Tt wasNotice 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 .
Continuation Prior Art Consideration
The instant application is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial Number 18/359,943, filed on July 27, 2023, now U.S. Patent No. 12,207,566, which itself, is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial Number 17/885,079, filed on August 10, 2022, now U.S. Patent No. 11,785,864, which itself, is a continuation of U.S. Patent Application Serial Number 16/679,498, filed on January 11, 2019, now U.S. Patent No. 11,430,945, which itself, is a division of U.S. Patent Application Serial Number 15/6968,035, filed on May 1, 2018, now U.S. Patent No. 10,475,987. The Examiner notes that the prior art cited in the earlier application has been considered (which may, or may not, include any reference(s) cited on any information disclosure statement(s) filed with the instant application) - As per MPEP 2001.06(b), no separate citation of the prior art from the parent application is required.
As stated in section MPEP 2001.06(b):
If the application under examination is identified as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part of an earlier application, the examiner will consider the prior art properly cited in the earlier application. See MPEP § 609 and MPEP § 719.05, subsection (II)(A), example J. The examiner must indicate in the first Office action whether the prior art in a related earlier application has been reviewed. Accordingly, no separate citation of the same prior art need be made in the later application, unless applicant wants a listing of the prior art printed on the face of the patent.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Figure 2) in the reply filed on February 11, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 10, 17, and 18 are currently withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 11, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 (as well as currently withdrawn claims 17 and 18, which may possibly be rejoined at a later time) is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to claim 16 (line 2) (see also claim 17, line 2 and claim 18, line 5), the term "MTJ stack" should be changed to the term --MTJ material stack-- in order to maintain claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 8, 9, 11-14 and 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.
The current application is a continuation application (not a continuation-in-part application). Claims 3 and 19, recite "wherein a thickness of the stress modulating layer is greater than any individual layers in the MTJ material stack." Claim 8 (lines 9-10) recites "the stress modulating layer . . . has a thickness greater than any individual layers in the MTJ material stack."
Such a recitation is neither an inherent feature of the original disclosure nor is such a limitation supported in the original disclosure, going back to SN 15/968,035, and the divisional and/or continuation applications subsequently filed thereafter, and is considered 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 effectively filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Additionally, since claims 9 and 11-14 depend directly or indirectly from claim 8, they too are thus rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-9, 11-16, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iba (JP 2014-154604 A) in view of Ranjan et al. (US 2008/0225585 A1).
As per claim 1 (and analogously, as per claims 8 and 15), Iba (JP 2014-154604 A - cited by Examiner in the parent application, SN 17/885,079 - IDS mailed February 17, 2023) discloses a magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) structure (e.g., see p. 1, ll. 13-14 of the English translation, "magnetic tunnel junction part"), comprising: a stress modulating layer (e.g., 22 , interchangeably referred to as "buffer layer" and "nonmagnetic" layer or materials, - see, inter alia, p. 3, ll. 18-20, 32, 33; p. 4, ll. 15-22; p. 5, ll. 13-17; p. 7, ll. 22-23, 25-27; p. 8, l. 16; p. 10, l. 13-14, 26-27, of the English translation). The stress modulating layer (22) is in direct contact with the MTJ material stack (30A) - see, inter alia, Fig. 3.
Additionally, as per claims 1 and 8 (and 15), the stress modulating layer (22) is provided on a first electrode layer (e.g., 21), wherein the stress modulating layer includes a material selected from the group consisting of Mg, Al, Hf, Zr, and combination thereof - see, inter alia, p. 3, ll. 18-20, 32, 33; p. 4, ll. 15-22; p. 5, ll. 13-17; p. 7, ll. 22-23, 25-27; p. 8, l. 16; p. 10, l. 13-14, 26-27, of the English translation.
As per claims 2 and 9, wherein a material of the stress modulating layer (22) is different from a material of the first electrode layer (21) (e.g., see, inter alia, p. 4, l. 19; p. 5, 1l. 10-12; p. 6, ll. 30-33; p. 7, ll. 25-27 of the enclosed English translation); a MTJ material stack (e.g., 30A) on the stress modulating layer (22); and a second electrode layer (e.g., 26 - see, inter alia, p. 6, ll. 43-45 and Fig. 14(c), wherein the metal mask (26) becomes an electrode for electrical connection to 85b, which is electrically connected to a bit line) on the MTJ material stack (30A), which is a conductive material different from that of the stress modulating layer (22).
As per claim 3 (as well as claim 8 and claim 19), wherein a thickness of the stress modulating layer (22) is greater than any individual layers in the MTJ material stack - see p. 5, ll. 13-14 and 18-23.
As per claim 4 (as well as claim 11), wherein the stress modulating layer (22) has a thickness about equal to 10 nm (e.g., see p. 5, ll. 13-14).
As per claim 5 (as well as claim 12), wherein the elastic modulus of the stress modulating layer (22) is about 50 Gigapascals (GPa) - see, inter alia, p. 3, ll. 18-20, 32, 33; p. 4, ll. 15-22; p. 5, ll. 13-17; p. 7, ll. 22-23, 25-27; p. 8, l. 16; p. 10, l. 13-14, 26-27, of the English translation.
As per claim 6 (as well as claim 13 and claim 20), due to the composition and placement/thickness of the stress modulating layer (22), relative to the composition of the first electrode layer (21), MTJ stack and its function, the first electrode layer (21) and the MTJ material stack each has a higher intrinsic stress than the stress modulating layer (22).
As per claim 7 (as well as claim 14), wherein a barrier layer (e.g., 12) is a MgO layer and a pinned layer (e.g., 13) or a free layer (e.g., 11) is a CoFe magnetic layer, wherein the MgO layer (12) directly interfaces the CoFe magnetic layer. See p. 5, ll. 18-23.
Additionally, as per claim 15, wherein the stress modulating layer (22) is a soft layer having low modulus of elasticity, wherein an elastic modulus of the stress modulating layer is in a range from about 20 Gigapascals (GPa) to about 400 GPa (e.g., 22 , interchangeably referred to as "buffer layer" and "nonmagnetic" layer or materials, - see, inter alia, p. 3, ll. 18-20, 32, 33; p. 4, ll. 15-22; p. 5, ll. 13-17; p. 7, ll. 22-23, 25-27; p. 8, l. 16; p. 10, l. 13-14, 26-27, of the English translation).
As per claim 1 (and analogously, as per claims 8, 15 and 16), Iba (JP 2014-154604 A) remains silent regarding the particular compositions and/or structure of the magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) structure.
Such structure, as set forth in claim 1 (and analogously, as per claims 8 and 15) of the instant application, are well-known in the magnetic memory art.
As just one example, as per claim 1 (and analogously, as per claims 8 and 15) Ranjan et al. (US 2008/0225585 A1) discloses an analogous magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) structure, in the same field of endeavor as Iba (JP 2014-154604 A), wherein as per claims 1, 8, and 15, Ranjan et al. (US 2008/0225585 A1) discloses the analogous MTJ material stack (e.g., 1300 - see Fig. 10(a)) as comprising: a seed layer (e.g., 1312), the seed layer being the bottom layer of the MTJ material stack (1300); a pinned layer (e.g., 1316) on the seed layer (1312); a barrier layer (e.g., 1318) on the pinned layer (1316); a free layer (e.g., 1320) on the barrier layer (1318); and a capping layer (e.g., 1322) on the free layer (1320).
Thus, given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Ranjan et al. (US 2008/0225585 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the configuration and/or structure of Iba (JP 2014-154604 A) as being a well-known MRAM bottom-type memory device (with the pinned layer located closer towards the bottom electrode), regarding the claims discussed, supra, as opposed to reversing the layers of the MTJ stack so as to be in a MRAM (top-type memory device (with the pinned layer over the free layer, as shown by Iba (JP 2014-154604 A)), since Ranjan et al. (US 2008/0225585 A1) readily teaches that both types of MTJ stacks in MRAM memory devices are used and can be substituted for one another with no change in operation of the device - see, e.g., Figs 10(a) and 10(b) of Ranjan et al. (US 2008/0225585 A1).
Moreover still, regarding the placement of the stress modulating layer (22) as taught by Iba (JP 2014-154604 A), even assuming that the MTJ stack is not flipped over, merely relocating/rearranging the stress modulating layer (and/or even providing a duplicate thereof at both ends of the MTJ structure stack), (including wherein the stress modulating layer (22) is in direct contact with the seed layer and/or in direct contact with the capping layer, when combined with Ranjan et al. (US 2008/0225585 A1), is seen to be within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art (at the time of the filing of the invention), given the teachings and suggestions of Iba (JP 2014-154604 A) for explicitly and expressly providing such a stress modulating layer for the advantageous purpose of "improv[ing] thermal stability" of an MTJ MRAM memory device structure. No new or unobvious result is seen to be obtained, by the duplication and/or relocation/rearrangement of the stress modulating layer given the teachings and suggestions of Iba (JP 2014-154604 A) (and/or in combination with Ranjan et al. (US 2008/0225585 A1)).
Furthermore, it has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977).In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court rejected a rigid approach to the question of obviousness, and ultimately reaffirmed that "when a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)).
Additionally, it has been held that the mere rearranging of parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Furthermore, regarding claim 16, the combination of Iba (JP 2014-154604 A) and Ranjan et al. (US 2008/0225585 A1), the result based on such teachings would lead to providing the stress modulating layer (of Iba (JP 2014-154604 A)) as physically contacting the first electrode (21) (of Iba (JP 2014-154604 A)) and the seed layer of the MTJ stack (of Ranjan et al. (US 2008/0225585 A1)).
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,945 B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims 11 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,945 B2.
That is, claim 15 of the instant application recites, a magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) structure, comprising: a first (bottom) electrode over a substrate; a MTJ material stack over the first (bottom) electrode, the MTJ material stack includes: a seed layer; a pinned layer on the seed layer; a barrier layer on the pinned layer; a free layer on the barrier layer; and a capping layer on the free layer; a second (top) electrode over the MTJ material stack; and a stress (first and/or second) modulating layer disposed vertically between the first electrode and the second electrode, the stress modulating layer in physical contact with MTJ material stack (which are found in claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,945 B2), wherein the stress modulating layer has an elastic modulus between 20 gigapascals (GPa) and 400 GPa (which is found in claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,945 B2).
Note: the first electrode of the instant application equates to the bottom electrode of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,945 B2, and the second electrode of the instant application equates to the top electrode of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,945 B2.
As per claim 16 of the instant application, see claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,945 B2.
The limitations of claims 15 and 16 of the instant application are all found in claims 11 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,945 B2.
As such, since the language of claims 15 and 16 of the instant application are readily found in claims 11 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,945 B2, claims 15 and 16 are anticipated by claims 11 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,945 B2.
Claims 15 and 16 of the instant invention are broader in scope, i.e., the entire scope of the reference claim(s) fall(s) within the scope of the examined claim. In such a situation, a later patent to a genus would, necessarily, extend the right to exclude granted by an earlier patent directed to a species or sub-genus. In this type of nonstatutory double patenting situation, an obviousness analysis is not required for the nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP 804.
A patent to a genus would, necessarily, extend the rights of a species or sub-species should the genus claims of the instant application issue after the after the species or subgenus.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,785,864 B2.
Although the claim at issue is not identical, it is not patentably distinct from claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,785,864 B2, because the claim of the instant application is anticipated by the claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,430,945 B2.
That is, claim 1 of the instant application recites, a magnetic tunneling junction (MTJ) structure, comprising: a stress modulating layer on a first electrode layer, a MTJ material stack on the stress modulating layer, the MTJ material stack includes: a seed layer, the seed layer physically contacting (on) the stress modulating layer; a pinned layer on the seed layer; a barrier layer on the pinned layer ;a free layer on the barrier layer; and a capping layer on the free layer; and a second electrode layer on the MTJ material stack (e.g., as found with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,785,864 B2), wherein the stress modulating layer includes Zr, Hf, Al, or Mg (e.g. see claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,785,864 B2).
As such, since the language of claim 1 of the instant application is readily found in claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,785,864 B2, claim 1 is anticipated by claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,785,864 B2.
Claim 1 of the instant invention is broader in scope, i.e., the entire scope of the reference claim(s) fall(s) within the scope of the examined claim. In such a situation, a later patent to a genus would, necessarily, extend the right to exclude granted by an earlier patent directed to a species or sub-genus. In this type of nonstatutory double patenting situation, an obviousness analysis is not required for the nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP 804.
A patent to a genus would, necessarily, extend the rights of a species or sub-species should the genus claims of the instant application issue after the after the species or subgenus.
Citation of Prior or Relevant Art on enclosed PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art made of record (see the enclosed PTO-892), not applied to the rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including wherein buffer and/or stress/strain compensation (modulating layers) are provided within and/or sandwiching MTJ stacks - see enclosed PTO-892
The best prior art has been applied to the claimed invention (see the rejection of the claims on the applied prior art, supra). However, if Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a manner to obviate the applied prior art, as noted in the rejection, supra, the Applicant is advised to not only carefully review the applied prior art for all it teaches and/or suggests, but also the cited prior art of record in order to obviate any potential rejections based on potential amendment(s); by doing so, compact prosecution on the merits can be enhanced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached on (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688