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
Claim 29 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 November 6, 2025.
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 2, 11, 23, 24, 26 are 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.
Claim 2 is indefinite because it repeats what is in claim 1.
Claim 11, line 2, is indefinite because “the Kr atmosphere” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 23, lines 2 and 3, is indefinite because it is unclear what are the given magnetic compensation characteristics.
Claim 24, line 2, is indefinite because the term “perp” is unclear.
Claim 26, line 2, is indefinite because “sstability” should be “stability”.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-18, 21-27, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2024/027551 A1) in view of Palomino et al. (EP 4257998 A1) and Park et al. (U.S. PGPUB. 2015/0162525 A1).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Childress et al. teach a method, comprising:
a series of layers for a magnetoresistive element (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0028), including: a sense layer (23) having a free sense magnetization; a tunnel barrier layer (22) between the sense layer and a reference layer; the reference layer (211) having a fixed reference magnetization (210); a hard layer (212) having a fixed reference magnetization layer (210) opposite to that of the reference layer due to a metallic layer (213; Paragraph 0053, 0055) in between the hard layer and the reference layer, wherein the magnetoresistive element is configured to measure an external magnetic field oriented substantially perpendicular to the plane of the reference layer (Paragraph 0029); wherein the reference magnetizations of the reference and hard layers are oriented substantially perpendicularly to the plane of the reference and hard layers (Fig. 1); and wherein the sense magnetization comprises a vortex configuration (230; Paragraph 0030) in the absence of an external magnetic field, the vortex configuration being substantially parallel to the plane of the sense layer and having a vortex core magnetization (231) along an out-of-plane axis substantially perpendicular to the plane of the sense layer (Paragraph 0030).
The difference between Childress et al. and claim 1 is that wherein the layers are “formed” is not discussed (Claim 1) and wherein the reference layer is formed by deposition in an atmosphere with a noble gas having an atomic weight greater than Argon is not discussed (Claim 1).
Regarding wherein the layers are “formed” (Claim 1), In Childress et al. the layers are implicitly “formed” on one another as shown in Fig. 1. However further in support thereof Palomino et al. teach that the layers utilizing a vortex sensing layer can utilize sputtering to form the various layers. (Paragraph 0052)
Regarding wherein the reference layer is formed by deposition in an atmosphere with a noble gas having an atomic weight greater than Argon (Claim 1), Park et al. teach forming reference layers by using a sputtering process with the inert gas Krypton for improving perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the reference layer structure. (Paragraph 0127)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is further including wherein the reference layer is formed by deposition in the atmosphere with a noble gas having an atomic weight greater than Argon.
Regarding claim 2, Park et al. teach wherein the reference layer is formed by deposition in the atmosphere with a noble gas having an atomic weight greater than Argon. (Paragraph 0127)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the reference layer comprises alternating layers of Pt and Co.
Regarding claim 3, Childress et al. teach wherein the reference layer comprises alternating layers of Pt and Co. (Fig. 9; Paragraph 0054)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein Pt layers in the alternating layers of Pt and Co range from 0.2 nm to 2.0 nm in thickness.
Regarding claim 4, Childress et al. teach wherein Pt layers in the alternating layers of Pt and Co range from 0.2 nm to 2.0 nm in thickness. (Paragraph 0055)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein Co layers in the alternating layers of Pt and Co range from 0.2 nm to 2,0 nm in thickness.
Regarding claim 4, Childress et al. teach wherein Co layers in the alternating layers of Pt and Co range from 0.2 nm to 2,0 nm in thickness. (Paragraph 0055)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the reference layer includes a FeCoB layer.
Regarding claim 7, Palomino et al. teach utilizing a reference layer as Co/Pt multilayer with FeCoB on top, at the interface to the tunnel barrier, so as to provide a high MR ratio. (Paragraph 0045; Figs. 5, 15)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the FeCoB layer comprises FeyCo80-yB20 where y is between 5 and 75.
Regarding claim 8, Palomino et al. teach utilizing FeCoB alloys. (Paragraph 0012) This covers the species claimed as it is a genus.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein a thickness of the FeCoB layer ranges from 0.2 nm to 2.0 nm in thickness.
Regarding claim 9, Palomino teach the thickness in Fig. 5 as 1.0 nanometer for the FeCoB reference layer. (See Fig. 5)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the FeCoB layer is formed by deposition in the atmosphere.
Regarding claim 10:
Park et al. teach forming reference layers by using a sputtering process with the inert gas Krypton for improving perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the reference layer structure. (Paragraph 0127)
Palomino et al. teach forming reference layers and FeCoB is a reference layer. (See Paragraph 0052, Fig. 5)
Therefore it would be obvious to utilize the features of Park et al. and Palomino to deposit the reference layer of FeCoB in Kr by sputtering.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 11:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the reference layer includes a Ta layer deposited in the Kr atmosphere.
Regarding claim 11:
Palomino et al. the reference layer can include a Ta layer. (Paragraph 0052, Fig. 5)
Park et al. teach forming reference layers by using a sputtering process with the inert gas Krypton for improving perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the reference layer structure. (Paragraph 0127)
Therefore it would be obvious to utilize the features of Park et al. and Palomino to deposit the reference layer of Ta in Kr by sputtering.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 12:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the Ta layer has a thickness between 0.1 nm
and 0.5 nm.
Regarding claim 12, Palomino et al. teach wherein the Ta layer is 0.2 nm. (See Fig. 5)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 13:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the reference layer includes a Tungsten layer
deposited in the atmosphere with a noble gas having an atomic weight greater than Argon.
Regarding claim 13:
Palomino et al. teach utilizing W instead of Ta. (Paragraph 0041)
Park et al. teach forming reference layers by using a sputtering process with the inert gas Krypton for improving perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the reference layer structure. (Paragraph 0127)
Therefore it would be obvious to utilize the features of Park et al. and Palomino to deposit the reference layer of W in Kr by sputtering.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 14:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the Tungsten layer has a thickness between 0.1 nm and 0.5 nm.
Regarding claim 14, Palomino et al. teach wherein the Ta layer is 0.2 nm. (See Fig. 5) Palomino et al. teach utilizing W instead of Ta. (Paragraph 0041) It therefore follows that W would also be at the same thickness of 0.2 nm.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 15:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the hard layer includes alternating layers of Pt
and Co.
Regarding claim 15, Childress et al. teach the hard layer includes alternating layers of Pt and Co. (Fig. 9 – stack 212; paragraph 0054, 0055)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 16:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the Pt layers and the Co layers in the alternating layers have thicknesses between 0.2 nm and 2.0 nm.
Regarding claim 16, Childress et al. teach wherein the Pt layers and the Co layers in the alternating layers have thickness between 0.2 nm and 2 nm. (Paragraph 0055)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 17:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the hard layer is deposited on a Pt buffer layer.
Regarding claim 17, Childress et al. teach wherein the hard layer is deposited on a Pt buffer layer. (Paragraph 0054; Fig. 9)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 18:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the Pt buffer layer has a thickness from 0.2 nm to 50 nm.
Regarding claim 18, Childress et al. teach wherein the Pt buffer layer has a thickness from 0.2 nm to 50 nm. (Paragraph 0055)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 21:
The difference not yet discussed is further including selecting thicknesses of alternating
layers of Pt and Co in the reference layer and the hard layer for perpendicular anisotropy in the
atmosphere with a noble gas having an atomic weight greater than Argon.
Regarding claim 21:
Regarding claim 21, Childress et al. teach selecting thicknesses of alternating
layers of Pt and Co in the reference layer and the hard layer for perpendicular anisotropy. (Paragraph 0054, 0055, Fig. 9)
Regarding wherein the layers are formed by deposition in an atmosphere with a noble gas having an atomic weight greater than Argon (Claim 1), Park et al. teach forming layers of Pt and Co by using a sputtering process with the inert gas Krypton for improving perpendicular magnetic anisotropy. (Paragraph 0127)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Childress et al. by utilizing the features of Park et al. because it allows for improving the perpendicular anisotropy.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 22:
The difference not yet discussed is further including selecting thicknesses of alternating
layers of Pt and Co in the reference and hard layers for an AF plateau value.
Regarding claim 22, Childress et al. teach including selecting thicknesses of alternating
layers of Pt and Co in the reference and hard layers. (Paragraph 0054, 0055) Since the thickness are substantially identical to Applicant’s thicknesses the AF plateau value will be met.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 23:
The difference not yet discussed is further including selecting thicknesses of alternating
layers of Pt and Co in the reference and hard layers for given magnetic compensation
characteristics.
Regarding claim 23, Childress et al. teach including selecting thicknesses of alternating
layers of Pt and Co in the reference and hard layers. (Paragraph 0054, 0055) Since the thickness are substantially identical to Applicant’s thicknesses the given magnetic compensation
characteristics will be met.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 24:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the metallic layer comprises Ru configured to
establish RKKY AF coupling to obtain a perp SAF.
Regarding claim 24, Childress et al. teach wherein the metallic layer comprises Ru configured to establish RKKY AF coupling to obtain perp SAF. (Paragraph 0055)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 25:
The difference not yet discussed is further including selecting thicknesses of a1tenating
layers of Pt and Co in the reference and hard layers for a given RKKY coupling strength.
Regarding claim 25, Childress et al. teach including selecting thicknesses of alternating
layers of Pt and Co in the reference and hard layers. (Paragraph 0054, 0055) Since the thickness are substantially identical to Applicant’s thicknesses the RKKY coupling strength will be met.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 26:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the magnetoresistive element forms a part of a z-axis MR sensor having field stability up to 250 mT.
Regarding claim 26, since Childress et al. teach a magnetoresistive element that can measure that has the same layers and thicknesses as Applicant this limitation is believe to be met. (Paragraph 0029; Fig. 2)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 27:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the noble gas having an atomic weight greater
than Argon is Kr.
Regarding claim 27, Park et al. teach forming reference layers by using a sputtering process with the inert gas Krypton for improving perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the reference layer structure. (Paragraph 0127)
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 30:
Regarding claim 30, Childress et al. teach a method, comprising:
a series of layers for a magnetoresistive element (Fig. 1; Paragraph 0028), including: a sense layer (23) having a free sense magnetization; a tunnel barrier layer (22) between the sense layer and a reference layer; the reference layer (211) having a fixed reference magnetization (210); a hard layer (212) having a fixed reference magnetization layer (210) opposite to that of the reference layer due to a metallic layer (213; Paragraph 0053, 0055) in between the hard layer and the reference layer, wherein the magnetoresistive element is configured to measure an external magnetic field oriented substantially perpendicular to the plane of the reference layer (Paragraph 0029); wherein the reference magnetizations of the reference and hard layers are oriented substantially perpendicularly to the plane of the reference and hard layers (Fig. 1); and wherein the sense magnetization comprises a vortex configuration (230; Paragraph 0030) in the absence of an external magnetic field, the vortex configuration being substantially parallel to the plane of the sense layer and having a vortex core magnetization (231) along an out-of-plane axis substantially perpendicular to the plane of the sense layer (Paragraph 0030).
The difference between Childress et al. and claim 1 is that wherein the layers are “formed” is not discussed (Claim 30) and wherein the reference layer is formed by deposition in an atmosphere with Krypton is not discussed (Claim 30).
Regarding wherein the layers are “formed” (Claim 30), In Childress et al. the layers are implicitly “formed” on one another as shown in Fig. 1. However further in support thereof Palomino et al. teach that the layers utilizing a vortex sensing layer can utilize sputtering to form the various layers. (Paragraph 0052)
Regarding wherein the reference layer is formed by deposition in an atmosphere with Krypton (Claim 30), Park et al. teach forming reference layers by using a sputtering process with the inert gas Krypton for improving perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of the reference layer structure. (Paragraph 0127)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Palomino et al. is that it allows for formation of a magnetoresistive sensor. (See Abstract)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Park et al. is that it allows for improving magnetic anisotropy. (Paragraph 0127)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized Childress et al. by utilizing the features of Palomino et al. and Park et al. because it allows producing magnetoresistive sensors with improved magnetic anisotropy.
Claim(s) 6, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress et al. in view of Palomino et al. and Park et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 7-18, 21-27, 30 above, and further in view of Yoshida et al. “Reduction of Offset Field in Top-Pinned MTJ with Synthetic Antiferromagnetic Free Layer,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MAGNETICS, IEEE, Vol. 50, No. 11, 1 November 2014, Pages 1-4.
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the reference layer comprises Pd.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida et al. teach utilizing Pd as the reference layer. (See Page 1 – Experimental Procedures)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 19:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the hard layer is deposited on a Pd buffer layer.
Regarding claim 19, Yoshida et al. teach utilizing a Pd Buffer layer. (See Page 1 – Experimental Procedure)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 20:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the hard layer includes alternating layers of Pd and Co.
Regarding claim 20, Yoshida et al. teach wherein the hard layer includes alternating layers of Pd and Co. (See page 1 – Experimental Procedure)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Yoshida et al. is that it allows producing magnetic tunnel junctions. (See Title)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Yoshida et al. because it allows for producing magnetic tunnel junctions.
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Childress et al. in view of Palomino et al. and Park et al. as applied to claims 1-5, 7-18, 21-27, 30 above, and further in view of Ikegawa (U.S. PGPUB. 2022/059755 A1).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 28:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the noble gas having an atomic weight greater
than Argon is Xe.
Regarding claim 28, Ikegawa teach utilizing Xe. (Paragraphs 0061, 0062)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Ikegawa is that it allows for improving the properties of the device. (Paragraphs 0061, 0062)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Ikegawa because it allows for improving the properties of the device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off..
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
February 26, 2026