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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 7/6/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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.
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
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, 7, 8, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugano et al. (Sugano) (US 2014/0132257 A1).
As to Claim 1,
Sugano discloses A system for suppressing low frequency magnetic noise from magnetoresistive sensors (Paragraph [0008]), said system comprising:
at least one magnetoresistive sensor comprising a free magnetic layer having a variable magnetization (Paragraphs [0035],[0050]));
a current source (48) adapted to inject an electric current into the magnetoresistive sensor and a radio frequency oscillating magnetic field source (18) adapted to apply an oscillating magnetic field on the free magnetic layer to modify the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer (Paragraphs [0047],[0051],[0052]),
wherein the current source and the radio frequency oscillating magnetic field source is are adapted to drive dynamics of the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer to prevent it from being trapped and to reduce low frequency magnetic noise (Paragraphs [0008],[0057] / see note below),
wherein the current source is adapted to produce, in the magnetoresistive sensor, a current density greater than a critical current density (Paragraph [0052] / see note below), wherein the radio frequency oscillating magnetic field source is adapted to apply, on the free magnetic layer, an oscillating magnetic field greater than a predetermined critical field (Paragraph [0008],[0035],[0051],[0052],[0057] / see note below), and
wherein the critical current density and the predetermined critical field are each selected to drive the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer into a self-oscillation regime in which a torque applied on the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer by the current source and by the radio frequency oscillating magnetic field source exceeds a magnetic damping of the magnetoresistive sensor (Paragraph [0051] / see note below),(Figure 7).
(Note: The prior art operates in a substantially similar manner as applicant, including the use of an AC current applied to the MR sensors and the use of an external AC magnetic field also applied to the sensors, for the purpose of reducing low frequency noise. This system expressly discloses the generation of internally generated spin waves that reduce noise (Paragraphs [0009]-[0011]), and that the magnetization state of the free layer oscillates in the presence of the external magnetic field (Paragraph [0051]). Given the similarities between the prior art and the instant application, both applying currents and AC fields to an MR, both interested in reducing low frequency noise, and both causing oscillations in the MR’s free layer, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim features above are a property of the system and disclosed by the prior art. It is further reasonable to conclude that the system, at a minimum, as “adapted” to produce the same effect as applicant. This reasonably includes the use of a current having a current density greater than a critical current density, which can be the density necessary to allow for the disclosed oscillations, and a magnetic field greater than a predetermined critical field, which again can be a field necessary to allow the disclosed oscillations. Because the magnetization is oscillating, it is further reasonable to conclude that any torque applied must exceed any damping of the sensor which would otherwise prevent such oscillation. The prior art therefore reasonably discloses the claim features.)
As to Claim 7,
Sugano discloses the current source comprises a direct current source (Paragraphs [0034], [0066] / note constant current source).
As to Claim 8,
Sugano discloses the current source comprises an alternating current source (Paragraph [0052]).
As to Claim 9,
Sugano 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 [0051],[0052]), (Figure 7 / note that Sugano 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. Sugano 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, Sugano must reasonably include the above claim feature).
As to Claim 12,
Sugano discloses a measuring device (49) adapted to measure a resistance of the magnetoresistive sensor (Paragraph [0052] / note the voltage is indicative of the resistance of the magnetoresistive elements)
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 2, 3, 4, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (Sugano) (US 2014/0132257 A1) in view of Dounia et al. (Dounia) (US 2022/0196764 A1).
As to Claims 2, 3, and 4,
Sugano does not disclose the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer has a spatially inhomogeneous configuration , the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer is in a vortex configuration, the current source and the radio frequency oscillating magnetic field source arranged is are adapted to drive the dynamics of the magnetisation of the free layer including moving the vortex.
Dounia discloses the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer has a spatially inhomogeneous configuration (Paragraph [0036] / note vortex), the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer is in a vortex configuration (Paragraph [0036]), the magnetic field source is adapted to drive the dynamics of the magnetisation of the free layer including moving the vortex (Paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sugano to include the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer has a spatially inhomogeneous configuration , the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer is in a vortex configuration, the current source and the radio frequency oscillating magnetic field source arranged is are adapted to drive the dynamics of the magnetisation of the free layer including moving the vortex given the above disclosure and teaching of Dounia in order to advantageously utilize a magnetic sensor configuration that advantageously provided an improved measurement range and good reproducibility (Paragraph [0015]).
As to Claims 13 and 14,
Sugano discloses A method for suppressing low frequency magnetic noise associated with a measurement of an external magnetic field by a measurement device comprising a magneto-resistive sensor, said magneto-resistive sensor comprising a free magnetic layer having a variable magnetization (Paragraphs [0008],[0052]), said method comprising:
a. initially placing the free magnetic layer of the magneto-resistive sensor into a predetermined magnetisation state (Paragraph [0052] / the sensor must be in an initial state),
b. injecting, by a current source (48), an electric current into the magneto-resistive sensor so as to produce, in the magneto-resistive sensor, a current density greater than a critical current density (Paragraphs [0047],[0051],[0052] / see note below);
c. applying, by a radio frequency oscillating magnetic field source (18), on the free magnetic layer, an oscillating magnetic field greater than a predetermined critical field, thereby driving dynamics of the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer to prevent it from being trapped and to reduce low frequency magnetic noise (Paragraphs [0008],[0051],[0052],[0057] / see note below),
Sugano does not disclose said predetermined magnetization state being a spatially inhomogeneous configuration of the magnetization of the free layer, the predetermined magnetisation state is a vortex configuration and the driving of the dynamics of the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer includes moving the vortex.
Dounia discloses said predetermined magnetization state being a spatially inhomogeneous configuration of the magnetization of the free layer (Paragraph [0036] / note vortex), the predetermined magnetisation state is a vortex configuration and the driving of the dynamics of the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer includes moving the vortex. (Paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sugano to include the predetermined magnetisation state is a vortex configuration and the driving of the dynamics of the magnetisation of the free magnetic layer includes moving the vortex as taught by Dounia in order to advantageously utilize a magnetic sensor configuration that advantageously provided an improved measurement range and good reproducibility (Paragraph [0015]).
(Note: The prior art operates in a substantially similar manner as applicant, including the use of an AC current applied to the MR sensors and the use of an external AC magnetic field also applied to the sensors, for the purpose of reducing low frequency noise. This system expressly discloses the generation of internally generated spin waves that reduce noise (Paragraphs [0009]-[0011]), and that the magnetization state of the free layer oscillates in the presence of the external magnetic field (Paragraph [0051]). Given the similarities between the prior art and the instant application, both applying currents and AC fields to an MR, both interested in reducing low frequency noise, and both causing oscillations in the MR’s free layer, it is reasonable to conclude that the claim features above are a property of the system and disclosed by the prior art. It is further reasonable to conclude that the system, at a minimum, as “adapted” to produce the same effect as applicant. This reasonably includes the use of a current having a current density greater than a critical current density, which can be the density necessary to allow for the disclosed oscillations, and a magnetic field greater than a predetermined critical field, which again can be a field necessary to allow the disclosed oscillations. Because the magnetization is oscillating, it is further reasonable to conclude that any torque applied must exceed any damping of the sensor which would otherwise prevent such oscillation. The prior art therefore reasonably discloses the claim features.)
As to Claim 15,
Sugano discloses measuring the resistance of the magnetoresistive sensor (Paragraph [0052] / note the voltage is indicative of the resistance of the magnetoresistive elements)
As to Claim 16,
Sugano 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 [0051],[0052] / note both features are done at the same time as the system measures while the current and magnetic field is applied).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugano et al. (Sugano) (US 2014/0132257 A1) in view of Dounia et al. (Dounia) (US 2022/0196764 A1) as applied to Claim 2 and in further view of Zimmer et al. (Zimmer) (US 2020/0011943).
As to Claim 5 and 6,
Sugano in view of Dounia 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 Sugano in view of Dounia 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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights