DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-18 are pending.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
4. The specification is objected to due to the following informalities.
On page 11, line 22 states that Figure 2B depicts three consecutive switching cycles. However, Figure 2B depicts two consecutive switching cycles; Figure 2C depicts three consecutive switching cycles. Appropriate correction is required.
On page 14, line 2 states that the schematic presentation of the nanomagnet 1 and the tip of the SNVM sensor probe is shown “on the left to the scan” in Figure 1A. However, as shown in Figure 1A, the schematic presentation of the nanomagnet 1 and the tip of the SNVM sensor probe is shown to the right of the magnetometry scan. Appropriate correction is required.
On page 16, it appears that the phrase “I Figure 2B a sequence of three switching cycles and their SNVM scans are shown” should be revised to “In Figure 2C, a sequence of three switching cycles and their SNVM scans are shown” because the sequence of three switching cycles is shown in Figure 2C rather than Figure 2B.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Per claim 1, line 2 states that a plurality of binary nanomagnets “may be” arranged in an array. It is unclear if this limitation implies that the plurality of binary nanomagnets are required to be arranged in an array. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, the plurality of binary nanomagnets of claim 1 are interpreted as being arranged in an array. Claims 2-18 are consequently rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
Per claim 1, the limitation “the effective double-switching fraction or percentage (β)” in line 19 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, said limitation is interpreted as implying “an effective double-switching fraction or percentage (β).”
Per claim 4, it is stated that the identification of an individual nanomagnet is based on said nanomagnet's local information, “such as position.” However, it is unclear if the local information of a nanomagnet is required to include positional information. Appropriate correction is required.
Per claim 5, the limitation “the magnetic history” in line 2 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, said limitation is interpreted as implying “a magnetic history.”
Per claim 6, the limitation “the effective multiple-switching percentage (βn+1)” in line 10 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, said limitation is interpreted as implying “an effective multiple-switching percentage (βn+1).” Claim 17 is consequently rejected due to its dependence on claim 6.
Per claim 8, the limitation “the determined quality of the device” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, said limitation is interpreted as implying “a determined quality of the device.”
Per claim 10, the limitations “the plurality of nanopillars,” “the orientation,” “the local information,” and “the individual binary nanopillars” lack sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, said limitations are interpreted as implying “the plurality of nanomagnets,” “an orientation,” “local information,” and “the individual binary nanomagnets,” respectively.
Per claim 11, it is unclear if the limitation “the mapping” refers to the limitation “a scanning or mapping” recited in claim 10, from which claim 11 depends. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 states that the mapping is performed by scanning magnetometry, “preferably by scanning nitrogen vacancy magnetometry (SNVM).” However, it is unclear if the mapping is required to be performed by SNVM. Appropriate correction is required.
Per claim 16, it is stated that the magnetic device is a binary information storage device, “such as used for magnetic random access memory (MRAM) wafer.” However, it is unclear if the magnetic device is required to be used for a MRAM wafer. Appropriate correction is required.
Per claim 17, the limitation “the determined quality of the device” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, said limitation is interpreted as implying “a determined quality of the device.”
Per claim 17, the limitation “the determined statistical double-switching percentage (βideal n+1)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, said limitation is interpreted as implying “the statistical probability of multiple-switching (βideal n+1),” which is recited in claim 6.
Per claim 17, the limitation “the determined effective double-switching percentage (βn+1)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, said limitation is interpreted as implying “the determined effective multiple-switching percentage (βn+1).”
Per claim 18, the limitation “the determined quality of the device” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, said limitation is interpreted as implying “a determined quality of the device.”
Per claim 18, the limitation “the determined statistical double-switching percentage (βideal(m,n))” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, said limitation is interpreted as implying “the statistical probability of nanomagnets switching m times in a series of n repeats (βideal(m,n)),” which is recited in claim 7.
Per claim 18, the limitation “the determined effective double-switching percentage (β(m,n)” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required. For the purpose of examination, said limitation is interpreted as implying “the effective multiple-switching percentage (β(m,n)).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
7. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
8. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 is directed to the method according to 1, wherein the magnetic device comprises one or more carrier elements on which the plurality of nanomagnets is arranged or in which the plurality of nanomagnets is embedded. However, claim 14 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1 because step (i) of claim 1 describes the magnetic device as comprising one or more carrier elements on which the plurality of nanomagnets is arranged or in which the plurality of nanomagnets is embedded.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Objections
9. Claims 1, 6, and 8 are objected to due to the following informalities.
Per claim 1, it appears that the reference character βideal in line 16 should be placed in parentheses to conform to the formatting used in subsequent limitations.
Per claim 6, it appears that the phrase “effective multiple switching percentage (βn+1)” in line 14 should be revised to “effective multiple-switching percentage (βn+1)” to conform to the formatting previously set forth.
Per claim 8, it appears that the phrase “the determined effective double-switching percentage (β)” should revised to “the determined effective double-switching fraction or percentage (β)” to conform to the formatting previously set forth.
Pertinent Prior Art
10. Lee et al. – US 2014/0139209
This document discloses a method for testing a die package that includes an MRAM comprising cells wherein several magnetic fields of varying strengths may be applied to the cells and a determination is made as to whether any cell has changed state as a result of the applied magnetic fields. The MRAM may be determined to be defective based on the number of cells that have changed state (Fig. 11; ¶76). However, this document is silent on making a comparison between a statistical double-switching percentage and an effective double-switching percentage of the cells, as described in independent claim 1 of the present application.
11. Chuang et al. – US 2020/0097255
This document discloses a method comprising: recording the resistive state of each of N MRAM cells after applying a first write signal followed by a second write signal, recording the resistive state of each of N MRAM cells after applying the first write signal followed by a third write signal, repeating the previous steps one or more times, and, for each MRAM cell, calculating the total number of times a second resistive state was recorded after the second write signal was applied and the total number of times a second resistive state was recorded after the third write signal was applied (Fig. 4A; ¶39-52). However, this document is silent on making a comparison between a statistical double-switching percentage and an effective double-switching percentage of the cells, as described in independent claim 1 of the present application.
Claim Remarks
12. Although claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the prior art of record is silent on, in particular, the following feature of independent claim 1: “(vi) determining a statistical double-switching percentage βideal based on the determined first fraction or percentage α and the determined second fraction or percentage α1 of nanomagnets which switched orientation,
(vii) determining the effective double-switching fraction or percentage (β) of individual nanomagnets which have switched orientation in step (iii) as well as in the repeat of step (iii), and (viii) making a statement about the quality of the plurality of nanomagnets is made based
on the comparison between the determined statistical double-switching percentage
(βideal) and the determined effective double-switching percentage (β) of the plurality
of nanomagnets.”
Conclusion
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAS A. SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-4787. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, alt. Fri, 8-5 EST.
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, WALTER LINDSAY can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/JAS A SANGHERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights