DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Regarding the limitation(s) "adjacent" in claim 1, the Examiner has given the term(s) the broadest reasonable interpretation(s) consistent with the written description in Applicants' specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Donaldson Co., Inc., 16 F.3d 1190, 1192-95, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-50 (Fed. Cir. 1994). See MPEP 2111. Specifically, the Examiner notes that "adjacent" still allows for other layers to be therebetween (i.e. "adjacent" is taken to be synonymous with "near”). Should Applicants desire to exclude other layers from being located therebetween, the Examiner suggests using the wording "directly adjacent" or "in contact with".
The broadest reasonable interpretation of “bi-layer” structure would include at least 2 layers or films (emphasis added). Claims 1 and 9 includes a bilayer structure including a Ir film (1), Ir body (2), and a AuCu bottom plasmonic layer (3).
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 1-2, and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 10,586,560) in view of (Shimazawa et al. (US 9,620,151) or Zhao et al. (US 2011/0205863)) in view of Tanemura et al. (US 2014/0298644).
Regarding claims 1-2, Wang discloses a HAMR write head comprising a main pole (10) including a tip portion disposed adjacent to an air-bending surface (ABS), the main pole configure to direct a magnetic field toward a magnetic recording medium to interact with the magnetic recording medium (claim 1), a heat sink (30) disposed adjacent to the main pole, and a bi-layer structure planar generator (PPG) structure comprising a plasmon generator (PG) layer (40) comprising an Iridium film (col. 3, lines 60-65), a bottom plasmonic layer (50) comprising Au (col. 3, line 33), a first (60) and second (70) dielectric spacer layer as claimed (Fig. 4). Further, given that there is no material or structural difference between Ir film and Ir body in a plasmon generator, the examiner is taking the position that the upper stratum of Wang’s Ir PG corresponds to the claimed Ir body and the lower stratum of Wang’s Ir PG corresponds to the claimed Ir film. Furthermore, given that the claims are open to any thicknesses of the Ir film and Ir body layer, the examiner is taking the position that any depth of the bilayer that shares the same length would read upon claimed Ir body comprising a length that corresponds to a length of the Ir film as well as disposed over an entirety of the Ir film (emphasis added). Please see annotated figure 4 of Wang below illustrating this.
PNG
media_image1.png
381
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “length” can be viewed of any direction/plane. Therefore, Wang discloses the length as claimed at the ABS (emphasis added). Please see annotated Figure 5 below illustrating this.
PNG
media_image2.png
360
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Wang discloses examples of using Rh PG layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an Ir PG layer set for the in the example in view of the explicit teaching of Wang that the material is suitable. In addition, Wang shows that Ir is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute Rh (in the examples) for Ir, since Wang discloses that this material are highly resistant to becoming oxides and being subjected to other chemical attacks, thereby resulting in high-temperature thermal stability and stable electrical properties (col. 3, lines 61-67). Substitution of equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Grover Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Although Wang discloses that it is known in the art that a bottom plasmonic layer comprises of Au and Cu (col. 2, lines 6-9), Wang doesn’t disclose an embodiment comprises of AuCu3-15% as presently claimed.
Shimazawa discloses a magnetic head comprising an Au or AuCu plasmon generator, wherein the Cu concentration overlaps the claimed range (col. 5, line 5-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s Au plasmonic layer to be of AuCu, with the Cu concentration as claimed, since Shimazawa discloses that this is a known material and suitable for the use of a plasmon generator (claim 2).
Or in the alternative, Zhao discloses a plasmon-generator (head with near field transducer – NFT), comprising gold and a dopant of Cu in a range of 0.5-30% (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s Au plasmon-generator to additionally comprise Cu with the concentration as claimed, as suggested by Zhao, in order to enhance thermostability and process stability (Abstract).
Wang in view of (Shimazawa or Zhao) discloses AuCu bottom plasmonic layer as set forth above, however, fails to disclose a grain size is at least 30 nm as presently claimed.
Tanemura discloses a plasmonic generator that has a composition of Au and Cu [0050], wherein the grain size is 80 nm [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang+’s bottom plasmonic layer to have a grain size as claimed, since Tanemura discloses that this will lead to no deterioration in the characteristics of the MR element [0076-0077].
Regarding claim 6, Wang discloses the bottom plasmonic layer (50) is disposed over the second dielectric spacer layer (70) (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, regarding the limitation “removed via an etching process according to a resist mask disposed above the metal layer and the bottom plasmonic layer.. after etching…” per claim 7, even though product-by-process claims are limited by 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, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). Given that Wang discloses that the bottom plasmonic layer comprise of a metal material, the examiner is taking the position that the upper stratum of the bottom plasmonic layer corresponds to the claimed metal layer.
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 10,586,560) in view of (Shimazawa et al. (US 9,620,151) or Zhao et al. (US 2011/0205863)).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Wang discloses a HAMR write head comprising a main pole (10) including a tip portion disposed adjacent to an air-bending surface (ABS), the main pole configure to direct a magnetic field toward a magnetic recording medium to interact with the magnetic recording medium (claim 1), a heat sink (30) disposed adjacent to the main pole, and a bi-layer structure planar generator (PPG) structure comprising a plasmon generator (PG) layer (40) comprising an Iridium film (col. 3, lines 60-65), a bottom plasmonic layer (50) comprising Au (col. 3, line 33), a first (60) and second (70) dielectric spacer layer as claimed (Fig. 4). Further, given that there is no material or structural difference between Ir film and Ir body in a plasmon generator, the examiner is taking the position that the upper stratum of Wang’s Ir PG corresponds to the claimed Ir body and the lower stratum of Wang’s Ir PG corresponds to the claimed Ir film. Furthermore, given that the claims are open to any thicknesses of the Ir film and Ir body layer, the examiner is taking the position that any depth of the bilayer that shares the same length would read upon claimed Ir body comprising a length that corresponds to a length of the Ir film as well as disposed over an entirety of the Ir film (emphasis added). Please see annotated figure 4 of Wang below illustrating this.
PNG
media_image1.png
381
864
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “length” can be viewed of any direction. Therefore, Wang discloses the length as claimed at the ABS (emphasis added). Please see annotated Figure 5 below illustrating this.
PNG
media_image2.png
360
553
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Wang discloses examples of using Rh PG layer, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have an Ir PG layer set for the in the example in view of the explicit teaching of Wang that the material is suitable. In addition, Wang shows that Ir is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute Rh (in the examples) for Ir, since Wang discloses that this material are highly resistant to becoming oxides and being subjected to other chemical attacks, thereby resulting in high-temperature thermal stability and stable electrical properties (col. 3, lines 61-67). Substitution of equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Grover Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Although Wang discloses that it is known in the art that a bottom plasmonic layer comprises of Au and Cu (col. 2, lines 6-9), Wang doesn’t disclose an embodiment comprises of AuCu3-15% as presently claimed.
Shimazawa discloses a magnetic head comprising an Au or AuCu plasmon generator, wherein the Cu concentration overlaps the claimed range (col. 5, line 5-13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s Au plasmonic layer to be of AuCu, with the Cu concentration as claimed, since Shimazawa discloses that this is a known material and suitable for the use of a plasmon generator (claim 2).
Or in the alternative, Zhao discloses a plasmon-generator (head with near field transducer – NFT), comprising gold and a dopant of Cu in a range of 0.5-30% (Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s Au plasmon-generator to additionally comprise Cu with the concentration as claimed, as suggested by Zhao, in order to enhance thermostability and process stability (Abstract).
Regarding claims 10-11, regarding the limitations “a first portion of the bottom plasmonic layer is removed via an etching process…” per claim 10, and “a manufacturing process…” per claim 11, even though product-by-process claims are limited by 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, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113).
Wang discloses a first and second portion of the bottom plasmonic layer as claimed (All Figs). In addition, Wang discloses a first (60) and second (70) dielectric spacer layer comprising a first and second portions as claimed (Fig. 4). Given that there is no material or structural difference between RIE stopper layer and second dielectric spacer layer, the examiner is taking the position that the upper stratum of Wang’s second dielectric spacer layer corresponds to the claimed RIE stopper layer. It is noted that the claimed RIE stopper layer is part of a method of making the bottom plasmonic layer (please see claim 11). Wang discloses the bottom plasmonic layer as set forth above. In addition, Wang’s second dielectric spacer layer has the nomenclature of bottom stop dielectric (BSD) layer (claim 1), therefore, Wang’s layer would also function as a stop layer, which corresponds to “stopper layer”.
Regarding claim 13, Wang in view of (Shimazawa or Zhao) discloses AuCu bottom plasmonic layer as set forth above, however, fails to disclose a grain size is at least 30 nm as presently claimed.
Tanemura discloses a plasmonic generator that has a composition of Au and Cu [0050], wherein the grain size is 80 nm [0076].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang’s bottom plasmonic layer to have a grain size as claimed, since Tanemura discloses that this will lead to no deterioration in the characteristics of the MR element [0076-0077].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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 at (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 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights