DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 8,003,163- hereinafter Lee’163) in view of Lee et al. (US 2008/0050616 A1 to Lee et al. -hereinafter 'Lee'616 ').
Lee'163 discloses a magnetic disk of a data storage device (Fig 1 A, IB, col 2, Iine 52-col 3, Iine 3), the magnetic disk comprising a layer stack including: a substrate (100/110) (Fig 1A); an interlayer (120) formed from a nonmagnetic metal corresponding to the claimed template layer, with the interlayer retaining a patterned array of protruding features (120a) during fabrication of other layers of the magnetic disk (Fig 1A, col 3, In 14-27); a texturing underlayer (140) grown on the patterned array of protruding features (120a) of the template layer (120), corresponding to the claimed underlayer (Fig 1 A, col 3, Iines 39-41) and having an array pattern of protruding features that aligns with the patterned array of protruding features of the template layer (120) (col 3, In 29-33). The texturing underlayer (140) functions to define a crystallographic orientation of the overlying magnetic recording layer comprising a cobalt-chromium-platinum alloy (col 3, Iines 41-47), which is configured to have a thickness between 9 nanometers and 11 nanometers (col 3, Iines 51-56) and comprise columnar magnetic grains (161) separated by grain boundaries of non-magnetic material (162) comprising an oxide (silicon oxide or titanium oxide, col 4, In 1-3). Each columnar grain (161) being on a protruding feature of the array pattern of the under layer (140), and the grain boundaries (162) being in trenches between the protruding features of the array pattern of the under layer (140) (Fig 1A, IB, col 3, Iines 51-56).
It is noted that at least the lowermost portions of the grain boundary regions (162) read on the claimed “segregant layer comprising a non-magnetic material, the segregant layer comprising one or more monolayers of the non-magnetic material that are sputtered onto the underlayer in a non-conformal fashion.” An upper thickness of the grain boundary regions reads on the claimed “grain boundaries of non-magnetic material comprising an oxide. There is no distinction in the claims between the particular material used for the segregant layer and grain boundaries of the magnetic layer. Thus, a single layer of oxide reads on both.
Furthermore, claim 20 requires that the segregant layer is “sputtered onto the underlayer in a non-conformal fashion.” It is clear from the disclosure that the step of depositing the segregant layer onto the underlayer does not necessarily result in the segregant remaining on the protruding features of the underlayer. Instead, the segregant may be deposited on the underlayer but settle into the recessed regions of the underlayer (see paragraph [0049] of the specification). Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “sputtered onto the underlayer in a non-conformal fashion” includes an embodiment wherein the segregant material is present in the recessed regions of the underlayer upon which grain boundary regions in the magnetic layer are formed.
Lee ‘163 fails to disclose a grain pitch of “approximately 15 nanometers or less” as claimed. However, the reference does disclose columnar magnetic grains (161) having a pitch of 25 nanometers in one example (see col 4, Iines 44-47) and teaches that the pattern formed on the template layer taught therein (Lee refers to this layer as the “interlayer” 320) can have a pitch in the range of several nanometers to several tens of nanometers (see col. 5, lines 36-60). Lee’163 also suggests that reducing grain pitch increases recording density (reduction of pitch from 37 nm to 35 nm in the examples shown in Table 1 increases recording density from 500Gb/sq in to 1Tb/sq in).
Thus, grain pitch is a result effective variable that affects recording density. Determining an optimal grain pitch would have been obvious in view of the teaching that reducing grain pitch yields increased recording density.
Furthermore, choice of any pitch within the disclosed range of “several nanometers” to “several tens of nanometers” (including 15nm as claimed) would have been obvious and within the level of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosed suitability of all values in this range.
Lee'163 also fails to disclose the use of “a platinum film with face-centered cubic structure and (111) crystallographic texture” for their template interlayer (12) formed from a nonmagnetic metal.
Lee '616, related to magnetic storage (para [0003]), discloses platinum (Pt) and ruthenium (Ru) as materials for seed/interlayer structures (para [0036]), with a face-centered cubic structure and (111) crystallographic texture (para [0038]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to form the template layer of Lee'163 as a platinum film with face-centered cubic structure and (111) crystallographic texture and the underlayer comprising the ruthenium film since Lee'616 teaches fcc(111) Pt as preferable for forming suitable interlayers in a patterned magnetic recording medium. One of ordinary skill in the art reading Lee’163 would have been motivated to look to the related art to determine suitable materials and crystalline orientations for the nonmagnetic metal layer (120) in order to form a suitable crystalline orientation for the overlying magnetic recording layer.
It is noted that Claim 20 is directed to a “stack” which includes “an underlayer grown on the pattern of protruding features of the template layer when the block copolymer layer is etched away, the underlayer comprising ruthenium film.” Thus, the mask and block copolymer layers are necessarily absent from the “stack” as claimed because they are removed by etching prior to formation of the claimed underlayer and magnetic recording layers (see “the block copolymer is etched away” in line 7 of claim 20 on page 5 of the amendment filed 12/10/25 and paragraph [0008] of the specification).
The limitations directed to the specific nature of the mask and block copolymer, including the limitations requiring that the mask layer comprises amorphous carbon and has a lower ion milling rate than that of the template layer, are directed to the manner of making the claimed magnetic disk and not the resultant stack. Furthermore, the newly added limitation requiring forming of the array pattern features via a block copolymer “having a chain length and molecular weight for controlling a thickness of the columnar grain” of the overlying magnetic recording layer to be within specific limits is directed to how the claimed stack is made. Thus, the limitations directed to the mask and block copolymer are only germane to the claimed disk stack in so far as they materially affect the structure of the final product, which includes the underlayer. The structural features that appear to be conferred by the mask and annealed block-copolymer are limited to the formation of an array pattern of nanostructures having a pitch of approximately 15 nm that are “approximately regular” that are formed in the template layer following etching of the block copolymer and mask layers and a magnetic recording layer with columnar grains that are 9-11 nm thick with a grain pitch of 15 nm. These features are met by the prior art to Lee ‘163 for the above noted reasons.
The limitation requiring “a size of the protruding features being tuned based on a polymer chain length and molecular weight of the self-assembled nanostructures” has been fully considered but does not appear to add any additional structure to the claimed disk stack. This limitation is also considered to be directed to the manner of making the claimed magnetic disk in the absence of a showing that this tuning step results in a materially different product from that taught by the prior art.
It has been held that “even though product-by-process claims are limited and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.“ In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With regard to claim 21, the limitations are directed to the method of making the claimed stack but they do not impart any additional structural or compositional features to the claimed article and thus, do not distinguish the claimed invention from the applied prior art. There is no evidence of record to establish the claimed patterning steps result in a product that is materially different from that taught by the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/10/25 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant does not present any additional arguments in the response filed 12/10/25. The arguments presented in the non-responsive amendment of 4/14/25 will be addressed instead.
Applicant argues that the claims have now been amended to clarify how the stack of claim 20 includes the block copolymer layer such that it is not “necessarily absent” from the stack as previously argued by the Examiner.
However, the claims as amended taken in view of the specification do not allow for the presence of block copolymer in the layer stack once the underlayer and magnetic layer have been formed. This is because the method of making the stack requires etching and milling steps prior to deposition of the underlayer and magnetic recording layers in order to expose the pattern formed by the mask layer (see for example paragraph [0008] of the specification). It is still not clear where Applicant believes the block copolymer is still present in the stack structure that includes the underlayer and recording layers. The Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant point out the portion of the specification that discusses the block copolymer remaining in the layer stack subsequent to deposition of the underlayer and recording layer. Clarification of this point is crucial in order to advance prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY RICKMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1514. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Tues, Thurs, 9am-3 pm 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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached on 571-272-1291. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785