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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The previous 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments, but these amendments raise a new issue as applicant is now reciting “the soft pinning” in for example Claim 7, but where no soft pinning was previously recited.
With regard to the arguments on pages 6-7 directed towards Kubota et al. (Kubota) (US 2021/0382123 A1) and Hofmann et al. (Hofmann) (US 2017/0227613),
The previous 102 rejection in view of Kubota is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
However, the previous rejection was a 102/103 in view of Hofmann et al. (Hofmann) (US 2017/0227613), and Hofmann does disclose the now recited claim feature.
Applicant argues that Hofmann does not disclose the claim feature of the sensing layers having a length greater than a width because while acknowledging that Hofmann discloses an elliptical shape, applicant argues that such a shape address the span of the first and second electrode and not the shape of the free layer. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph [0014] expressly states that the free layer has a non-circular shape, and it is a diameter of the free layer that may correspond to a major or minor axis of an ellipse. It states this by stating “In some embodiments, the first electrode and/or the second electrode spans at least 50% of a diameter of the free layer in a direction parallel to the reference magnetization pattern. If the free layer has a non-circular shape, diameter may correspond to e.g. a major or a minor axis of an ellipse” (emphasis added). This paragraph is therefore clearly stating that it is the diameter of the free layer that has an elliptical shape.
This requires the free layer to have an elliptical shape, and an elliptical shape, by definition, must have a length greater than its width, or else it would be circular, which this paragraph expressly states it is not. Because a free layer is the sensing layer, the prior art reasonably discloses the claim feature. As to motivation, the Examiner respectfully disagree with applicant as the motivation reasonably motivates the combination.
As such, in the combination, both the previous and current combination of references (and rejections) must include the argued claim features.
No other arguments are presented, and 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 and 13 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 and 13,
The phrase “the soft pinning” on line 4 is indefinite. No soft pinning was previously recited, and it is unclear how this phrase refers to the previously recited pinned nature of the sensing layers. It is unclear if the soft pinning is referring to pinning by the exchange bias coupling, or if this phrase is distinct from such pinning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected 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 does not disclose the first biasing field is influenced at least in part by a shape anisotropy of the first sensing layer and the first sensing layer has a length and a width, the length being greater than the width, the second biasing field is influenced at least in part by a shape anisotropy of the second sensing layer and the second sensing layer has a length and a width, the length being greater than the width.
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 and the first sensing layer has a length and a width, the length being greater than the width, the second biasing field is influenced at least in part by a shape anisotropy of the second sensing layer and the second sensing layer has a length and a width, the length being greater than the width 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]).
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 having sensing layers pinned in antiparallel directions by the exchange coupling, the soft pinning of the sensing layers provided the first and second biasing fields, wherein the sensing layers of the respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements are pinned by the exchange bias coupling with a respective antiferromagnetic layer adjacent each sensing layer.
Mauri discloses the first and second sensor arrays comprise respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements having sensing layers pinned in antiparallel directions by the exchange coupling, the soft pinning of the sensing layers provided the first and second biasing fields, wherein the sensing layers of the respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements are pinned by the exchange bias coupling with a respective antiferromagnetic layer adjacent each sensing 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, and by any related exchange bias coupling (see the title for example). 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 having sensing layers pinned in antiparallel directions by the exchange coupling, the soft pinning of the sensing layers provided the first and second biasing fields, wherein the sensing layers of the respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements are pinned by the exchange bias coupling with a respective antiferromagnetic layer adjacent each sensing 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 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 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 first and second sensor arrays comprise respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements having sensing layers pinned in antiparallel directions by the exchange coupling, the soft pinning of the sensing layers provided the first and second biasing fields, wherein the sensing layers of the respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements are pinned by the exchange bias coupling with a respective antiferromagnetic layer adjacent each sensing layer.
Mauri discloses the first and second sensor arrays comprise respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements having sensing layers pinned in antiparallel directions by the exchange coupling, the soft pinning of the sensing layers provided the first and second biasing fields, wherein the sensing layers of the respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements are pinned by the exchange bias coupling with a respective antiferromagnetic layer adjacent each sensing 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, and by any related exchange bias coupling (see the title for example). 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 first and second sensor arrays comprise respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements having sensing layers pinned in antiparallel directions by the exchange coupling, the soft pinning of the sensing layers provided the first and second biasing fields, wherein the sensing layers of the respective pairs of magnetoresistive sensing elements are pinned by the exchange bias coupling with a respective antiferromagnetic layer adjacent each sensing 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 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
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