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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending and examined below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
Three information disclosure statements submitted on 05/29/2024 (“05-29-24 IDS”), 04/22/2025 ("04-22-25 IDS") and 10/22/2025 (“10-22-25 IDS”) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the 05-29-24 IDS, 04-22-25 IDS and 10-22-25 IDS are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 1021
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, 10, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No. US 2014/0021426 A1 to Lee et al. ("Lee").
Fig. 8 of Lee has been provided to support the rejection below:
PNG
media_image1.png
467
323
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding independent claim 1, Lee teaches a magnetic tunnel junction element (para [0096] - “FIG. 8 is a cross-sectional view illustrating a magnetic device 200 according to an embodiment of the inventive concept. Like reference numerals in FIG. 8 and FIG. 4 refer to like elements, and thus, repeated descriptions thereof are omitted.”), comprising:
a pinned layer 130 (para [0097] - “lower magnetized pinned layer 130”) and a free layer 164 (para [0098] - “the magnetized free layer 164”) facing each other;
a buffer layer 114 (para [0108] - “The buffer layer 114 having the amorphous structure may be formed…CoFeBTa”) on the pinned layer 130;
an auxiliary layer 274 (para [0097] - “a second amorphous Ta film 274”) or 190 (para [0142] - “The capping layer 190 may include…Ta…”) on the buffer layer 114;
a polarization enhancement layer 172 (para [0098] - “the second polarization enhanced layer 172”) between the auxiliary layer 274 or 190 and the free layer 164; and
a tunnel barrier layer 170 (para [0098] - “the second tunnel barrier 170”) between the polarization enhancement layer 172 and the free layer 164,
wherein the buffer layer 114 is amorphous and includes CoFeBTa (para [0108]),
the auxiliary layer 274 or 190 includes Ta (para [0097]; para [0142]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the auxiliary layer 274 that is thinner than the buffer layer 114 (para [0097] - “The first amorphous Ta film 234 and the second amorphous Ta film 274 each have a thickness in the range of about 2 Å to about 6 Å.”; para [0109] - “The buffer layer 114 may have a thickness in the range of about 0.1 nm to about 1.5 nm.”).
Regarding claim 10, Lee teaches the pinned layer 130 that has a multi-layer structure (para [0073] - “In some embodiments, the lower magnetized pinned layer 130 has a structure of [Co/Pt]xn (where n is the number of repeated structures) in which a Co film having a thickness in the range of about 1 Å to about 2 Å and a Pt film having a thickness in the range of about 1 Å to about 2 Å are repeatedly alternately stacked.”), the pinned layer 130 that includes Co.
Regarding claim 12, Lee teaches the pinned layer 130 (see Fig. 6B; para [0068] - “In some embodiments, the lower magnetized pinned layer 130 may have an L11 type ordered structure.”; para [0079] - “…when forming the CoFeB magnetic layer to contact the lower magnetized pinned layer 130 formed of the L11 type superlattice layer, the CoFeB magnetic layer may be substantially vertically oriented to a thickness of at least 17 Å.”) and the polarization enhancement layer 172 have different crystal structure.
Regarding independent claim 18, Lee teaches a memory device, comprising:
a plurality of memory cells each including a magnetic tunnel junction element 570A (para [0152] - “a plurality of magnetoresistance devices 570A”) and a switching element 510 (para [0121] - “a transistor 510”) connected to the magnetic tunnel junction element 570A,
wherein the magnetic tunnel junction element 570A (para [0096] - “FIG. 8 is a cross-sectional view illustrating a magnetic device 200 according to an embodiment of the inventive concept. Like reference numerals in FIG. 8 and FIG. 4 refer to like elements, and thus, repeated descriptions thereof are omitted.”), comprises:
a pinned layer 130 (para [0097] - “lower magnetized pinned layer 130”) and a free layer 164 (para [0098] - “the magnetized free layer 164”) facing each other;
a buffer layer 114 (para [0108] - “The buffer layer 114 having the amorphous structure may be formed…CoFeBTa”) on the pinned layer 130;
an auxiliary layer 274 (para [0097] - “a second amorphous Ta film 274”) or 190 (para [0142] - “The capping layer 190 may include…Ta…”) on the buffer layer 114;
a polarization enhancement layer 172 (para [0098] - “the second polarization enhanced layer 172”) between the auxiliary layer 274 or 190 and the free layer 164; and
a tunnel barrier layer 170 (para [0098] - “the second tunnel barrier 170”) between the polarization enhancement layer 172 and the free layer 164,
wherein the buffer layer 114 is amorphous and includes CoFeBTa (para [0108]),
the auxiliary layer 274 or 190 includes Ta (para [0097]; para [0142]).
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 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 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.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee.
Regarding claim 3, Lee teaches a thickness of the buffer layer 114 that ranges from 0.1 nm to about 1.5 nm (about 1 Å to about 15 Å), which overlaps with the claimed range of Å to 4 Å. (para [0109] - “The buffer layer 114 may have a thickness in the range of about 0.1 nm to about 1.5 nm.”).
"In the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)" (quoting MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Since the range of about 1 Å to about 15 Å taught by Lee overlaps with the claimed range of 1 to 4 Å, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The burden shifts to the Applicant to show that the claimed range provides unexpected result that is difference in kind and not difference in degree. See In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art to select that thickness that overlaps with the claimed range of 1 Å to 4 Å with a reasonable expectation that the buffer layer will exhibit the characteristics as claimed. Unless the Applicant can show that the claimed range of 1 Å to 4 Å produces an unexpected result that is different in kind and not different in degree, claim 3 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches a thickness of the auxiliary layer 274 (para [0097] - “The first amorphous Ta film 234 and the second amorphous Ta film 274 each have a thickness in the range of about 2 Å to about 6 Å.”) that ranges from about 2 Å to about 6 Å, which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 Å to 2 Å.
"In the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)" (quoting MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Since the range of about 2 Å to about 6 Å taught by Lee overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 Å to 2 Å, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. The burden shifts to the Applicant to show that the claimed range provides unexpected result that is difference in kind and not difference in degree. See In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art to select that thickness that overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 Å to 2 Å with a reasonable expectation that the auxiliary layer will exhibit the characteristics as claimed. Unless the Applicant can show that the claimed range of 0.5 Å to 2 Å produces an unexpected result that is different in kind and not different in degree, claim 4 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the sum of a thickness of the buffer layer 114 (para [0109] - “The buffer layer 114 may have a thickness in the range of about 0.1 nm to about 1.5 nm.”; that is, about 1 Å to about 15 Å) and a thickness of the auxiliary layer 274 (para [0097] - “The first amorphous Ta film 234 and the second amorphous Ta film 274 each have a thickness in the range of about 2 Å to about 6 Å.”) that ranges from about 3 Å to about 21 Å, which overlaps with the claimed range of less than 5 Å.
"In the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)" (quoting MPEP 2144.05.I.).
Since the range of about 3 Å to about 21 Å taught by Lee overlaps with the claimed range of less than 5 Å, a prima facie case of obviousness exist. The burden shifts to the Applicant to show that the claimed range provides unexpected result that is difference in kind and not difference in degree. See In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the one of ordinary skill in the art to select that thickness that overlaps with the claimed range of less than 5 Å with a reasonable expectation that the buffer layer and the auxiliary layer will exhibit the characteristics as claimed. Unless the Applicant can show that the claimed range of less than 5 Å produces an unexpected result that is different in kind and not different in degree, claim 5 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 6.
Claims 7-9 are allowable for depending on the allowable claim 6.
Claim 11 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 1 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 11.
Independent claim 13 is allowed, because the prior art of record, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or suggest, in combination with the other claimed elements in claim 13, the polarization enhancement layer comprises a first polarization enhancement layer and a second polarization enhancement layer,
the second polarization enhancement layer is between the first polarization enhancement layer and the free layer, and
a boron concentration included in the second polarization enhancement layer is lower than a boron concentration included in the first polarization enhancement layer.
Claims 14-17 are allowed, because they depend from the allowed independent claim 13.
Claim 19 is objected to for depending on a rejected base claim 18, but would be allowable if it is rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim 1 or the base claim 18 is amended to include all of the limitations of claim 19.
Claim 20 is allowable, because it depends from the allowable claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Pub. No. US 2024/0306517 A1 to Garg et al.
Pub. No. US 2024/0081155 A1 to Choi et al.
Pub. No. US 2023/0039108 A1 to Guo et al.
Pub. No. US 2015/0303373 A1 to Chen et al.
Patent No. US 9,099,124 B1 to Freitag et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL JUNG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7554. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 A.M. to 7 P.M.
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, Eliseo Ramos-Feliciano can be reached on (571) 272-7925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2817 15 July 2026
1 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
Prosecution Insights