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
In response to the Communications dated July 3, 2025, claims 1-18 are active in
this application.
Specification
If there are cross-reference to related applications, please include the
respective patent numbers, if known.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)
(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed July 12, 2024 through February 11, 2026 have
been considered.
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 1-18 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 1 recites “(90% or more" vs. "more than 0% and 10%) or less"”. The second "or comprises" clause essentially re-describes the exact same wiring material composition as the first clause. If it includes anything between 10% and 90%, it's not covered. This creates overlapping, contradictory, or ambiguous boundaries regarding what specific concentrations the claim encompasses.
Claims 2-18 are rejected because they depend on the indefiniteness of the claims from which they depend.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11637237 [‘237]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reason.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows.
Present Application
Patent ‘237
1. A spin current magnetization rotational element comprising: a ferromagnetic metal layer having a variable magnetization orientation, and spin-orbit torque wiring which extends in a direction that intersects a direction perpendicular to a surface of the ferromagnetic metal layer, and is connected to the ferromagnetic metal layer, wherein the spin-orbit torque wiring comprises a molar fraction of 90% or more of a non-magnetic heavy metal with an atomic number of 39 or greater having d-electrons or f-electrons in an outermost shell, or comprises a molar fraction of more than 0 % and 10% or less of the non-magnetic heavy metal.
3. A spin current magnetization rotational element comprising: a second ferromagnetic metal layer having a variable magnetization orientation, and spin-orbit torque wiring which extends in a direction that intersects a direction perpendicular to a surface of the second ferromagnetic metal layer, and is connected to the second ferromagnetic metal layer, wherein the spin-orbit torque wiring has a pure spin generation portion containing heavy metal, and a concentration of the heavy metal in the spin current generation portion is a molar fraction of 10% or less.
4. The spin current magnetization rotational element according to claim 1, wherein the heavy metal is a non-magnetic metal with an atomic number of 39 or greater having d-electrons or f-electrons in an outermost shell.
As can be seen from the above table, claim 1 of the application recites a wiring comprising more than 0% and 10% or less (or 90% or more) of a non-magnetic heavy metal. Claim 4 of the patent discloses a wiring with a heavy metal concentration of 10% or less. Because the reference phrase explicitly discloses 10% or less, it renders the 0% to 10% range in the application obvious. It is well established that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art range run together or overlap.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10510948 [‘948]. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reason.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows.
Present Application
Patent ‘948
1. A spin current magnetization rotational element comprising: a ferromagnetic metal layer having a variable magnetization orientation, and spin-orbit torque wiring which extends in a direction that intersects a direction perpendicular to a surface of the ferromagnetic metal layer, and is connected to the ferromagnetic metal layer, wherein the spin-orbit torque wiring comprises a molar fraction of 90% or more of a non-magnetic heavy metal with an atomic number of 39 or greater having d-electrons or f-electrons in an outermost shell, or comprises a molar fraction of more than 0 % and 10% or less of the non-magnetic heavy metal.
1. A spin current magnetization rotational type magnetoresistive element comprising: a magnetoresistive effect element having a first ferromagnetic metal layer having a fixed magnetization orientation, a second ferromagnetic metal layer having a variable magnetization orientation, and a non-magnetic layer sandwiched between the first ferromagnetic metal layer and the second ferromagnetic metal layer; and spin-orbit torque wiring which extends in a direction that intersects a stacking direction of the magnetoresistive effect element, and is connected to the second ferromagnetic metal layer, wherein an electric current that flows through the magnetoresistive effect element and an electric current that flows through the spin-orbit torque wiring merge or are distributed in a portion where the magnetoresistive effect element and the spin-orbit torque wiring are connected, and the spin-orbit torque wiring is composed of a pure spin current generation portion formed from a material that generates a pure spin current, and a low-resistance portion formed from a material having a smaller electrical resistance than the pure spin current generation portion, and at least a portion of the pure spin current generation portion contacts the second ferromagnetic metal layer.
As can be seen from the above table, Both, claim 1 of the application and claim 1 of the patent, include a ferromagnetic layer with a variable magnetization orientation and a spin-orbit torque (SOT) wiring connected to it. The patent specifies that the spin-orbit wiring comprises a non-magnetic metal with an atomic number of >= 39 having d or f electrons in the outermost shell (such as Pt, Ta, or W). The application limits the spin-orbit wiring to either a molar fraction of >= 90% of this identical heavy metal, or a molar fraction of > 0% and <= 10% of it. Even though the patent includes additional structural features (the first ferromagnetic layer and the non-magnetic sandwich layer), it still fully encompasses the device architecture described in the application. Additionally, the application simply carves out specific concentration ranges within the material categories recited in the patent. Selecting specific molar fractions (e.g., 90% or 10%) from a broader art range is well-established in patent law as prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), absent unexpected results or criticality associated with these specific ranges.
Conclusion
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in
the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
When responding to the Office action, Applicants are advised to provide
the Examiner with line and page numbers of the application and/or references cited to assist the Examiner in the prosecution of this case.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications
from the Examiner should be directed to Michael T. Tran whose telephone number is (571) 272-1795. Interview agendas may be emailed to Michael.tran@uspto.gov. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 6:00AM-4:30 P.M.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application.
should be directed to the Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-1650.
/MICHAEL T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2827 July 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights