (Nakatani page 101, second column, first paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the cut be arranged perpendicular to the magnetic field as in Nakatani in order to better facilitate the switching between magnetic states.
PNG
media_image9.png
165
126
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta in view of Gibson as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Dieny.
Regarding claim 9, Nitta in view of Gibson teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, wherein Gibson teaches that the additional geometrical feature comprises a notch on the outer side (800 and 1000 in Gibson figures 8 and 10). Gibson also teaches that structural defects that compress the width of the ring can provide pinning sites which facilitate switching between onion and vortex states (Gibson paragraph 0040).
Gibson does not teach two of these features arranged diametrically opposed.
Dieny teaches notches arranged diametrically opposed (see Dieny figure 6’), which demonstrates another exemplary way to achieve the teachings of Gibson, as these introduces dissymmetries (Dieny paragraph 0099) that also compress the width (see figure 6’).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the notches be diametrically opposed in order to promote switching between onion and vortex states.
Regarding claim 10, Nitta in view of Gibson teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Neither Nitta nor Gibson teaches two flat cuts on the ring arranged diametrically opposed.
Gibson does teach that structural defects that compress the width of the ring can provide pinning sites which facilitate switching between onion and vortex states (Gibson paragraph 0040).
Dieny teaches flat portions arranged diametrically opposed (see Dieny figure 6), which demonstrates another exemplary way to achieve the teachings of Gibson, as these introduce dissymmetries (Dieny paragraph 0099) that also compress the width (see figure 6).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have flat portions be diametrically opposed in order to promote switching between onion and vortex states.
PNG
media_image10.png
397
532
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nitta in view of Gibson as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kawabata et al. (US 20040213039 A1), hereinafter referred to as "Kawabata".
Regarding claim 11, Nitta in view of Gibson teaches all of the limitations of claim 6. Gibson does not teach that the additional geometrical feature comprises one of the inner or outer side being an ellipse.
Kawabata teaches a magnetic ring unit where the additional geometrical features comprise the outer side having a circular shape (Kawabata figure 1, “in each of the above described embodiment the outer form of the eccentric ring is completely round” paragraph 0096) and the inner side having an ellipsoid shape (Kawabata figure 1, “in each of the above described embodiment the inner form of the eccentric ring is elliptical” paragraph 0095).
Kawabata also teaches that this allows for controlling the direction of rotation of magnetization of the magnetic ring unit with high reproducibility (Kawabata paragraph 0001).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ellipse shape of Kawabata in order to control the direction of rotation of magnetization of the magnetic ring unit with high reproducibility.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL K ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (571)357-4606. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00 -5:00.
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, Brent Fairbanks can be reached at 408-918-7532. 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.
/DANIEL KURT ELLIOTT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2899
/Brent A. Fairbanks/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2899
Prosecution Insights