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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/12/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The declaration submitted 11/12/2025 is acknowledged.
The Examiner further notes that various “exhibits” have been submitted, but the Examiner respectfully notes that to the extent that any or all of these documents have not been listed individually on an information disclosure statement that has been considered by the Examiner, these documents have not been considered.
With regard to the declaration,
As to Pages 2-4 directed towards the section (a),
The Examiner acknowledges the arguments made, but the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant’s arguments are primarily directed towards what applicant believes a person of ordinary skill in the art would know, and not what must have been part of the original disclosure. As explained in MPEP 2163(3)(a), “What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94.” This holding explains that applicant is not required to provide in detail those features that are conventional, but applicant must still provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the manner in which applicant is implementing the claim feature.
To that point, the Examiner acknowledges, in light of applicant’s declaration, that a large enough value of Idc is necessary in order for the sensor to operate in the self-oscillation region. However, whether a person would or not understand such a feature does not reasonably overcome the issue being raised.
First, the Examiner notes that Claim 1 expressly claims that the manner in which the sensor is operated is done so to “reduce low frequency noise,” but that this concept is not mentioned in the declaration. Applicant does not explain how any of the features noted would reduce low frequency noise.
Second, applicant does not reasonably explain whether merely operating in the self-oscillating region would inherently prevent the drive dynamics of the magnetization of the free layer such that it would not be trapped and would reduce low frequency noise, or if specific values are necessary for this feature.
Meaning, if merely operating the sensor in the self-oscillating region would inherently provide the entirety of the last paragraph of Claim 1, then the Examiner acknowledges that such a feature would be inherent to the disclosure with no further explanation necessary. However, if a more specific mode of operation is necessary, such as the use of a specific amount of DC current or that the sensor be operated in subset or specific portion of the self-osculating region, then such a feature is not inherent as applicant does not reasonably disclose or describe such a feature.
As such, the Examiner acknowledges the explanation provided by applicant, but the Examiner respectfully notes that the arguments are directed to what a person of ordinary skill in the art would know, and not what must have been part of the original disclosure. Applicant does not reasonably explain why the claim features, as currently claimed, would reasonably have been supported by the arguments, in that applicant does not reasonably explain why the original disclosure itself reasonably provided support for the claim features. The Examiner acknowledges, as noted by applicant, that there is no single critical current value that is universal to all devices. However, while applicant provides a generic explanation of this feature and what a person of ordinary skill in the art would know, applicant, respectfully, does not sufficiently explain how that pertains to the claim features such that the original disclosure would reasonably find support and understand what applicant is doing to achieve the prevention of the drive dynamics of magnetization of the free layer from being trapped with a reduction in low frequency noise by driving the magnetic field source to apply the magnetic field as claimed. As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that applicant has added various exhibits as stated by applicant, but the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not reasonably explain why any of the cited documents demonstrate why the original disclosure provided proper written description for the claim feature. The Examiner notes that “One shows that one is "in possession" of the invention by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious. Id. … One does that by such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that fully set forth the claimed invention … A description which renders obvious the invention for which an earlier filing date is sought is not sufficient” (Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572). Meaning, merely because a feature was well-known or that one way to use or establish a feature was well-known does not make such a feature part of the original disclosure unless the original disclosure itself reasonably made clear of the intent to include such a feature. Thus, to the extent that what applicant has provided demonstrate well-known ways of implementing the claim feature does not reasonably provide proper written description when applicant does not reasonably originally reference or other demonstrate an intent to include such a feature.
As to page 4 regarding moving a Vortex,
The Examiner acknowledges applicant’s arguments, but the Examiner respectfully notes that there is a difference between what is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in contrast with the written description requirement. While the written description requirement can rely upon features that are already well-known, in order to satisfy the written description requirement, applicant must reasonably originally demonstrate what applicant intends to include or rely upon in order to then rely upon that which is well-known in the art. Otherwise, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize what applicant is specifically doing to implement the claim feature, or if such a feature is even well-known or novel. As explained in MPEP 2163(3)(a), “What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94.” Meaning, merely stating that a vortex is moved does not reasonably establish the manner that applicant moves the vortex. Even if there were well-known ways to move the vortex, those ways are not part of the original disclosure unless applicant reasonably establishes an intent to include them or such features are actually inherent. Here, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which applicant moves the vortex, by how much, or demonstrate what the end result would be for each movement. While an RF field can induce a torque on the vortex, applicant does not reasonably describe enough of the process to reasonable establish both what applicant is doing to move the vortex and what the end result of that movement is intended to be. Applicant is not merely moving the vortex randomly, and thus more explanation is necessary. Applicant’s arguments, respectfully, focus on what was known in the art and do not reasonably explain the actual manner in which the original disclosure demonstrated, in applicant’s opinion, the claim features at issue.
As to pages 4-5 directed towards Measuring a Resistance,
Applicant argues that the specification describes measuring the resistance, and that a person of ordinary skill in the art understands that measuring a resistance encompasses the use of a resistometer and that such phrases are synonymous. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the mere disclosure of a broader concept does not mean that all species within that concept are disclosed. Meaning, merely disclosing a “processing device” does not now mean that applicant can claim specific but undisclosed types of processing devices, such as a DSP. While a DSP may be an “obvious” implementation of a processing device, as explained in the above Lockwood case, merely because a feature is obvious does not make it part of the disclosure disclose.
Second, applicant states that resistometer and measuring a resistance are synonymous, but applicant has not provided any evidence to support this statement. Indeed, the mere recitation of measuring a resistance is not reasonably synonymous with a resistometer, as many other devices exist that can measure a resistance but would not be a resistometer. A multimeter can measure resistance, a digital processor with leads connected across any particular component can measure resistance, or a resistance can be measured by merely determining other values such as current and voltage. As such, a resistometer, as best understood, is intended to a specific type of device that is used to measure resistance, but where such a device is not expressly disclosed, and where such a device is not inherent. This device is at most obvious, and obvious features are not part of the original disclosure as explained above. Lastly, a resistometer, as best understood, is a device used in biological measurements, thus further rendering such a feature as not part of the original disclosure.
As to page 5 directed towards a Predetermined State,
Applicant argues that the predetermined state is a known state that a layer is placed into that it can be effectively manipulated. The Examiner respectfully disagrees that this provides support for the feature at issue.
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not present any evidence to support the argument that a predetermined state must be a known state that allows the layer to be manipulated. No paragraph or document is cited to support this argument. Nothing in the original disclosure reasonably equates a predetermined state to the argued known state.
Second, even if applicant’s arguments were accepted, the original disclosure would still be completely silent as to what this known state is in order to establish possession. Any state could in theory be a known state, and applicant is not merely placing the layer into any random state. Instead, there must be a specific “predetermined” state that applicant intends to place the layer into, but where the original disclosure is completely silent. Thus, even if the state were known, a person of ordinary skill in the art would nevertheless fail to recognize what this known state would be. Furthermore, the original disclosure does not reasonably explain what “effective control” is in the context of the disclosure to reasonably provide sufficient guidance of what the predetermined state must be. Effective control is not explained, and such a phrase can reasonably vary from one individual to another as to what they would and would not consider “effective” control. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees, as the arguments do not reasonably demonstrate where the original disclosure itself provides support for what the predetermined state is in the context of the disclosure.
As such, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments asserted in the declaration.
The Examiner further respectfully notes that none of the documents submitted have been considered, as none have been listed on an IDS for consideration.
However, with regard to the arguments on pages 5-6 directed toward the previous 112(a) rejections,
Applicant cites MPEP 2164.01 “A patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art.” However, the Examiner respectfully notes that this statement is with regard to enablement, and not written description. While related, the written description requirement is related to enablement, it is not the same. Contrary to this, MPEP 2163(3)(a) explains “What is conventional or well known to one of ordinary skill in the art need not be disclosed in detail. See Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d at 1384, 231 USPQ at 94,” and MPEP 2163(I) explains “An applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997).” As such, merely because something is well-known does not mean the original disclosure can be silent on such a feature, and instead some reasonable explanation is still required, even if a detailed explanation is not required when the feature is conventional.
The majority of the remaining arguments reference the declaration, which has been responded to above. For the same reasons as explained in the above explanation, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. That stated, the Examiner again respectfully notes that merely because something is known in the art does not make it part of the original disclosure unless applicant expressly references the feature or otherwise makes clear the intent for the feature to be part of the original disclosure. While no further explanation may be necessary depending on whether that particular feature was well-known to be used in the claimed manner, such a feature is not part of the original disclosure merely because it was conventional or obvious. Applicant does note paragraph [0078], but no further explanation is provided as to why this paragraph provides support for the argued claim features, and the Examiner respectfully disagrees that it overcomes the issues previously and currently raised.
With regard to the arguments on pages 6-7 directed towards the previous 112(b) rejections,
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant regarding the arguments directed towards the term “critical.” As explained above, applicant is not just claiming the use of a critical field or current, even to operate in a self-oscillating region. Instead, applicant is claiming a specific critical value necessary to also reduce low frequency magnetic noise, but where such a feature is not mentioned in the declaration. Furthermore, neither the original disclosure nor declaration reasonably define the range for what would and would not be considered a critical field or current, in that it is unclear if any value sufficient to allow the sensor to operate in the self-oscillating region is sufficient, or if applicant is selecting more specific values within that range in order, for example, to reduce the low frequency magnetic noise. Because the original disclosure does not reasonably establish this critical value, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
For the predetermined state feature, applicant’s arguments mirror those already responded to above, and applicant’s attention is therefore directed to the above response. That stated, similar to noted above, applicant’s original disclosure does not reasonably establish what the predetermined state is as explained above, and the declaration does not reasonably establish this feature either for the reasons explained above.
As to the 112(f) arguments on page 7,
Applicant argues the step of moving the vortex, but the Examiner respectfully disagrees and noted that these arguments have been responded to in the above response to the declaration. While the “step of” phrase has been removed, the manner in which applicant moves the vortex is not reasonably disclosed, and still raises an issue under 112(a).
With regard to the arguments on pages 7-8 directed towards Pant (US 2013/0113478),
Applicant argues that the specification states that it is not known to use dynamics to reduce low frequency noise in vortices, and that Pant does not teach this feature. Applicant argues that Pant instead teaches shifting the operating point of the sensor. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the manner in which applicant achieves this feature is not reasonably disclosed as explained above, and no response is provided to explain why this particular feature is supported by the disclosure.
Second, the low noise region referenced by applicant is expressly created by driving the dynamics of the magnetization of the free layer by applying an alternating magnetic field (drive field). Meaning, a magnetic field above a critical amount is being applied to the sensor and its free layer to change the magnetization of the free layer, and thus its magnetization dynamics, such that the sensor operates in a low noise region (see paragraph [0059] explaining that it is the tunnel junction, and thus the free layer, that is shifted (changed) based upon this applied magnetic field). Such a feature is the same as the claim feature, which requires the application of a magnetic field greater than a critical field. The drive magnetic field is above a critical field necessary to place the sensor into a low noise region and into a state that allows for a magnetic vortex (paragraph [0055]).
That stated, the Examiner respectfully notes that Claim 1 expressly states that the manner in which applicant achieves the argued reduction in noise is “by driving the oscillating magnetic field source to apply a magnetic field greater than a predetermined critical field selected and to produce a current density greater than a critical density to operate the sensor in a self-oscillating regime.” Here, applicant is expressly claiming that by applying a field and density such that the sensor is operating in the self-oscillating region, the argued reduction in low frequency magnetic noise is achieved. Like applicant, Pant also operates in the self-oscillating region as it also includes the propagation of vortices like applicant. As such, Pant does reasonably include the argued feature because by operating in the self-oscillating region sufficient to allow for a moving vortex, the claim is stating that the reducing in low frequency magnetic noise can be achieved. Such a feature is therefore inherent in Pant.
Applicant argues that because Pant teaches an alternative approach to achieving low noise, it cannot be inherent to applicant’s approach. The Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that applicant does not reasonably explain why the approach used by Pant is not sufficient to meet the claim feature, especially given the above noted similarities. The Examiner further notes that even though Pant may seek to achieve the same result as applicant is a manner that is not identical to that described, no explanation is provided as to why this would not reasonably disclose the claim feature in applicant’s opinion. Given the similarities and explanation provided above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Pant is directed to the operation of angle sensor and reducing angle error of the overall system, and not intrinsic sensor noise, and that noise is not mentioned in the reference. However, the Examiner respectfully notes applicant has already admitted that Pant does teach an approach to achieving low noise performance. Contrary to applicant’s arguments, respectfully, the term “noise” is readily found throughout the reference, beginning with the abstract, which explains the desire to operate the sensor in a low noise region. Low noise must inherently include noise, but a reduced amount. Pant is indeed directed towards lowering sensor noise, as in fact one of the primary reasons for the disclosed is to operate in a low noise region, thus being directed at least in part to sensor noise and a manner to lower such noise. That stated, the Examiner respectfully notes that there is no requirement that the prior art solve the same problem as applicant or be directed towards the same concept. For example, while directed towards obviousness rejections, it has been held that “The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)” (MPEP 2144(IV)). That stated, there is no such requirement under anticipation, which only requires that the prior art disclose those features actually claimed.
Similarly, applicant argues that Pant describes a system relying upon multiple sensors, not control of a single sensor, but where, the Examiner respectfully notes, such a feature is not claimed. That stated, the Examiner respectfully notes that Pant expressly discloses the control of one sensor, such as that seen in Figure 1A which is one sensor, i.e. sensor 10.
The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees with applicant.
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 1-9 and 12-16 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.
MPEP 2163.03 (V) “While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement."Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002)” (emphasis added).
As to Claims 1 and 13,
The phrase “said current source in combination with an oscillating magnetic field source is adapted to drive dynamics of the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer to prevent it from being trapped and reduce low frequency magnetic noise by driving the oscillating magnetic field source to apply a magnetic field greater than a predetermined critical field selected and to produce a current density greater than a critical density to operate the sensor in a self-oscillating regime” in the last paragraph of Claim 1 and “driving, using a current source in combination with a radio frequency oscillating magnetic field source, dynamics of the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer to prevent it from being trapped and reduce low frequency magnetic noise by driving the oscillating magnetic field source to apply a magnetic field greater than a predetermined critical field and to produce a current density greater than a critical density selected to operate the sensor in a self-oscillating regime” in the last paragraph of Claim 13 lacks proper written description.
1) Applicant is claiming a combination of a current source and oscillating magnetic field source are adapted to drive dynamics of the magnetization of the free magnetic layer to prevent it from being trapped and reduce low frequency magnetic noise by driving the oscillating magnetic field source to apply a magnetic field greater than a predetermined critical field selected to operate the sensor in a self-oscillating regime, but applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the means perform this function. Such a feature is critical to the understanding of the invention, but where the original disclosure does not reasonably demonstrate such a feature or the manner in which it is implemented. For example, applicant states “Advantageously, in the embodiment 111, the MR sensor 101 is supplied with a direct current I.sub.DC which makes it possible to drive dynamics of the magnetisation in the free magnetic layer of the sensor 101 and thus to reduce or even suppress the noise of magnetic origin. The measurement of this current I.sub.DC or of the voltage across the sensor 101 gives access to the variation of the resistance of the sensor 101 and thus to the magnetic signal to be detected” in paragraph [0055]). As such, applicant is disclosing that applying a DC current makes it position to drive the dynamics to meet the above claim limitation. Applicant then explains that “the MR sensor is in the self-oscillating regime with an applied DC current of 8mA and a perpendicular magnetic field of 4 kOe” in paragraph [0073]. However, applicant does not state what specifically places the MR sensor into the self-oscillating regime, and applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which the current source and magnetic field performs such a function by driving the dynamics as claimed to prevent the trapping and reduce noise. For example, applicant does not reasonably explain if merely applying a DC current of 8mA and/or magnetic field of 4kOe causes the sensor to be in the self-oscillating regime. Applicant does state in paragraph [0086] that moving the core of the vortex prevents it from being trapped and reducing low frequency noise. However, applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the core is moved to achieve the above function. Applicant does not explain the manner in which applicant causes the core to be moved, or if any movement is sufficient to achieve the above function. Applicant does not reasonably disclose the manner in which the means are configured to or otherwise capable of implementing the above claim feature, and as such, this feature lacks proper written description.
2) Applicant does not reasonably explain or define the critical field necessary to operate the sensor in the self-oscillating regime. As noted above, applicant does provide one magnetic field example of 4 kOe, but such an example does not reasonably establish what predetermined critical field must be exceeded in order to achieve the claimed self-oscillating regime. The figures provide a magnetic field range of up to 400 Oe, but the original disclosure never identifies any critical field strength within the disclosed fields, or otherwise identify any specific field strength as the critical field. Applicant does not reasonably define or explain manner in which applicant identifies the critical field such that a person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably recognize such a field. This phrase therefore lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 4 and 14,
The phrases “the current source in combination with an oscillating magnetic field source is adapted to drive dynamics of the magnetisation of the free layer including moving the vortex” on lines 2-5 of Claim 4 and “a step of moving the vortex” on line 4 of Claim 14 lack proper written description.
Similar to the explanation and issues noted above with Claims 1 and 13, applicant does not reasonably demonstrate the manner in which applicant moves the vortex. Applicant does not reasonably disclose what the means for modifying the magnetization are in order to reasonably demonstrate possession of such a feature that can move the vortex, and applicant does not reasonably explain the manner in which the vortex is moved in order to demonstrate possession. The rejection from Claims 1 and 13 is incorporated herein for brevity, and these claim features therefore stands rejected for lacking proper written description. Note that applicant then argues that moving the vortex can be indicated by applying an external RF field or injecting a current and points to paragraph 34, but the Examiner respectfully notes that paragraph 34 does not reasonably mention what applicant is arguing. To the extent that applicant means paragraph 35, this paragraph only states what can be used, such as a current, but merely stating what can be used does not reasonably explain the manner in which applicant uses that feature to achieve the movement of vortex. Meaning, applicant is presumably not randomly moving the vortex in any random direction. Instead, applicant reasonably is controlling and moving the vortex in a specific and desired manner, but where that control and manner is not reasonably disclosed.
As to Claim 12,
The phrase “a resistometer adapted to measure a resistance of the magnetoresistive sensor” on lines 3-4 introduces new matter. Nowhere in the original disclosure is such a device disclosed. As explained in MPEP 2163(I)(B), “While there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claims or claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure.” A resistometer is not expressly disclosed, and such a feature is not inherent or implicit, as the previously claimed means is not limited to such a device. As such, this phrase introduces new matter.
As to Claim 13,
The phrase “placing the free magnetic layer of the magneto-resistive sensor into a predetermined magnetisation state” on lines 5-6 lacks proper written description.
At issue here is that applicant does not provide any guidance or explanation as to what the predetermined state is or the manner in which the free layer is placed into this state. While applicant may intend this state to be the variable magnetization state, applicant distinctly recites that variable state from the predetermined state. To the extent that these states are intended to be different states, the disclosure is completely silent as to what the predetermined state is and the manner in which the free layer is placed into this state. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
As to Claim 14,
The phrase “moving the vortex” on the last line lacks proper written description.
Applicant does not provide any disclosure as to the manner in which applicant implements moving the vortex, and applicant does not reasonably provide any disclosure as to the manner in which this means is adapted to implement the function of moving the vortex as claimed. The specification is completely silent as to any corresponding structure or mechanism to implement this claim feature, which therefore lacks proper written description.
As to Claim 15,
The phrase “measuring a resistance of the magnetoresistive sensor” on lines 2-3 lacks proper written description. Similar to the issues raised above, applicant’s disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which a measurement is made of the resistance of the sensor. Applicant’s disclosure is completely silent as to the manner in which applicant implements this claim feature. As such, this phrase lacks proper written description.
As to Claims 2-9, 12, and 14-16,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s), and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to Claims 1 and 13,
The phrases “said current source in combination with an oscillating magnetic field source is adapted to drive dynamics of the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer to prevent it from being trapped and reduce low frequency magnetic noise by driving the oscillating magnetic field source to apply a magnetic field greater than a predetermined critical field selected and to produce a current density greater than a critical density to operate the sensor in a self-oscillating regime” in the last paragraph of Claim 1 and “driving, using a current source in combination with a radio frequency oscillating magnetic field source, dynamics of the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer to prevent it from being trapped and reduce low frequency magnetic noise by driving the oscillating magnetic field source to apply a magnetic field greater than a predetermined critical field and to produce a current density greater than a critical density selected to operate the sensor in a self-oscillating regime” in the last paragraph of Claim 13 is indefinite.
1) Applicant claims a “self-oscillating regime,” but such a phrase is unclear. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “regime” in claims 1 and 13 is used by the claim to mean “region,” as best understood, while the accepted meaning is “A way of organizing or managing something; a system” per https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=regime. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
2) At issue here is that applicant does not reasonably establish what the critical field is in the context of the disclosure. Applicant expressly claims the field as being critical, but the disclosure does not reasonably provide a single example of what this critical field is. The Examiner acknowledges that paragraph [0073] does disclose a magnetic field of 4 kOe, but applicant does not describe this field as the critical field, and applicant does not reasonably explain whether this field is being generated by part of the sensor device, or if this field is merely a field that the sensor device is placed into. As such, the above phrase is indefinite because it is unclear what critical field applicant is referring to, what values of this field would and would not be considered to meet the claim limitation as the metes and bounds for this field are unclear.
3) Applicant is now claiming “and to produce a current density greater than a critical density,” but as worded, it is unclear what is adapted to produce this current density. As currently worded, this phrase can be linked to the current source or oscillating magnetic field source, thus rendering this phrase indefinite. The Examiner acknowledges that in light of the disclosure, it is the current source that provides the current, but as currently claimed, it is not limited in interpretation to this feature, as the full scope of the claim allows for two different but reasonable interpretations. This phrase is therefore indefinite.
4) The phrase “to operate the sensor in the self-oscillating regime” is indefinite because, due to the instant amendment, it is unclear what is causing the sensor to operate in this regime. It is unclear if the applied magnetic field greater than the predetermined critical field, or production of the current density greater than a critical density, or both, operates the sensor in the claimed self-oscillating regime. As such, this phrase is indefinite.
5) Lastly, it is unclear what was “selected.” In Claim 1, the term selected precedes the production of the current density greater than the critical density, but in Claim 13 it follows this phrase. As such, it is unclear what is “selected” to operate the sensor in the self-oscillating regime.
As to Claim 4,
The phrase “the current source in combination with an oscillating magnetic field source is adapted to drive dynamics of the magnetisation of the free layer including moving the vortex” on lines 2-5 is indefinite. Applicant has already recited an oscillating magnetic field source in Claim 1, but applicant is re-reciting this feature in Claim 4. As best understood, these two sources refer to the same source in light of the disclosure, and the difference and relationship between these two sources are therefore unclear.
As to Claim 13,
The phrase “placing the free magnetic layer of the magneto-resistive sensor into a predetermined magnetisation state” on lines 5-6 is indefinite.
1) At issue here is that it is unclear, in light of the disclosure, what applicant means by placing the free layer into the above state. For example, such a phrase could mean forming the sensor such that it has an intrinsic magnetization state, or that a current is applied to the sensor to place it into a state, or that some other external device or means is used to alter the state of the free layer. The Examiner acknowledges that breadth is not to be confused within indefiniteness. However, what a claim feature is intended to mean must be definite, even if such an intended meaning is broad. Here, it is unclear what actions would and would not cause the free layer to be placed into the above stat, rendering the claim indefinite. Applicant does not provide any example or explanation as to what applicant means by a predetermined state. For the purpose of compact prosecution, the Examiner is interpreting this phrase to mean the intrinsic state the free layer is in upon being assembled.
2) Applicant has already recited that the magnetoresistive sensor has a variable magnetization. The difference and relationship between the variable magnetization and the predetermined magnetization is unclear. It is unclear if both states are the same thing, or if these two states are different.
As to Claims 2-9, 12, and 14-16,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s), and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-4, 8, 9, and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pant (US 2013/0113478).
As to Claims 1 and 13,
Pant discloses A system and method for suppressing low frequency magnetic noise from magnetoresistive sensors, said system comprising:- at least one magnetoresistive sensor (10) comprising a free magnetic layer (60) having a variable magnetization (Paragraph [0055]);- placing the magneto-resistive sensor into a predetermined state (Paragraphs [0035],[0054]-[0056],[0059]), (Figure 7 / the state is the initial state of the sensor, or the state prior to being driven past the 1/f knee), a current source in combination with a radio frequency oscillating magnetic field source arranged to modify the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer (Figure 7), (Paragraphs [0054]-[0056],[0059] / note the drive current, offset current, drive magnetic field, and offset magnetic field), wherein said current source in combination with an oscillating magnetic field source is adapted to drive dynamics of the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer to prevent it from being trapped and reduce low frequency magnetic noise by driving the oscillating magnetic field source to apply a magnetic field greater than a predetermined critical field 1) selected and to produce a current density greater than a critical density or 2)and to produce a current density greater than a critical density selected to operate the sensor in a self-oscillating regime (Paragraphs [0035],[0054]-[0056], [0059]).
(Note: the invention of Pant is directed towards the same concept as applicant. Pant, like applicant, is directed towards providing a magnetoresistive sensor having lower noise by applying an current and magnetic field to the sensor to control the dynamics of the sensor to have lower noise (see paragraphs [0035],[0054],[0055], and [0059]). Here it is explains that the operating point of the sensor is shifted to a low noise region, which is beyond the knee of the 1/f noise spectrum. As such, the magnetic field that is applied must be greater than a critical predetermined field, as this field is the one that allows the sensor to operate in the low noise region. Also, in light of applicant’s disclosure, this low noise region is a self-oscillating region for the sensor).
As to Claim 2,
Pant discloses the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer has a spatially inhomogeneous configuration (Paragraph [0055] / note vortices).
As to Claim 3,
Pant discloses the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer is in a vortex configuration (Paragraph [0055] / note vortices).
As to Claim 4,
Pant discloses the current source in combination with an oscillating magnetic field source is adapted to drive dynamics of the magnetisation of the free layer including moving the vortex (Paragraphs [0055]-[0056 / note that given the similarities between Pant and the instant application, this feature is a property of the system).
As to Claim 8,
Pant discloses the current source includes an alternating current source (200) (Paragraph [0060]).
As to Claim 9,
Pant discloses a current density injected into the magnetoresistive sensor is greater than a predetermined critical density, the predetermined critical density being greater than or equal to 6.2 - 1010 A/m2 (Paragraphs [0035],[0054],[0055], and [0059]), (Figures 7-10 / note that Pant must reasonably include the above current density, because applicant explains that in order to achieve the self-oscillation region, the current density must be at least the above value. Pant discloses a substantially similar arrangement as applicant discloses in applicant’s Figure 2, and where applicant explains in paragraph [0095] that this structure allows for such a feature. As such, Pant must reasonably include the above claim feature).
As to Claims 12 and 15,
Pant discloses a resistometer (30) adapted to measure a resistance of the magnetoresistive sensor (Paragraphs [0027], [0036],[0038]), (Figures 8,9 / note the detection circuit reasonably measures resistance as any measurable change is based on a change in magnetoresistance).
As to Claim 14,
Pant discloses the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer is in a vortex configuration and the driving of the dynamics of the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer includes a step of moving the vortex. (Paragraphs [0055]-[0056 / note that given the similarities between Pant and the instant application, this feature is a property of the system).
As to Claim 16,
Pant discloses the producing of the dynamics of the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer and the measuring of the resistance of the magneto-resistive sensor are performed simultaneously. ((Paragraphs [0055]-[0056] note that the measurements must be made while the vortex is spinning, and thus the prior art discloses the claim feature).
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 (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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pant (US 2013/0113478).in view of Zimmer et al. (Zimmer) (US 2020/0011943).
As to Claim 5 and 6,
Pant does not disclose the free magnetic layer includes a stack of free magnetic layers, each free magnetic layer of the stack including a spatially inhomogeneous magnetization, respective adjacent pairs of the free magnetic layers are in direct contact.
Zimmer discloses the free magnetic layer includes a stack of free magnetic layers (114,116) (Figure 1), each free magnetic layer of the stack including a spatially inhomogeneous magnetization (Paragraph [0044]), respective adjacent pairs of the free magnetic layers are in direct contact (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0043] / note one pair is layer 114 and the coupling layer, and another pair is layer 116 and the coupling layer).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pant to include the free magnetic layer includes a stack of free magnetic layers, each free magnetic layer of the stack including a spatially inhomogeneous magnetization, respective adjacent pairs of the free magnetic layers are in direct contact as taught by Zimmer in order to advantageously increase and amplify the signal amplitude of the sensor (Paragraph [0044]), thereby making the signal more readily identifiable and usable even when noise is present.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pant (US 2013/0113478) in view of Seki et al. (Seki) (JP2017191841A).
As to Claim 7,
Pant does not disclose the current source includes a direct current source.
Seki discloses the current source includes a direct current source (20) (Paragraphs [0055],[0056])
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Pant to include the current source includes a direct current source as taught by Seki in order to advantageously further aid the device in being able to detect a weak change in a magnetic field (Paragraph [0008]), and to advantageously be apply such a current continuously to thereby avoid a dielectric breakdown of the nonmagnetic layer (Paragraph [0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858