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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the arguments on pages 6-8 directed towards Kubota et al. (Kubota) (US 2021/0382123 A1),
Applicant argue that Kubota does not disclose the first biasing field is distinct from a field to be sensed and is note generated by the reference structure because the Office Action asserts that the reference layer has a firmed fixed magnetization which must be a bias layer. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner acknowledges that the reference layer in question does generate a bias field, and that applicant has support for the generation of a biasing field by way of external biasing. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant for three reasons.
The first issue that applicant later claims two forms of biasing, one is the use of magnets or an electromagnetic in Claim 9, which as best understood is consistent with the section of the disclosure cited by applicant. The second, however, is that of Claim 6 which expressly requires that the first and second biasing fields are induced by exchange bias coupling. Exchange bias coupling is a type of coupling that occurs between layers, and not from any external biasing source. As such, Claim 6 must be referring to the generation of a bias field from an internal bias structure such as a pinned layer or reference structure. This can be seen on lines 32-34 of page 9 for example explaining that the ferromagnetic layers are coupled through an exchange bias with the antiferromagnetic layer 38 which pins the magnetization direction of the ferromagnetic layer 36. To that extent, Claim 1 does not have to be interpreted in the manner argued, because Claim 6 precludes such an interpretation. As such, while the biasing fields cannot come from the reference structure, they also do not have to come from any external source.
The second issue is that Claim 1 does not recite any mechanism to provide the argued bias. Meaning, if the bias, as argued, comes from an external source such as magnets, and these magnets are not claimed, then Claim 1 cannot reasonably positively require biasing because no structural feature of the claim is reasonably able to provide such a bias. As such, the only reasonable interpretation of Claim 1 is that the sensing layer is intended to have a bias applied, but where no such bias is required. The prior art can therefore also reasonably be stated to disclose the claim, when the reference layer is not stated to provide the bias, and instead the sensing layers are such that a bias can be applied from an external source or another layer, thus disclosing the claim feature.
The third and last reason is that a bias field is also provided by the exchange coupled layer combination of layers (132),(133), as layer 133 is expressly disclosed to be magnetized and to be a pin layer (Figure 2), (Paragraphs [0097],[0100]). Because layers 132,133 impart a bias to both the reference layer to help fix the magnetization of the reference layer and the free layer, and because the pin layer(133)/anti-ferromagnetic layer (132) are distinct from the reference structure (135), this pin layer/anti-ferromagnetic layer can reasonably be the magnet that provides the biasing field as claimed. The same applies to the structure of Figure 3. 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.
Claim 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrases “wherein the first biasing field is distinct from a field to be sensed and is not generated by the reference structure” on lines 6-7 and “wherein the second biasing field is distinct from the field to be sensed and is not generated by the reference structure” on the last two lines lack proper written description.
To the extent that these features are intended to be positively recited, the Examiner respectfully notes that no feature of the claim is reasonably capable of generating such a first and second biasing field. In light of the arguments, applicant intends for an external biasing source to generate an external biasing field as the biasing field, but where no such source is part of the claim. No structural feature of the claim is reasonably capable of generating either field, and person of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably recognize the manner in which applicant implements this feature to reasonably demonstrate possession.
As to Claims 2-19,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of Claim 1 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 1-19 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 Claim 1,
The phrases “wherein the first biasing field is distinct from a field to be sensed and is not generated by the reference structure” on lines 6-7 and “wherein the second biasing field is distinct from the field to be sensed and is not generated by the reference structure” on the last two lines is indefinite.
At issue here is that it is unclear whether the first and second biasing fields are or are not required in the claim. As argued by applicant, the intent for the above phrase now is that and external biasing field may be used for the bias, but no structure is recited in the claim that is reasonably capable of generating the biasing field when it is generated by an external biasing field. As such, it is unclear whether this feature is or is not positively recited in the claim.
As to Claims 7, 8, 13, 14,
The phrase “softly pinned” on line 3 of Claims 7 and 13 and lines 2-3 of Claims 8 and 14 is indefinite.
At issue here is that, as best understood, it is the soft pinning of the antiferromagnetic layer that provides the biasing fields as recited in Claim 1. However, those fields are being distinctly recited from the soft pining reciting in these claims, but where, as best understood, they are not distinct. As such, the difference and relationship between the biasing fields of Claim 1 and the soft pinning in the above claims is unclear.
As to Claims 2-19,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter as 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 1-6, 19, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (Kubota) (US 2021/0382123 A1).
Note: It is the second embodiment (Figure 14) of Kubota that is being relied upon for this rejection. However, the first embodiment is referenced below because paragraph [0200] explains that with the exception of the clearly different features in the second embodiment, “The remaining configurations are the same or substantially the same.” As such, what is disclosed in the first embodiment is part of the second, with the exception that the second embodiment changes the manner in which elements the two elements, such as 11 and 12, are implemented for each sensor.
As to Claim 1,
Kubota discloses A magnetoresistive field sensor system, comprising: one or more magnetoresistive field sensors (10,20,30,40) (Figure 1), (Paragraph [0063]), each magnetoresistive field sensor comprising: a first sensor array of magnetoresistive sensing elements (11 or 21 or 31 or 41) having a first sensitivity (Figures 1,14 / note the sensitivity is defined by the pinned/reference layer axis as indicated by the arrow), wherein each of the magnetoresistive elements in the first array comprise a sensing layer (Free layer, such as 137) to which a first biasing field is applied (Paragraphs [0097]-[0100] / note 1) that as best understood, this field is not required in the claim, and the device is reasonably configured to be able to have such a field applied, and 2) the pin layer (133)/anti-ferromagnetic layer (132) provides a biasing field to both the reference layer and free layer, thus disclosing this feature), and a reference structure (135 is the reference structure when the pin/anti-ferromagnetic layers apply the bias, and SAF is the reference structure when the biasing field is considered some other field not required in the claim) magnetised in a first reference magnetisation direction (Paragraphs [0072]-[0074,[0100]), (Figures 1,2); wherein the first biasing field is distinct from a field to be sensed and is not generated by the reference structure (Paragraphs [0072]-[0074],[0097]-[0100]), (Figures 1,2); and at least a second sensor array of magnetoresistive sensing elements (12 or 22 or 32 or 42) having a second sensitivity (Figures 1,14), the second sensitivity being higher than the first sensitivity (Figures 1,14 / note this is a property of the system because the size of the layers, such as the free and reference layers are larger in the second array of elements, and applicant discloses that this creates the higher sensitivity, and thus the prior art must disclose this as well), wherein each of the magnetoresistive elements in the second array comprise a sensing layer (137 of these elements) to which a second biasing field is applied (Paragraphs [0097]-[0100] / note 1) that as best understood, this field is not required in the claim, and the device is reasonably configured to be able to have such a field applied, and 2) the pin layer(143)/anti-ferromagnetic layer (142) provides a biasing field to both the reference layer and free layer, thus disclosing this feature), and a reference structure magnetised in a second reference magnetisation direction (Paragraphs [0072]-[0074] / note a reference layer is a permanently magnetized layer), the second reference magnetisation direction being opposite to the first reference magnetisation direction (Figure 1 / note the biasing direction for each reference layer for the second larger set of elements is opposite the biasing direction for each reference layer of the first set of elements), wherein the second biasing field is distinct from the field to be sensed and is not generated by the reference structure (Paragraphs [0072]-[0074,[0097]-[0100]),
As to Claim 2,
Kubota discloses the first sensor array comprises magnetoresistive elements having a first aspect ratio to thereby provide the first sensitivity (Figures 1,14), and the second sensor array comprises magnetoresistive elements having a second aspect ratio to thereby provide the second sensitivity (Figures 1,14 / note the aspect ratio is the size of the device, and the sensitivities are provided by these sizes).
As to Claim 3,
Kubota discloses the first sensor array comprises a first number of magnetoresistive sensing elements and the second sensor array comprises a second number of magnetoresistive sensing elements (Figures 1,14).
As to Claim 4,
Kubota discloses the first number of magnetoresistive sensing elements is different to the second number of magnetoresistive sensing elements (Figure 14), (Paragraph [0203]).
As to Claim 5,
Kubota discloses the first and second number of sensing elements is proportional to a respective weighted value, wherein each weighted value is indicative of the percentage of a sensor output provided by the respective array (Figures 1,14).
(Note: This does not define the weighted value, and as such, whatever percentage that each sensing element contributes to the sensor output can be considered the weighted value for that respective sensor, which would meet the claim requirements.)
As to Claim 6,
Kubota discloses the first and second biasing field are induced by exchange bias coupling (Figure 1 / note two opposite biasing fields from the reference layers used in the sensing process are placed proximate each other, applicant discloses that unidirectional coupling is exchange bias coupling with such a feature disclosed in Figure 1 by the unidirectional arrows indicating magnetization, and in paragraph [0173]).
As to Claim 9,
Kubota discloses the first and second biasing fields are induced by one or more permanent magnets or an electromagnet (Figure 2), (Paragraphs [0097],[0100] / note the pinned layer is permanently magnetized, and a permanent magnet).
As to Claim 16,
Kubota discloses the first reference magnetisation direction defines the sensing direction of the one or more magnetoresistive field sensors (Figure 1 / this is a property of the system, and the reference magnetization direction, indicated by the arrow, defines the sensing direction for at least one sensor).
As to Claim 17,
Kubota discloses the magnetoresistive field sensor system comprises a first set of magnetoresistive field sensors connected in a first Wheatstone bridge arrangement (Figure 1 / note the arrangement shown is a Wheatstone bridge).
As to Claim 19,
Kubota discloses the magnetoresistive sensing elements are tunnel magnetoresistive sensing elements or giant magnetoresistive sensing elements (Paragraphs [0093],[0101]).
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.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (Kubota) (US 2021/0382123 A1) in view of Mauri et al. (Mauri) (US 2021/0063505).
As to Claims 7 and 8,
Kubota does not disclose the first and second sensor arrays comprise respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements with softly pinned antiparallel sensing layers, wherein the sensing layers of the respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements are softly pinned by an antiferromagnetic layer.
Mauri discloses the first and second sensor arrays comprise respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements with softly pinned antiparallel sensing layers, wherein the sensing layers of the respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements are softly pinned by an antiferromagnetic layer (Figures 1-4B / note the four elements, each containing MTJ elements 200), (Paragraphs [0025],[0027],[0031],[0039] / note the free layers are softly (partially) pinned by anti-ferromagnetic layer 370 at a 90 degree angle to the pinned/reference layers 330,350 direction. Because each overall sensor has an opposite polarity to a neighboring sensor, the soft-pinned direction of neighboring elements must also be opposite (antiparallel) to each other. For example, rotating Figure 4B would give a sensor with an opposite polarity, thus causing the free layer 310 to have a magnetization toward the left, which is antiparallel to that shown).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kubota to include the first and second sensor arrays comprise respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements with softly pinned antiparallel sensing layers, wherein the sensing layers of the respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements are softly pinned by an antiferromagnetic layer as taught by Mauri in order to advantageously be able to adjust the permeability or rate of magnetization rotation of the free layer in an external field (Paragraph [0036]) in order to advantageously be able to provide better control of the magnetic rotation of the free layer and thus more precisely provide the type of sensitivity and detection desired for the specific sensing environment in which the sensor is utilized.
Claims 10, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (Kubota) (US 2021/0382123 A1) in view of Barton et al. (Barton) (US 2008/0191694 A1).
As to Claims 10 and 11,
Kubota discloses each magnetoresistive field sensor further comprises a plurality of arrays of magnetoresistive sensing elements having a respective sensitivity, with one sensitivity higher than another, wherein each of the magnetoresistive elements in any array comprise a sensing layer to which a biasing field is applied, a reference structure magnetised in a respective reference magnetisation direction (Paragraphs [0072]-[0074],[0097]-[0100]), (Figures 1,2 / also see the rejection of Claim 1 above).
Kubota does not disclose each magnetoresistive field sensor further comprises a third array of magnetoresistive sensing elements having a third sensitivity, the third sensitivity being higher than the second sensitivity, wherein each of the magnetoresistive elements in the third array comprise a sensing layer to which a third biasing field is applied, a reference structure magnetised in the second reference magnetisation direction, the third sensor array comprises magnetoresistive elements having a third aspect ratio to thereby provide the third sensitivity, the third sensor array comprises magnetoresistive elements having a third aspect ratio to thereby provide the third sensitivity.
Barton discloses each magnetoresistive field sensor includes an array of four magnetoresistive elements (6, 7, 8, 9) comprising a third magnetoresistive sensing element (for example 9) having a third sensitivity (Figure 2 / note because each sensor is a different size, it will have a different sensitivity), the third sensitivity being higher than the second sensitivity (Figure 2 / note the sensitivity of 6 will be larger than 9 for example), wherein the magnetoresistive element comprises a sensing layer to which a third biasing field is applied (Paragraph [0025] / note the sensors are spin-valve GMR sensors and therefore must have a sensing layer (free layer) that is biased), a reference structure (pinned layer) magnetised in the second reference magnetisation direction (Figure 2), (Paragraph [0025]), the third sensor has a third aspect ratio to thereby provide the third sensitivity (Figure 2), (Paragraphs [0025],[0032] / note the different sizes will provide the different sensitivities).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kubota to include adding another array to each sensor to therefore disclose each magnetoresistive field sensor further comprises a third array of magnetoresistive sensing elements having a third sensitivity, the third sensitivity being higher than the second sensitivity, wherein each of the magnetoresistive elements in the third array comprise a sensing layer to which a third biasing field is applied, a reference structure magnetised in the second reference magnetisation direction, the third sensor array comprises magnetoresistive elements having a third aspect ratio to thereby provide the third sensitivity given the above disclosure and teaching of Barton in order to advantageously be able to obtain an essentially linear characteristic curve (Paragraph [0032]).
As to Claim 12,
Kubota in view of Barton discloses the third biasing field is induced by exchange bias coupling (Figure 1 / note two opposite biasing fields from the reference layers used in the sensing process are placed proximate each other, applicant discloses that unidirectional coupling is exchange bias coupling with such a feature disclosed in Figure 1 by the unidirectional arrows indicating magnetization, and in paragraph [0173]).
As to Claim 15,
Kubota in view of Barton disclose the third biasing field is induced by one or more permanent magnets or an electromagnet (Figure 2), (Paragraphs [0097],[0100] / note the reference layer and pinned layer are both permanently magnetized, and thus are both permanent magnets, and either one located in each sensor can be the permanent magnet for each respective sensor).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (Kubota) (US 2021/0382123 A1) in view of Barton et al. (Barton) (US 2008/0191694 A1) as applied to Claim 12 and in further view of Mauri et al. (Mauri) (US 2021/0063505 A1).
As to Claims 13 and 14,
Kubota in view of Barton does not disclose the third sensor array comprises respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements with softly pinned antiparallel sensing layers, and wherein the sensing layers of respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements are softly pinned by an antiferromagnetic layer.
Mauri discloses the third sensor array comprises respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements with softly pinned antiparallel sensing layers, and wherein the sensing layers of respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements are softly pinned by an antiferromagnetic layer (Figures 1-4B / note the four elements, each containing MTJ elements 200), (Paragraphs [0025],[0027],[0031],[0039] / note the free layers are softly (partially) pinned by anti-ferromagnetic layer 370 at a 90 degree angle to the pinned/reference layers 330,350 direction. Because each overall sensor has an opposite polarity to a neighboring sensor, the soft-pinned direction of neighboring elements must also be opposite (antiparallel) to each other. For example, rotating Figure 4B would give a sensor with an opposite polarity, thus causing the free layer 310 to have a magnetization toward the left, which is antiparallel to that shown).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kubota in view of Barton to include the third sensor array comprises respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements with softly pinned antiparallel sensing layers, and wherein the sensing layers of respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements are softly pinned by an antiferromagnetic layer as taught by Mauri in order to advantageously be able to adjust the permeability or rate of magnetization rotation of the free layer in an external field (Paragraph [0036]) in order to advantageously be able to provide better control of the magnetic rotation of the free layer and thus more precisely provide the type of sensitivity and detection desired for the specific sensing environment in which the sensor is utilized.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubota et al. (Kubota) (US 2021/0382123 A1) in view of Zimmer et al. (Zimmer) (US 2015/0185297).
As to Claim 18,
Kubota does not disclose a second set of magnetoresistive field sensors connected in a second Wheatstone bridge arrangement, wherein the second Wheatstone bridge arrangement is rotated 90° relative to the first Wheatstone bridge arrangement.
Zimmer discloses a second set of magnetoresistive field sensors connected in a second Wheatstone bridge arrangement (410-2), wherein the second Wheatstone bridge arrangement is rotated 90° relative to the first Wheatstone bridge arrangement (410-1) (Figure 26), (Paragraph [0162]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kubota to include a second set of magnetoresistive field sensors connected in a second Wheatstone bridge arrangement, wherein the second Wheatstone bridge arrangement is rotated 90° relative to the first Wheatstone bridge arrangement as taught by Zimmer in order to advantageously be able to provide a cosine and sine signal thereby allowing the angle of the magnetic field to be determined, thus providing additional information about the magnetic field.
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