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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response filed on 06/17/2026 in which claims 1, 3 were amended, claims 11-20 are added, and claims 21-30 are added has been entered of record.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 27-30 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
New independent claim 27 comprises distinguished limitations of a barrier layer on the upper magnetic track layer, wherein the plurality of read units are disposed on the barrier layer.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 27-30 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US Pub. 2022/0109102) in view of Joe et al. (US Pub. 2009/0207643).
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 3 of Shibata discloses a magnetic memory device comprising:
a lower magnetic track layer [middle layer 11] extending in a first direction [horizontal direction] and including a plurality of first magnetic domains [A1, A3, and A2];
a spacer layer [12] on the lower magnetic track layer [middle layer 11] and extending in the first direction [horizontal direction];
an upper magnetic track layer [upper layer 11] on the spacer layer [12] and extending in the first direction [horizontal], the upper magnetic track layer including a plurality of second magnetic domains [A1, A3, and A2]; and
a plurality of read units [combination of 50 and 71, and combination of 72 and 60 are conductors that connected bit lines to the storage element 100 to transfer reading current. Therefore, 71 and 72 can be considered read units] on the upper magnetic track layer [upper layer 11] and arranged apart from one another in the first direction [71 and 72 are apart from each other in horizontal direction],
wherein the plurality of first magnetic domains [A1, A3, and A2 for middle layer 11] and the plurality of second magnetic domains [A1, A3, and A2 for upper layer 11] have magnetization directions parallel to each other [clearly shows in the arrows for each domain A1, A3, and A2] at positions overlapping each other in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction [as discloses in paragraph 0054 and as shows in Fig. 3, the domains for each layer 11 is overlapping each other].
Shibata discloses read unit, but does not specifically disclose wherein the plurality of read units are configured to read data associated with a magnetization direction of the of the magnetic track unit. However, Fig. 1 of Joe discloses a magnetic track having plurality of read units [200a to 200e], wherein the plurality of read units are configured to read data associated with magnetization direction of the magnetic track layer [paragraphs 0031 to 0034].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Joe’s magnetic track with read unit to the teachings of Shibata’s magnetic track unit with read unit such that Shibata read unit can configure to read data on the magnetic track in a manner according to Joe’s teachings for the purpose of enabling reading operation for each domain of the magnetic track.
Regarding claim 2, Fig. 3 of Shibata discloses wherein a magnetization direction of the upper magnetic track layer [upper layer 11] is equal to a magnetization direction of the lower magnetic track layer [middle layer 11] based on a leakage magnetic field of the lower magnetic track layer, such that the magnetization direction of the upper magnetic track layer and the magnetization direction of the lower magnetic track layer are formed in parallel to each other [as shows in Fig. 3, the magnetization direction for each domain for layer 11 are parallel and equal, base on the leakage magnetic field of layer 20 that causes the magnetization of lower layer and upper layer 11].
Regarding claim 3, Fig. 3 of Shibata discloses wherein each of the plurality of read units is a pinned layer of a magnetic tunnel junction structure [fixed layer 50 and 60, paragraph 0054], wherein the upper magnetic track layer is a free layer [upper layer 11 is a free layer because its magnetization is not fixed] of the magnetic tunnel junction structure.
Regarding claim 10, Fig. 3 of Shibata discloses a conductive layer [E] under the lower magnetic track layer [middle layer 11] and extending in the first direction [horizontal], wherein a length of the conductive layer [E], a length of the lower magnetic track layer [middle layer 11], a length of the spacer layer [12], and a length of the upper magnetic track layer [upper layer 11] are equal to one another in the first direction [clearly shows in Fig. 3].
Regarding 21, Fig. 3 of Shibata discloses wherein the lower magnetic track layer [middle track 11] further comprises a plurality of first magnetic domain walls [between each domains, there is inherently domain wall] alternately arranged with the plurality of first magnetic domains along the first direction.
Regarding claim 22, Fig. 3 of Shibata discloses wherein a magnetization direction [magnetic directions shows in the middle track 11] of the lower magnetic track layer alternates between alternating domains of the plurality of first magnetic domains [A2 and A3].
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibata et al. (US Pub. 2022/0109102) in view of Joe et al. (US Pub. 2009/0207643) and further in view of Heo et al. (US Pub. 2016/0020280).
Regarding claim 9, paragraph 0066 of Shibata discloses wherein a thickness of the spacer layer 12 is about 1 nm, but does not specifically disclose the spacer layer comprises hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN). However, Fig. 1 of Heo discloses a spacer layer N10 and N20 comprises hexagonal boron nitride (paragraph 0100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Heo’s spacer layer comprises h-BN to the teachings of Shibata’s spacer layer such that Shibata spacer layer operate in a manner according to Heo’s teachings for the purpose of function as a hole or electron transporter [paragraph 0100].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23-26 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 23-26, the prior art does not teach or suggest either alone or in combination a magnetic memory device comprising: a lower magnetic track layer extending in a first direction and including a plurality of first magnetic domains, the lower magnetic track layer comprising:2N+1 (where N is a natural number) number of first magnetic layers; and2N number of coupling layers between the 2N+1 number of first magnetic layers and in combination with other limitations.
Claims 4-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 4-8, the prior art does not teach or suggest either alone or in combination wherein the lower magnetic track layer comprises: 2N+1 (where N is a natural number) number of first magnetic layers; and 2N number of coupling layers between the 2N+1 number of first magnetic layers.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 21-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHAN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8709. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 9AM-5:00PM.
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, Alexander G Sofocleous can be reached at 571-272-0635. 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.
/ANTHAN TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825
Prosecution Insights