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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2 and 3 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to one or more non-elected invention/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 30 October 2025.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 30 March 2026. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 10-19 and 29 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.
a. In lines 1-2 of claim 10, it is indefinite as to whether “wherein the first ferromagnetic layer is disposed on a texture transfer structure” is referencing a component of the “first texture structure disposed in contact with the first ferromagnetic layer,” set forth in lines 7-8 of independent claim 9, or if this texture transfer structure is in addition to the first texture structure.
b. In lines 1-2 of claim 11, it is indefinite as to whether “wherein the second ferromagnetic layer is disposed on a texture transfer structure” is referencing a component of the “second texture structure disposed in contact with the second ferromagnetic layer,” set forth in lines 9-10 of independent claim 9, or if this texture transfer structure is in addition to the second texture structure.
c. In lines 1-2 of claim 12, it is indefinite as to whether “wherein the upper shield is disposed on a texture transfer structure” is referencing a component of the “third texture structure disposed in contact with the upper shield,” set forth in line 11 of independent claim 9, or if this texture transfer structure is in addition to the third texture structure.
d. In lines 1-2 of claim 13, it is indefinite as to whether “wherein the first ferromagnetic layer is disposed on a texture enabling structure” is referencing a component of the “first texture structure disposed in contact with the first ferromagnetic layer,” set forth in lines 7-8 of independent claim 9, or if this texture enabling structure is in addition to the first texture structure.
e. In line 2 of claim 14, it is indefinite as to whether each instance of “the texture enabling structure” refers to that of “each of the first, second, and third texture structures,” set forth in lines 12-16 of independent claim 9, and/or that set forth in lines 1-2 of base claim 13, or only one of these texture structures.
f. Claims 15-19 and 29 inherit the indefiniteness associated with base claims 13 and 14 and stands rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 8-13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152).
With respect to claims 1 and 8, Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) teach a magnetic read head (602, see FIG. 6 flipped upside down, for instance) comprising a lower shield (606); an upper shield (604); a ferromagnetic layer (646 or 648, see paragraph [0039], for instance, i.e., “CoFeB” is ferromagnetic) disposed between the lower shield and the upper shield (as shown in FIG. 6, for instance); and a first texture transfer structure (650, see paragraphs [0040] and [0025], for instance, i.e., “Ta layer 650… increases the crystallinety of the AP2(b) layer 646” and “Ta,… with a crystal structure that promotes desired crystallographic texture and grain growth of subsequent layers”) disposed in contact with the ferromagnetic layer (646 or 648, as shown in FIG. 6, for instance); a second texture transfer structure (634, see paragraphs [0038] and [0025], for instance, i.e., “seed layers may include a thin layer of Ta 634” and “Ta,… with a crystal structure that promotes desired crystallographic texture and grain growth of subsequent layers”) disposed in contact with the upper shield (604, as shown in FIG. 6, for instance), wherein each of the first and second texture transfer structures includes BCC metals; NiAl, IrAI, CoAl, RhAI, or RuAI; or a multilayer structure including a trilayer structure comprising a first layer comprising NiAl, IrAI, CoAl, RhAI, or RuAI; a second layer comprising MgO; and a third layer comprising NiAl, IrAI, CoAl, RhAI, or RuAI; or a bilayer structure comprising a first layer comprising NiAI; and a second layer comprising RuAI (see paragraphs [0038] and [0039], for instance, i.e., “Ta 634” and “Ta 650” and Ta is a BCC metal) [as per claim 1]; wherein the magnetic read head is a component of a magnetic recording device (10, see Fig. 1, for instance) [as per claim 8].
With respect to claims 9-13 and 22, Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) teach a magnetic read head (602, see FIG. 6 flipped upside down, for instance) comprising a lower shield (606); an upper shield (604); a first ferromagnetic layer (626, see paragraph [0037], for instance, i.e., “CoFeHf” is ferromagnetic) disposed between the lower shield and the upper shield (as shown in FIG. 6, for instance); a second ferromagnetic layer (646 or 648, see paragraph [0039], for instance, i.e., “CoFeB” is ferromagnetic) disposed between the first ferromagnetic layer (626) and the upper shield (604, as shown in FIG. 6, for instance); and a first texture structure (628, see paragraphs [0037] and [0038], for instance, i.e., “Ru 628” and “seed layers may include… Ru”) disposed in contact with the first ferromagnetic layer (626, as shown in FIG. 6, for instance); a second texture structure (650, see paragraphs [0040] and [0025], for instance, i.e., “Ta layer 650… increases the crystallinety of the AP2(b) layer 646” and “Ta,… with a crystal structure that promotes desired crystallographic texture and grain growth of subsequent layers”) disposed in contact with the second ferromagnetic layer (646 or 648, as shown in FIG. 6, for instance); and a third texture structure (634, see paragraph [0038], for instance, i.e., “seed layers may include a thin layer of Ta 634”) disposed in contact with the upper shield (604, as shown in FIG. 6, for instance), wherein each of the first (“Ru 628”), second (“Ta 650”), and third (“Ta 634”) texture structures includes a texture enabling structure; or a texture transfer structure; or both a texture enabling structure and a texture transfer structure (see paragraphs [0037]-[0039], for instance, i.e., each of Ru and Ta can be interpretated as either a texture enabling structure or a texture transfer structure) [as per claim 9]; wherein the first ferromagnetic layer (626) is disposed on a texture transfer structure (628, as shown in FIG. 6 flipped upside down, for instance, see paragraphs [0037] and [0038], for instance, i.e., “Ru 628” and “seed layers may include… Ru”) [as per claim 10]; wherein the second ferromagnetic layer (646) is disposed on a texture transfer structure (650, as shown in FIG. 6 flipped upside down, for instance, see paragraphs [0040] and [0025], for instance, i.e., “Ta layer 650… increases the crystallinety of the AP2(b) layer 646” and “Ta,… with a crystal structure that promotes desired crystallographic texture and grain growth of subsequent layers”) [as per claim 11]; wherein the upper shield (604) is disposed on a texture transfer structure (634, as shown in FIG. 6 flipped upside down, for instance, see paragraphs [0038] and [0025], for instance, i.e., “seed layers may include a thin layer of Ta 634” and “Ta,… with a crystal structure that promotes desired crystallographic texture and grain growth of subsequent layers”) [as per claim 12]; wherein the first ferromagnetic layer (626) is disposed on a texture enabling structure (628, as shown in FIG. 6 flipped upside down, for instance, see paragraphs [0037] and [0038], for instance, i.e., “Ru 628” and “seed layers may include… Ru”) [as per claim 13]; and wherein the magnetic read head is a component of a magnetic recording device (10, see Fig. 1, for instance) [as per claim 22].
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) in view of Miyajima et al. (US 2007/0297100) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art.
Since the applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement(s) were taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) teach the magnetic read head as detailed in paragraph 7, supra, further comprising a texture enabling structure (630, see paragraphs [0037] and [0038], for instance, i.e., “Ru… 630” and “seed layers may include… Ru”) disposed on the lower shield (606, as shown in FIG. 6 flipped upside down, for instance) [as per claim 5]. Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152), however, remain silent as to “wherein at least one of the lower shield and the upper shield comprises CoFe with a (100) orientation.”
Miyajima et al. (US 2007/0297100) teach that a lower shield having a (100) orientation is a notoriously old and well known lower shield configuration (see line 9 of the abstract, i.e., “the lower shield layer will have the (100) surface”).
Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art teach that CoFe is a notoriously old and well known shield material in the magnetic read head art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the lower shield of Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) comprise a (100) orientation as taught/suggested by Miyajima et al. (US 2007/0297100), and to have had the lower shield of Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) comprise CoFe. The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the lower shield of Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) comprise a (100) orientation as taught/ suggested by Miyajima et al. (US 2007/0297100) since such is a notoriously old and well known lower shield configuration, and selecting a known lower shield configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the lower shield of Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) comprise CoFe since such is a notoriously old and well known shield material in the magnetic read head art, and selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) in view of Miyajima et al. (US 2007/0297100) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art as applied to claims 4 and 5 above, and further in view of Le et al. (US 2023/0306993).
Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) in view of Miyajima et al. (US 2007/0297100) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art teach/suggest the magnetic read head as detailed in paragraph 9, supra.
Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152), however, further remain silent as to “wherein the texture enabling structure comprises: an amorphous layer for disrupting underlying crystal seeding effects; and a (100) orientation enabling layer disposed on the amorphous layer” as per claim 6, “wherein the (100) orientation enabling layer comprises RuAI” as per claim 7.
Le et al. (US 2023/0306993) teach that a texture enabling structure (322, see FIG. 3C, for instance) comprising an amorphous layer for disrupting underlying crystal seeding effects; and a (100) orientation enabling layer disposed on the amorphous layer (see paragraph [0043], for instance, i.e., “layer 322 comprises an amorphous conditioning layer and a growth B2 or bcc (100) texturing layer over the amorphous conditioning layer”), wherein the (100) orientation enabling layer comprises RuAI (see paragraph [0043], for instance, i.e., “texturing (100) layer may be… RuAl”) is a notoriously old and well known texture enabling structure configuration. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the texture enabling structure of Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) comprise an amorphous layer for disrupting underlying crystal seeding effects; and a (100) orientation enabling layer disposed on the amorphous layer, wherein the (100) orientation enabling layer comprises RuAI, as taught/suggested by Le et al. (US 2023/0306993). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the texture enabling structure of Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) comprise an amorphous layer for disrupting underlying crystal seeding effects; and a (100) orientation enabling layer disposed on the amorphous layer, wherein the (100) orientation enabling layer comprises RuAI, as taught/suggested by Le et al. (US 2023/0306993), since such is a notoriously old and well known texture enabling structure configuration, and selecting a known texture enabling structure configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) in view of Liu et al. (US 10,777,222).
Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) teach the magnetic read head as detailed in paragraph 7, supra, further wherein at least the first ferromagnetic layer (626), the second ferromagnetic layer (646), and the upper shield (604) is disposed on a corresponding texture transfer structure (628, 650, and 634, respectively, as shown in FIG. 6 flipped upside down, for instance) [as per claim 21]. Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152), however, remain silent as to the magnetic read head further comprising “a middle shield, wherein the middle shield is disposed between the second ferromagnetic layer and the upper shield; a third ferromagnetic layer, wherein the third ferromagnetic layer is disposed between the middle shield and the upper shield; and a fourth ferromagnetic layer, wherein the fourth ferromagnetic layer is disposed between the third ferromagnetic layer and the upper shield.”
Liu et al. (US 10,777,222) teach that a magnetic read head (see FIG. 4, for instance) further comprising a middle shield (S3a, for instance), wherein the middle shield is disposed between a second ferromagnetic layer (110) and an upper shield (S2); a third ferromagnetic layer (220), wherein the third ferromagnetic layer is disposed between the middle shield and the upper shield (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance); and a fourth ferromagnetic layer (210), wherein the fourth ferromagnetic layer is disposed between the third ferromagnetic layer and the upper shield (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance) is a notoriously old and well known magnetic read head configuration. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the magnetic read head of Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) further comprise a middle shield, wherein the middle shield is disposed between the second ferromagnetic layer and the upper shield; a third ferromagnetic layer, wherein the third ferromagnetic layer is disposed between the middle shield and the upper shield; and a fourth ferromagnetic layer, wherein the fourth ferromagnetic layer is disposed between the third ferromagnetic layer and the upper shield, as taught/suggested by Liu et al. (US 10,777,222). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the magnetic read head of Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) further comprise a middle shield, wherein the middle shield is disposed between the second ferromagnetic layer and the upper shield; a third ferromagnetic layer, wherein the third ferromagnetic layer is disposed between the middle shield and the upper shield; and a fourth ferromagnetic layer, wherein the fourth ferromagnetic layer is disposed between the third ferromagnetic layer and the upper shield, as taught/suggested by Liu et al. (US 10,777,222), since such is a notoriously old and well known magnetic read head configuration, and selecting a known magnetic read head configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-19 and 29 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that “Lee et al. does not teach, show, suggest, or otherwise render obvious a magnetic read head comprising a lower shield, an upper shield, a ferromagnetic layer disposed between the lower shield and the upper shield, and a first texture transfer structure disposed in contact with the ferromagnetic layer, a second texture transfer structure disposed in contact with the upper shield, wherein each of the first and second texture transfer structures includes: BCC metals, NiAI, IrAI, CoA, RhAI, or RuAI, or a multilayer structure including: a trilayer structure comprising: a first layer comprising NiAI, IrAI, CoA, RhAI, or RuAI, a second layer comprising MgO, and a third layer comprising NiAI, IrAI, CoA, RhAI, or RuAI, or a bilayer structure comprising: a first layer comprising NiAI, and a second layer comprising RuAI, as recited in claim 1 and claims dependent thereon.”
This argument, however, is not found to be persuasive as Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) teach a magnetic read head (602, see FIG. 6 flipped upside down, for instance) comprising a lower shield (606); an upper shield (604); a ferromagnetic layer (646 or 648, see paragraph [0039], for instance, i.e., “CoFeB” is ferromagnetic) disposed between the lower shield and the upper shield (as shown in FIG. 6, for instance); and a first texture transfer structure (650, see paragraphs [0040] and [0025], for instance, i.e., “Ta layer 650… increases the crystallinety of the AP2(b) layer 646” and “Ta,… with a crystal structure that promotes desired crystallographic texture and grain growth of subsequent layers”) disposed in contact with the ferromagnetic layer (646 or 648, as shown in FIG. 6, for instance); a second texture transfer structure (634, see paragraphs [0038] and [0025], for instance, i.e., “seed layers may include a thin layer of Ta 634” and “Ta,… with a crystal structure that promotes desired crystallographic texture and grain growth of subsequent layers”) disposed in contact with the upper shield (604, as shown in FIG. 6, for instance), wherein each of the first and second texture transfer structures includes BCC metals; NiAl, IrAI, CoAl, RhAI, or RuAI; or a multilayer structure including a trilayer structure comprising a first layer comprising NiAl, IrAI, CoAl, RhAI, or RuAI; a second layer comprising MgO; and a third layer comprising NiAl, IrAI, CoAl, RhAI, or RuAI; or a bilayer structure comprising a first layer comprising NiAI; and a second layer comprising RuAI (see paragraphs [0038] and [0039], for instance, i.e., “Ta 634” and “Ta 650” and Ta is a BCC metal).
The applicant additionally contends that “Lee et al. further does not teach, show, suggest, or otherwise render obvious a magnetic read head comprising a lower shield, an upper shield, a first ferromagnetic layer disposed between the lower shield and the upper shield, a second ferromagnetic layer disposed between the first ferromagnetic layer and the upper shield, and a first texture structure disposed in contact with the first ferromagnetic layer, a second texture structure disposed in contact with the second ferromagnetic layer, and a third texture structure disposed in contact with the upper shield, wherein each of the first, second, and third texture structures includes: a texture enabling structure, or a texture transfer structure, or both a texture enabling structure and a texture transfer structure, as recited in claim 9 and claims dependent thereon, including new claim 29.”
This argument, however, is not found to be persuasive as Lee et al. (US 2009/0257152) teach a magnetic read head (602, see FIG. 6 flipped upside down, for instance) comprising a lower shield (606); an upper shield (604); a first ferromagnetic layer (626, see paragraph [0037], for instance, i.e., “CoFeHf” is ferromagnetic) disposed between the lower shield and the upper shield (as shown in FIG. 6, for instance); a second ferromagnetic layer (646 or 648, see paragraph [0039], for instance, i.e., “CoFeB” is ferromagnetic) disposed between the first ferromagnetic layer (626) and the upper shield (604, as shown in FIG. 6, for instance); and a first texture structure (628, see paragraphs [0037] and [0038], for instance, i.e., “Ru 628” and “seed layers may include… Ru”) disposed in contact with the first ferromagnetic layer (626, as shown in FIG. 6, for instance); a second texture structure (650, see paragraphs [0040] and [0025], for instance, i.e., “Ta layer 650… increases the crystallinety of the AP2(b) layer 646” and “Ta,… with a crystal structure that promotes desired crystallographic texture and grain growth of subsequent layers”) disposed in contact with the second ferromagnetic layer (646 or 648, as shown in FIG. 6, for instance); and a third texture structure (634, see paragraph [0038], for instance, i.e., “seed layers may include a thin layer of Ta 634”) disposed in contact with the upper shield (604, as shown in FIG. 6, for instance), wherein each of the first (“Ru 628”), second (“Ta 650”), and third (“Ta 634”) texture structures includes a texture enabling structure; or a texture transfer structure; or both a texture enabling structure and a texture transfer structure (see paragraphs [0037]-[0039], for instance, i.e., each of Ru and Ta can be interpretated as either a texture enabling structure or a texture transfer structure).
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 Craig A. Renner whose telephone number is (571) 272-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 7:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached at (571) 270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CRAIG A. RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights