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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 2, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on November 21, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) 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.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of commonly owned U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2.
More specifically, the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application are all found in claim 1 of commonly owned U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2 (see claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2, which recites "A magnetoresistance effect element comprising: a first ferromagnetic layer; a second ferromagnetic layer; and a non-magnetic layer provided between the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer, wherein at least one of the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer includes a first layer and a second layer in order from the side closer to the non-magnetic layer, wherein the first layer contains a crystallized Heusler alloy, wherein at least a part of the second layer is crystallized and the second layer contains a ferromagnetic element and elemental boron, and wherein both the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer include the first layer and the second layer" (see claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2), as found in claim 1 of the instant application).
As such, since the language of claim 1 of the instant application is readily found in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2, claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2 (reference claims).
Moreover, 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 (and the other rejected claims, as noted, infra). 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. Therefore, in this type of obvious-type double patenting situation, a Graham analysis of the type required in an Obviousness-Type Double Patenting situation is not required, albeit certainly, one could readily be applied.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,598 B2.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of commonly owned U.S. Patent No. 12,035,635 B2.
More specifically, the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application are all found in claims 1 and 2 of commonly owned U.S. Patent No. 12,035,635 B2 (see claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,635 B2, which recites "A magnetoresistance effect element comprising: a first ferromagnetic layer; a second ferromagnetic layer; and a non-magnetic layer provided between the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer, wherein at least one of the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer includes a first layer and a second layer in order from the side closer to the non-magnetic layer, wherein the first layer contains a crystallized Heusler alloy, wherein at least a part of the second layer is crystallized and the second layer contains a ferromagnetic element and elemental boron (see claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,635 B2), and wherein both the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer include the first layer and the second layer" (see claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,635 B2), as found in claim 1 of the instant application).
As such, since the language of claim 1 of the instant application is readily found in claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,635 B2, claim 1 is anticipated by claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,635 B2 (reference claims).
Moreover, 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 (and the other rejected claims, as noted, infra). 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. Therefore, in this type of obvious-type double patenting situation, a Graham analysis of the type required in an Obviousness-Type Double Patenting situation is not required, albeit certainly, one could readily be applied.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,035,635 B2.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 14 of commonly owned U.S. Patent No. 11,621,392 B2.
More specifically, the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application are all found in claim 1 of commonly owned U.S. Patent No. 11,621,392 B2 (see claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,621,392 B2, which recites "A magnetoresistance effect element comprising: a first ferromagnetic layer; a second ferromagnetic layer; and a non-magnetic layer provided between the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer, wherein at least one of the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer includes a first layer and a second layer in order from the side closer to the non-magnetic layer, wherein the first layer contains a crystallized Heusler alloy, wherein at least a part of the second layer is crystallized and the second layer contains a ferromagnetic element and elemental boron (see claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,621,392 B2), and wherein both the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer include the first layer and the second layer" (see claims 2 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,621,392 B2), as found in claim 1 of the instant application).
As such, since the language of claim 1 of the instant application is readily found in claims 1, 2 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,621,392 B2, claim 1 is anticipated by claims 1, 2 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,621,392 B2 (reference claims).
Moreover, 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 (and the other rejected claims, as noted, infra). 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. Therefore, in this type of obvious-type double patenting situation, a Graham analysis of the type required in an Obviousness-Type Double Patenting situation is not required, albeit certainly, one could readily be applied.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,621,392 B2.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 4 of commonly owned U.S. Patent No. 11,158,785 B2.
More specifically, the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application are all found in claims 1 and 2 of commonly owned U.S. Patent No. 11,158,785 B2 (see claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 111,158,785 B2, which recites "A magnetoresistance effect element comprising: a first ferromagnetic layer; a second ferromagnetic layer; and a non-magnetic layer provided between the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer, wherein at least one of the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer includes a first layer and a second layer in order from the side closer to the non-magnetic layer, wherein the first layer contains a crystallized Heusler alloy, wherein at least a part of the second layer is crystallized and the second layer contains a ferromagnetic element and elemental boron (see claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,158,785 B2), and wherein both the first ferromagnetic layer and the second ferromagnetic layer include the first layer and the second layer" (see claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,158,785 B2), as found in claim 1 of the instant application).
As such, since the language of claim 1 of the instant application is readily found in claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,158,785 B2, claim 1 is anticipated by claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,158,785 B2 (reference claims).
Moreover, 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 (and the other rejected claims, as noted, infra). 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. Therefore, in this type of obvious-type double patenting situation, a Graham analysis of the type required in an Obviousness-Type Double Patenting situation is not required, albeit certainly, one could readily be applied.
Claim 2 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 11,158,785 B2.
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 magnetoresistance effect elements include ferromagnetic layers, sandwiching non-magnetic layers, wherein the first/second magnetic layers includer Heusler alloy compositions and/or CoFeB alloy materials.
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
Prosecution Insights