DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
This action is responsive to the following communications: the Application filed March 10, 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1 and 14 are independent.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 received on April 23, 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on March 10, 2025 and July 23, 2026. These IDSs have been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figures 1-3 and 5-6 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
Applicant’s Figures 1-2 and 5-6 are identical to U.S. 2024/0079039 Figures 1-2 and 7. Furthermore, Applicant’s Figure 3 is identical to U.S. 2023/0069841 Figure 13.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. See MPEP 606.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoshikawa (U.S. 2024/0079039).
Regarding independent claim 1, Yoshikawa discloses a magnetic memory device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a conductive layer (Fig. 5: 24);
a magnetoresistive effect element (Fig. 5: 27) provided on the conductive layer (Fig. 5: 24) and including a first end portion that contacts the conductive layer (Fig. 13(A) shows a first portion that receive VSS and VDD) and a second end portion that is opposite to the first end portion (Fig. 13(A) shows a second portion 27a); and
a control circuit (Fig. 1: 14-18) configured to perform a write operation to write data into the magnetoresistive effect element (see page 2, par. 0034 and 0036), the write operation including:
in a first period, causing a current to flow in the conductive layer (see Figs. 13-14), and
in a second period subsequent to the first period, stopping the current and applying a negative voltage to the second end portion with respect to the first end portion (see page 9, par. 0118-0119).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshikawa discloses wherein the write operation includes applying a positive voltage to the second end portion with respect to the first end portion in the first period (see page 8, par. 0109).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshikawa discloses the limitations with respect to claim 2.
As discussed above, Yoshikawa’s magnetic memory device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “magnetic memory device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “wherein the first period includes a first sub-period and a second sub-period subsequent to the first sub-period, and the write operation includes, in the second sub-period and the second period, applying the negative voltage to the second end portion with respect to the first end portion.”
The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Yoshikawa’s magnetic memory device appears to be identical to applicant’s device, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device is incapable of performing the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I). Applicant is also reminded that claim limitations directed to the manner of operating do not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshikawa discloses the limitations with respect to claim 2.
As discussed above, Yoshikawa’s magnetic memory device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “magnetic memory device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “wherein, over the first and second periods, the positive voltage applied to the second end portion continuously changes to the negative voltage.”
The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Yoshikawa’s magnetic memory device appears to be identical to applicant’s device, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device is incapable of performing the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I). Applicant is also reminded that claim limitations directed to the manner of operating do not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshikawa discloses the limitations with respect to claim 1.
As discussed above, Yoshikawa’s magnetic memory device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “magnetic memory device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “wherein the write operation includes, in the first period, applying a voltage that is approximately equal to 0 to the second end portion.”
The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Yoshikawa’s magnetic memory device appears to be identical to applicant’s device, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device is incapable of performing the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I). Applicant is also reminded that claim limitations directed to the manner of operating do not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshikawa discloses the limitations with respect to claim 1.
As discussed above, Yoshikawa’s magnetic memory device is substantially identical in structure to the claimed “magnetic memory device,” where the differences reside only in the remaining limitations relating to function of “wherein the first period has a first sub-period and a second sub-period subsequent to the first sub-period, and the write operation includes in the first sub-period, applying a voltage that is approximately equal to 0 to the second end portion, and in the second sub-period and the second period, applying the negative voltage to the second end portion.”
The MPEP explains that examiners are to presume claimed functions are inherent when the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to the claimed apparatus. See esp. MPEP 2112.01(I) (Product and Apparatus Claims – When the Structure Recited in the Reference is Substantially Identically to that of the Claims, Claimed Properties or Functions Are Presumed to be Inherent). Yoshikawa’s magnetic memory device appears to be identical to applicant’s device, and thus the prior art apparatus is substantially identical to claimed apparatus, for which the claimed functions are presumed inherent. See MPEP 2112.01(I).
This presumption is rebuttable by applicant either (1) showing the prior art device and claimed device are not the same or (2) proving prior art device is incapable of performing the claimed functions. In re Ludtke, 441 F.2d 660, 664 (CCPA 1971); see MPEP 2112.01(I)(quoting In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709 for “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the application and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.”). Applicant is reminded that argument of counsel is not evidence. MPEP 2145(I). Applicant is also reminded that claim limitations directed to the manner of operating do not distinguish an apparatus claim from the prior art apparatus. MPEP 2114(II) (“Manner of Operating the Device Does Not Differentiate Apparatus Claim from the Prior Art”).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshikawa discloses wherein the write operation includes:
when writing first data, causing the current to flow in a first direction, and when writing second data that is different from the first data, causing the current to flow in a second direction anti-parallel to the first direction (see Figs. 13-14).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshikawa discloses wherein the conductive layer contains at least one element selected from tantalum, tungsten, ruthenium, rhodium, palladium, silver, copper, osmium, iridium, platinum, gold, and manganese (see page 5, par. 0081).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshikawa discloses wherein the magnetoresistive effect element (Fig. 5: 27) includes:
a first ferromagnetic layer in contact with the conductive layer (Fig. 5: 27a-1),
a first nonmagnetic layer above the first ferromagnetic layer (Fig. 5: 27a-2), and
a second ferromagnetic layer above the first nonmagnetic layer (Fig. 5: 27a-3), and the first nonmagnetic layer contains magnesium and oxygen (see page 5, par. 0084).
Regarding 10, Yoshikawa discloses wherein the first ferromagnetic layer contains at least one element selected from cobalt, iron, and nickel (see page 5, par. 0084).
Regarding claim 11, Yoshikawa discloses wherein the first ferromagnetic layer further contains at least one element selected from gold, silver, platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium ruthenium, and osmium (see page 5, par. 0084).
Regarding claim 12, Yoshikawa discloses wherein the magnetoresistive effect element further includes:
a second nonmagnetic layer above the second ferromagnetic layer (Fig. 5: 27b), and
a third ferromagnetic layer above the second nonmagnetic layer (Fig. 5: 27c).
Regarding claim 13, Yoshikawa discloses wherein the second nonmagnetic layer contains at least one element selected from ruthenium, osmium, rhodium, iridium, vanadium, and chromium (see pages 6-7, par. 0089 and par. 0097).
Regarding independent claim 14, Yoshikawa discloses a method for performing a write operation to write data into a magnetic memory device (see page 2, par. 0034 and 0036) that includes a conductive layer (Fig. 5: 24) and a magnetoresistive effect element (Fig. 5: 27) provided on the conductive layer and including a first end portion that contacts the conductive layer (Fig. 13(A) shows a first portion that receive VSS and VDD) and a second end portion that is opposite to the first end portion (Fig. 13(A) shows a second portion 27a), the method comprising:
in a first period, causing a current to flow in the conductive layer (see Figs. 13-14); and
in a second period subsequent to the first period, stopping the current and applying a negative voltage to the second end portion with respect to the first end portion (see page 9, par. 0118-0119).
Regarding claim 15, Yoshikawa discloses applying a positive voltage to the second end portion with respect to the first end portion in the first period (see page 8, par. 0109).
Regarding claim 20, Yoshikawa discloses when writing first data, causing the current to flow in a first direction, and when writing second data that is different from the first data, causing the current to flow in a second direction anti-parallel to the first direction (see Figs. 13-14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 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:
With respect to claim 16, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to provide the recited first period includes a first sub-period and a second sub-period subsequent to the first sub-period, and the method further comprises in the second sub-period and the second period, applying the negative voltage to the second end portion with respect to the first end portion.
With respect to claim 17, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to provide the recited over the first period and the second period, the positive voltage applied to the second end portion continuously changes to the negative voltage.
With respect to claim 18, there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to provide the recited first period, applying a voltage that is approximately equal to 0 to the second end portion.
With respect to claim 19¸ there is no teaching or suggestion in the prior art of record to provide the recited first period has a first sub-period and a second sub-period subsequent to the first sub-period, and the method further comprises in the first sub-period, applying a voltage that is approximately equal to 0 to the second end portion with respect to the first end portion, and in the second sub-period and the second period, applying the negative voltage to the second end portion with respect to the first end portion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALFREDO BERMUDEZ LOZADA whose telephone number is (571)272-0877. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00AM-3:30PM 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, 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.
/Alfredo Bermudez Lozada/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2825
Prosecution Insights