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 4/27/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Not all previous 112 rejections have been responded to, and those rejections that have not and do not have a corresponding claim amendment are repeated below.
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 discuss a biasing field that is influenced at least in part by a shape anisotropy, and that the reference does not appear to discuss a biasing field at all. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner respectfully notes that no biasing field is required in the claim. Claim 1 recites “a first sensing layer to which a first biasing field is applied.” Such a recitation is therefore reciting an intended use of the sensing layer, which is to have a bias field applied to the sensing layer. This is the only reasonably interpretation, as no structure is recited in the claim that can reasonably generate such a biasing field. The biasing field, and any aspect of it, is therefore not positively recited because it cannot reasonably actually exist in the claim without structure that reasonably is capable of generating such a field. As such, the arguments directed towards the generation of a biasing field for the first and second sensing layers is an intended use of these layers to expose them to the respective biasing field, but where the fields itself is not reasonably present in the claim.
Second, a biasing field is inherent in all TMR or similar spin valve devices, because how these devices function is by the use of a free layer having a free magnetization that is referenced to a biasing/pinned/reference layer that is permanently magnetized. While the Examiner acknowledges that an additional bias layer can be added that is in addition to any reference or pinned layer, all such layers are nothing more than permanently magnetized layers that generate a respective magnetic field. As previously explained, a bias field is 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. This is further evidenced by Gill (US 2003/0235016) which explains that a pinned layer generates a bias field that couples to the free layer (Abstract). The Examiner further respectfully notes that a bias field is not limited to a magnetic field, as applicant does not expressly require as such. A bias field can be an electric field, and as the pinned layer must have some impact on the free layer, whether electrical or magnetic, it must reasonably bias the free layer.
Third, while the shape of the layers are circular, paragraph [0158] expressly discloses that the device includes the effect of magnetostatic (shape anisotropy), which is therefore reasonably present as claimed. Furthermore, these new features regarding shape anisotropy are also not positively recited, because they are directed towards the biasing field that also cannot reasonably be positively recited in the claim. That stated, only to the extent that it is held that the shape anisotropy is not of the first and second sensing layers as claimed, these arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant then argues that no biasing field of any kind is applied, but the Examiner respectfully notes that none of the cited sections make such a statement. The prior art expressly discloses a permanently magnetized layer (pinned/reference layer), and such a layer must generate a magnetic field that will influence the other local layers, and Gill above further demonstrates that a pinned layer generates a bias field that can bias (couple to) a free layer. The Examiner respectfully notes that applicant does not provide any explanation or evidence as to why the prior art fails to disclose a bias field other than the fact it does not explicitly mention a bias field. That stated, placing a magnet near any metal layer such as a free layer made for a ferromagnetic material must reasonably be influenced by such a magnet and its magnetic field, in the same way any metal object placed adjacent a magnet will be influenced, and thus biased, by the magnetic field of the magnet. The mere fact that the reference does not expressly provide such an explanation does not mean the prior art does not disclose such a feature. The Examiner has provided a reasonable explanation as to why the prior art does disclose such a feature, and as explained in MPEP 2112(V), “ONCE A REFERENCE TEACHING PRODUCT APPEARING TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY IDENTICAL IS MADE THE BASIS OF A REJECTION, AND THE EXAMINER PRESENTS EVIDENCE OR REASONING TO SHOW INHERENCY, THE BURDEN OF PRODUCTION SHIFTS TO THE APPLICANT
"[T]he PTO can require an applicant to prove that the prior art products do not necessarily or inherently possess the characteristics of his [or her] claimed product. Whether the rejection is based on ‘inherency’ under 35 U.S.C. 102, on ‘prima facie obviousness’ under 35 U.S.C. 103, jointly or alternatively, the burden of proof is the same." In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433-34 (CCPA 1977) (footnote and citation omitted). The burden of proof is similar to that required with respect to product-by-process claims. In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 70, 205 USPQ 594, 596 (CCPA 1980) (citing Best, 562 F.2d at 1255).”
Applicant then argues that the prior art teaches away from any biasing field to the upper ferromagnetic layer 137 and references paragraphs [0014]-[0016]. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. These paragraphs are expressly referencing the use of a specific type of bias magnetic field that requires the use of electromagnets or magnets. These paragraphs are not stating that no bias magnetic field is applied, but rather that this prior art configuration required the use of electromagnets or magnets to apply a biasing field. To overcome such an issue, Kubota notes that a vortex structure can be used (paragraph [0016]). However, this does not mean that no biasing is applied, but rather that such a structure does not require the use of electromagnets or magnets beyond the usual pinned/free layer configuration of TMR sensor. The prior art reasonably discloses the argued claim feature, in both situations where the bias is or is not positively recited in the claim. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees with applicant.
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 7, 8, 13, and 14 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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 19, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kubota et al. (Kubota) (US 2021/0382123 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kubota et al. (Kubota) (US 2021/0382123 A1) in view of Bachleitner Hofmann et al. (Hofmann) (US 2017/0227613).
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 sensing 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 first 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 influenced at least in part by a shape anisotropy of the first sensing layer (Paragraphs [0072]-[0074],[0097]-[0100],[0158] / note shape anisotropy), (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 sensing 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 second 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 influenced at least in part by a shape anisotropy of the second sensing layer (Paragraphs [0072]-[0074,[0097]-[0100],[0158] / note shape anisotropy).
Kubota is stated to disclose each of the magnetoresistive sensing elements in the first array comprise a sensing layer to which a first biasing field is applied, the first biasing field is influenced at least in part by a shape anisotropy of the first sensing layer, each of the magnetoresistive sensing elements in the second array comprise a second sensing layer to which a second biasing field is applied, the second biasing field is influenced at least in part by a shape anisotropy of the second sensing layer, because a biasing field will reasonably be generated by the pinned/reference layer(s) which will reasonably bias the corresponding first and second sensor arrays. The prior art will also reasonably disclose these features because they are not reasonably positively recited in the claim. No structural feature is reasonably disclosed that generates the claimed biasing fields, and thus applicant must reasonably be referencing an intended use of the sensing arrays to be exposed to such fields, but where such fields are not required in the claim. As such, the prior art in either instance reasonably discloses the claim features.
That stated, only to the extent that it is held that the biasing fields are required in the claim and that these fields are not influenced at least in part by shape anisotropy of a respective first and second sensing layer, Kubota would not disclose the first biasing field is influenced at least in part by a shape anisotropy of the first sensing layer, the second biasing field is influenced at least in part by a shape anisotropy of the second sensing layer
Hofmann discloses that it is known in the art to form a free layer in a circular or elliptical shape and still provide a vortex pattern (Paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kubota to include forming the free layers in an elliptical shape instead of a circular shape to therefore include the first biasing field is influenced at least in part by a shape anisotropy of the first sensing layer, the second biasing field is influenced at least in part by a shape anisotropy of the second sensing layer given the above disclosure and teaching of Hofmann in order to advantageously rely upon an art recognize equivalent shape for a free layer (MPEP 2144.06), and in order to implement a free layer shape that removes undesirable effects arising from current paths crossing a vortex center (Paragraph [0014]).
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 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 Bachleitner Hofmann et al. (Hofmann) (US 2017/0227613) as applied to Claim 6 and in further view of Mauri et al. (Mauri) (US 2021/0063505).
As to Claims 7 and 8,
Kubota in view of Hofmann 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 in view of Hofmann 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 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 Bachleitner Hofmann et al. (Hofmann) (US 2017/0227613) as applied to Claim 1 and in further 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 in view of Hofmann 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 in view of Hofmann 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 Hofmann and 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 Hofmann and 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.
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 Bachleitner Hofmann et al. (Hofmann) (US 2017/0227613) and 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 Hofmann and 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 Hofmann and 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.
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 Bachleitner Hofmann et al. (Hofmann) (US 2017/0227613) as applied to Claim 17 and in further view of Zimmer et al. (Zimmer) (US 2015/0185297).
As to Claim 18,
Kubota in view of Hofmann 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 in view of Hofmann 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
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