DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement(s) (IDS), Form PTO-1449, filed 12 July 2024. The information therein was considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 recites “…a plurality of magnetic separated from each other…”. It appears that --regions-- should be inserted between “magnetic separated”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
►Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukumoto et al. (US 2008/0278867) (hereinafter, “Fukumoto”).
Re: independent claim 1, Fukumoto discloses in figs. 6B and 10 a magnetic random access memory (MRAM), comprising: a first magnetic layer (8) disposed over a substrate (1); a first non-magnetic layer (9) disposed over the first magnetic layer; a second magnetic layer (fig. 6B: 33; fig. 10: 10b) disposed over the first non-magnetic layer; a second non-magnetic layer (fig. 6B: 34 or fig. 10: 14) disposed over the second magnetic layer; and a third non-magnetic layer (14 or 15) disposed over the second non-magnetic layer, wherein the second magnetic layer includes a plurality of spaced-apart magnetic regions (33) separated by non-magnetic regions (34) when viewed in cross section (fig. 6B).
Re: claim 2, Fukumoto discloses in figs. 6B and 10 the MRAM of claim 1, wherein the second magnetic layer (33, 10b) is in direct contact with the second non-magnetic layer (34) and the third non-magnetic layer (14).
Re: claim 3, Fukumoto discloses in figs. 6B and 10 the MRAM of claim 1, wherein the second non-magnetic layer (34) is made of a dielectric material [0163].
Re: claim 4, Fukumoto discloses in figs. 6B and 10 the MRAM of claim 3, wherein the dielectric material is selected from the group consisting of magnesium oxide, silicon oxide, and aluminum oxide [0163].
Re: claim 5, Fukumoto discloses in figs. 6B and 10 the MRAM of claim 1, wherein the second non-magnetic layer is amorphous [0163].
Re: claim 7, Fukumoto discloses in figs. 6B and 10 the MRAM of claim 1, wherein a material of the second non-magnetic layer [0163] is different from a material of the third non-magnetic layer ([0125], [0129]).
►Claim(s) 1-4, 7 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ranjan et al. (US 2008/0191251) (hereinafter, “Ranjan”).
Re: independent claim 1, Ranjan discloses in fig. 6 a magnetic random access memory (MRAM), comprising: a first magnetic layer (318) disposed over a substrate; a first non-magnetic layer (320) disposed over the first magnetic layer; a second magnetic layer (322) disposed over the first non-magnetic layer; a second non-magnetic layer (330) disposed over the second magnetic layer; and a third non-magnetic layer (324) disposed over the second non-magnetic layer, wherein the second magnetic layer includes a plurality of spaced-apart magnetic regions (332) separated by non-magnetic regions (330) when viewed in cross section.
Re: claim 2, Ranjan discloses in fig. 6 the MRAM of claim 1, wherein the second magnetic layer (322) is in direct contact with the second non-magnetic layer (330) and the third non-magnetic layer (324).
Re: claim 3, Ranjan discloses in fig. 6 the MRAM of claim 1, wherein the second non-magnetic layer is made of a dielectric material [0065].
Re: claim 4, Ranjan discloses in fig. 6 the MRAM of claim 3, wherein the dielectric material is selected from the group consisting of magnesium oxide, silicon oxide, and aluminum oxide [0065].
Re: claim 7, Ranjan discloses in fig. 6 the MRAM of claim 1, wherein a material of the second non-magnetic layer (330, [0065]) is different from a material of the third non-magnetic layer (324, [0065]).
Re: independent claim 16, Ranjan discloses in fig. 6 a magnetic random access memory (MRAM), comprising: a first magnetic layer (318) disposed over a substrate; a first non-magnetic layer (320) disposed over the first magnetic layer; a second non-magnetic layer (330) disposed over the first non-magnetic layer; and a second magnetic layer (332) embedded in the second non-magnetic layer; wherein the second magnetic layer includes a plurality of magnetic regions (332) separated from each other by the second non-magnetic layer (330), and the second magnetic layer (332) is in direct contact with the first non-magnetic layer (320).
Re: claim 17, Ranjan discloses in fig. 6 the MRAM of claim 16, wherein the second non-magnetic layer is made of a dielectric material [0065].
Re: claim 18, Ranjan discloses in fig. 6 the MRAM of claim 17, wherein the dielectric material is selected from the group consisting of magnesium oxide, silicon oxide, and aluminum oxide [0065].
Re: claim 19, Ranjan discloses in fig. 6 the MRAM of claim 16, wherein a material of the second non-magnetic layer (330, [0065]) is different from a material of the first non-magnetic layer (320, [0065]).
Re: claim 20, Ranjan discloses in fig. 6 the MRAM of claim 16, wherein the second non-magnetic layer (330) is in direct contact with the first non-magnetic layer (320).
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.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ranjan et al. (US 2008/0191251) (hereinafter, “Ranjan”) in view of Lottis et al. (US 2012/0012953) (hereinafter, “Lottis”).
Re: claim 6, Ranjan discloses the MRAM of claim 1.
Ranjan does not disclose wherein the second non-magnetic layer is crystalline or polycrystalline.
Lottis discloses in fig. 5 a non-magnetic layer that is crystalline MgO (104-1’, [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a crystalline non-magnetic layer for the purpose of forming magnetic layers and non-magnetic layers that are immiscible and chemically stable with respect to each other so they do not chemically interact with each other to form compounds as exemplified by Lottis ([0035]-[0036]).
Claims 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukumoto et al. (US 2008/0278867) (hereinafter, “Fukumoto”) or Ranjan et al. (US 2008/0191251) (hereinafter, “Ranjan”).
Re: claims 8-10, Fukumoto and Ranjan independently disclose the MRAM of claim 1.
Fukumoto and Ranjan do not disclose expressly wherein a thickness of the second magnetic layer is in a range from 0.2 nm to 1.5 nm (claim 8); and wherein a size of each of the magnetic regions in plan view is in a range from 1 nm to 10 nm (claim 9); and wherein spaces between adjacent magnetic regions in plan view are in a range from 0.2 nm to 5 nm (claim 10).
However, these limitations would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since it has been held that claimed ranges of a result effective variable are unpatentable unless they produce a new and unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in degree from the results of the prior art. In re Huang, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1688 (Fed. Cir. 1996). These claims are prima facie obvious without showing that the claimed ranges achieve unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1935, 1937 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See also In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (discovery of optimum value of result effective variable in known process is ordinarily within skill of art) and In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) (selection of optimum ranges within prior art general conditions is obvious). See MPEP § 2144.05.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,004,901 (‘901). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant application are recited in the claims of ‘901 with only nominal differences that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,659,718 (‘718). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant application are recited in the claims of ‘718 with only nominal differences that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 1-10 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 14-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,075,631 (‘631). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant application are recited in the claims of ‘631 with only nominal differences that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-15 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action is overcome.
Conclusion
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. When responding to this office action, applicants are advised to provide the examiner with the line numbers and page numbers in the application and/or references cited to assist the examiner in locating appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON BERNSTEIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9011. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Richard Elms can be reached on 571-272-1869. 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.
/ALLISON BERNSTEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2824 9/22/2026
Prosecution Insights