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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the reference as previously applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, necessitated by amendment. See new ground of rejection below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 6, 7-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachleitner Hofmann et al. (US 20170227613), hereinafter ‘Bachleitner Hofmann’ and further in view of Raberg et al. (US 20170168122) hereinafter ‘Raberg’.
Regarding Claim 1, Bachleitner Hofmann discloses a spin valve device (Fig. 5a/5b, Para [0058]), comprising: a layer stack comprising: one or more layers forming a unidirectionally magnetized reference system (Fig. 5a/5b, magnetic layer 506, unidirectional as defined by arrow; Para [0058-0059]); a vortex-magnetized free layer (Fig. 5a/5b, 502; Para [0076] free layer with vortex state of magnetization); a non-magnetic layer (Fig. 5A/5b, layer 504; Para [0059]) separating the unidirectionally magnetized reference system from the vortex-magnetized free layer (Fig. 5A/5b, layer 504 between and separating free layer 502 and unidirectional layer 506); and one or more layers forming a bias structure (Fig. 5A, interaction of layers 508 to 502/Fig. 5B interaction of layers 510 to 502) being exchange-coupled to the vortex-magnetized free layer (Para [0059] spin valve structure 501 comprises a soft-magnetic layer 502 (free layer), which is separated, by a non-magnetic layer 504, from a second soft-magnetic layer 506, the magnetization direction of which is, however, pinned by the coupling with an antiferromagnetic layer 508 by means of the so-called “exchange bias interaction), the bias structure having a vortex-magnetization with closed flux of a predetermined rotation direction (Para [0046, 0063]; Para[0059] spin valve structure 501 comprises a soft-magnetic layer 502 (free layer), which is separated, by a non-magnetic layer 504, from a second soft-magnetic layer 506, the magnetization direction of which is, however, pinned by the coupling with an antiferromagnetic layer 508 by means of the so-called “exchange bias interaction; Para [0011] the magnetic free layer is of centrally symmetric shape. This shape may in other words result from rotation by a predetermined angle thus be possible to facilitate spontaneous vortex formation).
Bachleitner Hofmann fails to explicitly disclose the bias structure positioned on top of the vortex-magnetized free layer.
Raberg discloses a spin valve device (Fig. 7) comprising a bias structure (Fig. 7, 780) positioned on top of a vortex-magnetized free layer (Fig. 7, vortex 775 in free layer 770; Para [0067]) for the benefit of generating a biasing field in the magnetic free layer thus an extended vortex formation range may hence be increased or even maximized (Para [0067, 0009]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide the bias structure positioned on top of the vortex-magnetized free layer for the benefit of generating a biasing field in the magnetic free layer thus an extended vortex formation range may hence be increased or even maximized as taught by Raberg in Fig. 7 and Para [0067, 0009].
Regarding Claim 2, Bachleitner Hofmann further discloses wherein the non-magnetic layer comprises a non-conducting material forming a tunnel barrier (Para [0058-0059] layer 504 as non-magnetic; Para [0045] electrically insulating tunnel barrier layer or diamagnetic layer; Para [0007] discloses non-magnetic as diamagnetic layer).
Regarding Claim 4, Bachleitner Hofmann further discloses wherein the bias structure is formed as an antiferromagnet (Para [0059] Such a spin valve structure 501 comprises a soft-magnetic layer 502 (free layer), which is separated, by a non-magnetic layer 504, from a second soft-magnetic layer 506, the magnetization direction of which is, however, pinned by the coupling with an antiferromagnetic layer 508 by means of the so-called “exchange bias interaction”. If the external magnetic field M is increased from negative to positive values, the “free”, soft-magnetic layer 502 switches near the zero crossing (H=0), and the resistance R rises sharply. The resistance R then remains high until the external magnetic field M is great enough to overcome the exchange coupling between the soft-magnetic layer 506 and the antiferromagnetic layer 508 and to switch also the magnetic layer 506.)
Regarding Claim 6, Bachleitner Hofmann further discloses wherein an external magnetic field strength required for annihilating the vortex magnetization of the bias structure is higher than for annihilating a vortex magnetization of the vortex-magnetized free layer (Para [0004] Resistance behavior in dependence of external magnetic field strength (or vortex position); as external magnetic field increases from negative to positive, resistance rises in free layer; however external magnetic field has to be great enough to overcome exchange coupling between layers 506 and 508, thus magnetic field strength has to be greater/higher further disclosed in Para [0059] If the external magnetic field M is increased from negative to positive values, the “free”, soft-magnetic layer 502 switches near the zero crossing (H=0), and the resistance R rises sharply. The resistance R then remains high until the external magnetic field M is great enough to overcome the exchange coupling between the soft-magnetic layer 506 and the antiferromagnetic layer 508 and to switch also the magnetic layer 506).
Regarding Claim 7, Bachleitner Hofmann further discloses a non-magnetic coupling layer or a magnetic coupling layer between the vortex-magnetized free layer and the bias structure (Fig. 5b having non-magnetic layer 509 between free layer 502 and bias structure as interaction of layers 502 to 510).
Regarding Claim 8, Bachleitner Hofmann fails to explicitly disclose wherein the unidirectionally magnetized reference system and the bias structure are arranged on different sides of the vortex-magnetized free layer.
Raberg discloses a spin valve sensor comprising a unidirectionally magnetized reference system (Fig. 7, layers 730, 750; Para [0071] Spin valve sensors comprising magneto-resistive structure 710 may further be implemented as a simple pinned structure comprising one (e.g. pinned layer 730) or more ferromagnetic layers (e.g. pinned layer 730 and reference layer 750) with a unidirectional magnetic moment) and a bias structure (Fig. 7, 780; Para [0075]) are arranged on different sides of a vortex-magnetized free layer (Fig. 7, 770; Para [0063-0065]) for the benefit of providing a more pronounced exchange bias effect (Para [0080]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide wherein the unidirectionally magnetized reference system and the bias structure are arranged on different sides of the vortex-magnetized free layer for the benefit of providing a more pronounced exchange bias effect as taught by Raberg in Fig. 7, Para [0071, 0075, 0063-0065, 0080].
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Bachleitner Hofmann fails to explicitly disclose wherein the unidirectionally magnetized reference system comprises a first antiferromagnet and the bias structure comprises a second antiferromagnet, wherein the first antiferromagnet comprises a first material composition that is different from a second material composition of the second antiferromagnet or a first layer thickness that is different from a second layer thickness of the second antiferromagnet, and of Claim 10 wherein the first antiferromagnet has a different blocking temperature that is different than a blocking temperature of the second antiferromagnet.
Raberg discloses a spin value sensor wherein a unidirectionally magnetized reference system comprises a first antiferromagnet (Para [0077] bottom antiferromagnet layer 720) and the bias structure comprises a second antiferromagnet (Para [0075] bias structure 780 with antiferromagnet layer 781), wherein the first antiferromagnet comprises a first material composition that is different from a second material composition of the second antiferromagnet or a first layer thickness that is different from a second layer thickness of the second antiferromagnet (Para [0078] two different antiferromagnetic materials or tuning the thickness of the antiferromagnetic layer to vary the exchange bias field), and of Claim 10 wherein the first antiferromagnet has a different blocking temperature that is different than a blocking temperature of the second antiferromagnet (Para [0078] tuning the blocking temperature of the antiferromagnetic layer to vary the exchange bias field) for the benefit of varying the exchange bias field.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide the unidirectionally magnetized reference system comprises a first antiferromagnet and the bias structure comprises a second antiferromagnet, wherein the first antiferromagnet comprises a first material composition that is different from a second material composition of the second antiferromagnet or a first layer thickness that is different from a second layer thickness of the second antiferromagnet or wherein the first antiferromagnet has a different blocking temperature that is different than a blocking temperature of the second antiferromagnet for the benefit of varying the exchange bias field as taught by Raberg in Para [0075-0078].
Regarding Claim 11, Bachleitner Hofmann further discloses wherein the vortex-magnetized free layer has a rotationally symmetric shape (Para [0011, 0021, 0070]).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachleitner Hofmann et al. (US 20170227613), hereinafter ‘Bachleitner Hofmann’ in view of Raberg et al. (US 20170168122) hereinafter ‘Raberg’ as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raberg et al. (US 20160109537), hereinafter ‘Raberg ‘537’.
Regarding Claim 3, Bachleitner Hofmann in view of Raberg fails to explicitly disclose wherein the non-magnetic layer comprises a conducting material forming a giant magneto resistance junction.
Raberg ‘537 teaches a spin valve type GMR sensing element wherein the non-magnetic layer may be electrically conductive (Para [0034] a GMR sensing element of a spin-valve type, the non-magnetic layer 224 may be electrically conductive) for the benefit of providing a GMR device (Para [0032]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide wherein the non-magnetic layer comprises a conducting material forming a giant magneto resistance junction for the benefit of providing a spin value GMR device as taught by Raberg ‘537 in Para [0034]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bachleitner Hofmann et al. (US 20170227613), hereinafter ‘Bachleitner Hofmann’ in view of Raberg et al. (US 20170168122) hereinafter ‘Raberg’ as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mattheis et al. (US 7348647), hereinafter ‘Mattheis’.
Regarding Claim 5, Bachleitner Hofmann fails to explicitly disclose wherein the bias structure is formed as a ferrimagnet.
Mattheis discloses a bias structure formed as a ferrimagnet for the benefit of providing an absent net magnetic moment, thus resulting in an extremely stable bias structure (Col. 2, Line 44-Col. 3, Line 10).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide the bias structure formed as a ferrimagnet for the benefit of providing an absent net magnetic moment, thus resulting in an extremely stable bias structure as taught by Mattheis in Col. 2, Line 44-Col. 3, Line 10.
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 ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights