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
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed on the date: June 17, 2026.
Claims 1-17 are currently pending. Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 8-17 are new.
Response to Arguments
Objection to the Claims
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 7-8, with respect to the objection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103
Applicant’s arguments, see REMARKS pages 8-10, with respect to the rejection of independent claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites that “the first alignment mark is smaller in planner size than each of the first and second magnetic layers.” There is no description in the specification about the first alignment mark being smaller than the first and second magnetic layers and what a planner size is.
Claim 12 recites that “the first alignment mark is smaller in planner size than the terminal node.” There is no description in the specification about the first alignment mark being smaller than the terminal node and what a planner size is.
Claim 13 recites that “the first alignment mark does not overlap the magnetism detection element”. There is no description in the specification about the first alignment mark not overlapping the magnetism detection element. The claim is interpreted that the first alignment mark does not overlap the magnetism detection element in all directions. Figure 5 of the instant application shows that the first alignment mark may overlap the magnetism detection element along an axis starting from the top-left to the bottom-right of Figure 5. All other figures appear to also show that the alignment mark may overlap a magnetism detection element depending on how one views the device.
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 11-13 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 11 recites that “the first alignment mark is smaller in planner size than each of the first and second magnetic layers.” There is no description in the specification about the first alignment mark being smaller than the first and second magnetic layers and what a planner size is, thus this claim is not subject matter that is regarded as a part of the invention.
Claim 12 recites that “the first alignment mark is smaller in planner size than the terminal node.” There is no description in the specification about the first alignment mark being smaller than the terminal node and what a planner size is, thus this claim is not subject matter that is regarded as a part of the invention.
Claim 13 recites that “the first alignment mark does not overlap the magnetism detection element”. There is no description in the specification about the first alignment mark not overlapping the magnetism detection element, thus this claim is not subject matter that is regarded as a part of the invention. The claim is interpreted that the first alignment mark does not overlap the magnetism detection element in all directions. Figure 5 of the instant application shows that the first alignment mark may overlap the magnetism detection element along an axis starting from the top-left to the bottom-right of Figure 5. All other figures appear to also show that the alignment mark may overlap a magnetism detection element depending on how one views the device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 14-17 are indicated as allowable subject matter.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding independent claim 1, the prior arts of record taken alone or in combination fail to teach or suggest:
“wherein the first alignment mark does not overlap the first and second magnetic layers as viewed in a direction perpendicular to the element formation surface whereas a position of the first alignment mark in an extending direction of an edge between the element formation surface and the upper surface overlaps the first magnetic layer,” when used in combination with all other limitations of claim 1.
Claims 2-10 and 14-15 are indicated as allowable subject matter for depending on claim 1.
Regarding new independent claim 16, this claim contains the original claim limitations of claim 1 and incorporates the claim limitations of dependent claim 4, which was indicated as allowable subject matter in the previous Office Action mailed on March 25, 2026.
Regarding new independent claim 17, this claim contains the original claim limitations of claim 1 and incorporates the claim limitations of dependent claim 5, which was indicated as allowable subject matter in the previous Office Action mailed on March 25, 2026.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gokita discloses “Magnetic sensor” (see US2021/0116518)
Li et al. discloses “Alignment mark structure and method of fabricating the same” (see US2021/0249357)
Saito et al. discloses “Magnetoresistance effect element, magnetic memory array, magnetic memory device, and write method for magnetoresistance effect element” (see US2021/0233577)
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 DAVID B FREDERIKSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-8152. 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, Huy Phan can be reached at (571)272-7924. 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.
/DAVID B FREDERIKSEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/HUY Q PHAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights