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 .
Specification
Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims have overcome some of the previously presented objections to the specification and thus the previously presented objections not included below are withdrawn.
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
In claim 12 and 16, the limitation of a “neighboring tantalum (Ta) layer” is recited in paragraph 0077 of the specification; however, paragraph 0068 seems to indicate that the Ta layer that nitrogen is moved into is the capping layer and the limitation “a neighboring tantalum (Ta) layer” makes it seem like the neighboring layer is a different layer from the capping layer, which does not have antecedent basis in the specification. Applicant’s argument that the specification provides support that the capping layer to be made of other materials and/or that the Ta layer can be made of multiple layers is not persuasive because the specification describes Ti capping as an alternative to Ta and does not provide support for a Ta layer in addition to another capping layer (see para 0051 of the specification) and because the specification describes in paragraph 0086 that the Ta layer may be modeled with three sublayers referred to as TaNx, Ta, and TaOx, which does not provide support for a “neighboring Ta layer” in addition to a capping layer because the multiple sublayers are part of the same layer and the sublayers aren’t all pure “Ta”.
In claim 14 and 16, similarly to in claim 12, the limitation that the capping layer is a “Ta capping layer” is supported by the specification but the specification does not provide antecedent basis for a Ta capping layer distinct from the neighboring capping layer in claim 12 and 16.
In claim 20, the limitation “further comprising a Ta layer” lacks antecedent basis in the specification because paragraph 0068 of the specification seems to make it clear that the Ta layer to receive nitrogen ions is the capping layer and this limitation requires a Ta layer in addition to and distinct from the capping layer recited in claim 1.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the previously presented objections to the claims and thus the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
In claims 8-9, the limitations reciting that the thickness or exchange bias “can be varied” are interpreted to require only that the material is capable of being varied in the claimed manner because the claims do not recite these limitations as method steps but as properties of the resulting material or its formation process.
In claim 11, the limitation that the magnetic material goes through a transformation when nitrogen partial pressure is increased is interpreted to only require that the magnetic material is capable of going through the claimed transformation when nitrogen partial pressure is increased and not necessarily a step of increasing the nitrogen partial pressure to achieve the claimed transformation.
In claim 20, the limitation of a Ta layer to receive nitrogen ions during post-annealing and voltage application is interpreted to only require a Ta layer capable of receiving nitrogen during a post-annealing and voltage application but not a method step of performing post-annealing and voltage application.
In claim 21, the limitation “the fabrication process is adaptable” is interpreted to mean that the process is capable of being modified/adjusted to be used in other systems but not necessarily requiring a method of actually adapting the process to other ionic systems.
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 12-19 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.
In claim 12, the limitation “driving nitrogen out of at least one of the Mn3N2 seed layer and the deposited Mn layer” is not fully supported by the specification because the specification describes (e.g., in para 0078) that nitrogen is driven out of nitride layers and not the “deposited Mn layer” and also does not describe that nitrogen is driven out of “at least one” of the layers, which would include driving nitrogen out of only one layer while not driving it out of the other.
In claim 15, the limitation “nitrogen is removed from at least one of the Mn3N2 seed layer and the deposited Mn layer” is not fully supported by the specification because the specification describes in paragraph 0077 that nitrogen is removed from the Mn nitrides through annealing but does not describe removing nitrogen from the deposited Mn layer or removing nitrogen from “at least one” of the layers.
In claim 16, the limitation “applying a positive voltage across at least one of the Mn3N2 seed layer and the deposited Mn layer” is not fully supported by the specification because the specification describes in paragraph 0079 that an electric field is formed to drive nitrogen out of the Mn nitride but does not describe removing nitrogen from the deposited Mn layer, which appears to have been converted to a Mn4N or other nitride layer (see para 0054) before the positive voltage is applied, or removing nitrogen from “at least one” of the claimed layers.
In claim 19, the limitation “applying a negative voltage conditioning across at least one of the Mn3N2 seed layer and the deposited Mn layer” is not fully supported by the specification because there is nothing in the specification describing applying a voltage to only one of the layers, rather than the whole structure, and, because the Mn layer appears to have been converted to a Mn4N or other nitride layer (see para 0054) before the positive voltage and negative voltage are applied, the deposited Mn layer does not seem to be applied with the negative voltage conditioning.
In claim 19, the limitation “driving nitrogen ions back into at least one of the Mn3N2 seed layer and the deposited Mn layers” because the original claim and specification describe driving nitrogen ions back into Mn nitride layers and not the deposited Mn layer, which appears to have been converted to a nitride (see para 0054) and thus would not be present for having nitrogen ions being driven into it, or only driving nitrogen ions back into “at least one” of the layers.
Claims 13-15 and 17-19 lack written description support by virtue of depending on a claim that lacks support.
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 16-19 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.
In claim 16, the limitation “the Mn nitride layers” is indefinite because it is unclear what “Mn nitride layers” are being referred to, especially considering claim 1 only reciting a Mn3N2 seed layer and a Mn layer. For example, the limitation could refer to the Mn3N2 seed layer and a Mn4N layer formed from depositing Mn on the seed layer or could refer to two completely different Mn nitride layers.
In claim 16, the limitation “the neighboring Ta layer” lacks antecedent basis because claim 1 does not recite a Ta layer and therefore it is unclear if this limitation is intended to require the capping layer is made of Ta or intended to refer to another Ta layer.
Claims 17-19 are indefinite by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 13-16, filed 6/1/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 4/13/2026 has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 and 20-21 are allowed.
Claims 12-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include 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 claim 1, the closest prior art to the claimed invention is Li (NPL – “Enhanced perpendicular magnetic anisotropy of ferrimagnetic Mn4N films deposited on the glass substrate”) and Kryder (US 20170221508 A1). Li teaches a method of forming a magnetic material comprising depositing a seed layer of Mn3N2 on a substrate by reactive sputtering and depositing a Mn4N layer by sputtering with low nitrogen content each at the same first temperature, and annealing the seed layer at the first temperature, wherein the layers and substrate form a sample. Kryder teaches cooling the substrate to room temperature after depositing a PMA layer and then depositing a Ta capping layer. However, the aforementioned references fail to teach depositing a “Mn layer” inherently or otherwise onto the Mn3N2 seed layer. Additionally, there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to modify the aforementioned references to meet the claim limitation. Therefore, claim 1 is allowed.
Claims 2-11 and 20-21 depend on claim 1 and thus are allowed for the same reasons.
Claims 12-19 depend on claim 1 and thus would be allowable if amended to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
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 PATRICK S OTT whose telephone number is (571)272-2415. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-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, James Lin can be reached at (571) 272-8902. 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.
/PATRICK S OTT/Examiner, Art Unit 1794
Prosecution Insights