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 .
Prior Art of Record
The applicant's attention is directed to additional pertinent prior art cited in the accompanying PTO-892 Notice of References Cited, which, however, may not be currently applied as a basis for the following rejections. While these references were considered during the examination of this application and are deemed relevant to the claimed subject matter, they are not presently being applied as a basis for rejection in this Office action. The pertinence of these documents, however, may be revisited, and they may be applied in subsequent Office actions, particularly in light of any amendments or further clarification of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suwabe et al. (US 20030002228 A1) in view of Okumura et al. (US 5969902 A) and Noritaka et al. (JP 2005043209 A).
CLAIMS 1 & 8: Suwabe et al. disclose a magnetic sensor comprising:
a ceramic [Al2O3-TiC(ATC)] substrate 2 including:
a substrate body 2 containing a ceramic [Al2O3-TiC(ATC)] as a material thereof; and
a giant magnetoresistive effect layer GMR having a multilayer structure of a plurality of magnetic layers and a plurality of non-magnetic layers (¶44 & Fig. 10); and
an undercoat layer formed between the glazing layer [Note: glazing layers are expected surface coatings for alumina ceramic substrates in the art. See below.] and the giant magnetoresistive effect layer and containing a body-centered cubic solid solution (¶14: “second underlayer of NiFeCr”, etc; ¶16-17; “NiFeCr or NiCr in the second under layer is a Bcc structure” and is effective for eliciting desired characteristics..
Although Suwabe et al. does not mention a glazing layer, such layers were well known in the art at the time of the invention. Glazing ceramic substrates before forming magnetic layers was a common practice for improving surface roughness by filling in pores and cracks, which is critical for magnetic data storage and retrieval. A glazing layer formed on the substrate's surface enhances adhesion, strength, and durability.
Therefore, even though Suwabe may be silent on the matter, it would have been obvious, if not implicitly expected, for a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a glaze layer on the surface of a ceramic substrate. This assertion is supported by Okumura and Noritaka et al.
Okumura specifically teaches glazing the surface of alumina titanium carbide substrates [the same substrates taught in Suwabe] for use in high-density magnetic discs, where a smooth surface and rigidity are critical. Noritaka et al. further supports the conventional benefits of glazing an alumina substrate, stating that "In the invention according to claim 4 of the present invention, the insulating substrate is an alumina substrate and a glass glaze layer is provided on the upper surface thereof, which is strong in mechanical strength and smoothes the substrate surface by the glass glaze layer. Therefore, a magnetic sensing element with good film quality is formed, and an effect of obtaining a magnetic sensing element with high magnetic sensitivity and improved reliability can be obtained."
As such, it would have been an obvious modification for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Suwabe et al. to simply glaze the surface to achieve these known benefits.
Regarding claim 8, the claim merely recites the method and the "forming" of the structural features, similar to what is recited in claim 1. Since the structure of claim 1 as taught by the prior art is understood to be formed, claim 8 is rejected along with claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suwabe et al. (US 20030002228 A1) in view of Okumura et al. (US 5969902 A) and Noritaka et al. (JP 2005043209 A) in view of Chiu et al. (US 5670253 A).
CLAIM 2. Suwabe et al. in view of Okumura et al. and Noritaka et al. disclose amagnetic sensor of claim 1, wherein the substrate body contains, as a material thereof, alumina however may be silent upon having an alumina content equal to or greater than 96% and equal to or less than 99%. This ratio, however is the expected range for said alumina ceramic substrates for the purpose. See Chiu et al. for support, which teaches alumina (Aluminum oxide and/or ATC) may have a percentage to 99.9% alumina. As such the claimed range would be a obvious expectation to a POSITA at the time of the invention.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suwabe et al. (US 20030002228 A1) in view of Okumura et al. (US 5969902 A) and Noritaka et al. (JP 2005043209 A) in view of Chiu et al. (US 5670253 A) in view of Yoshiaki et al (JP 2005085821 A).
CLAIM 3. Suwabe et al. in view of Okumura et al. and Noritaka et al. in view of Chiu et al. disclose a magnetic sensor of claim 1, however may be silent upon wherein the ceramic substrate is an aluminum nitride substrate. At the time of the invention, aluminum nitride was a known functional equivalent substrate material for the purpose. See Yoshiaki et al. “Such a magnetoresistive element can be formed on a predetermined substrate ….. As the substrate in this case, for example, substrates made of various materials such as Si (silicon), SiO .sub.2 (silicon oxide), Al .sub.2 O .sub.3 (aluminum oxide), spinel, AlN (aluminum nitride) can be used.”.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a known ceramic material substrate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the base of its suitability, for its intended use involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
CLAIM 4. Suwabe et al. in view of Okumura et al. and Noritaka et al. in view of Chiu et al. in view of Yoshiaki et al disclose a magnetic sensor of claim 1, wherein the body-centered cubic solid solution contains at least one of Ni—Fe—Cr or Fe—Si (See regarding claim 1).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suwabe et al. (US 20030002228 A1) in view of Okumura et al. (US 5969902 A) and Noritaka et al. (JP 2005043209 A) in view of Chiu et al. (US 5670253 A) in view of Yoshiaki et al () in view fo Hayashi et al. (JP 2005003477 A) .
CLAIM 5. Suwabe et al. in view of Okumura et al. and Noritaka et al. in view of Chiu et al. in view of Yoshiaki et al disclose a magnetic sensor of claim 1, wherein the ceramic substrate further includes: an electrode 12 electrically connected to the giant magnetoresistive effect layer GMR (Suwabe ¶44 & Fig. 10). Suwabe however is silent upon the further device arranment as recited. When forming, GMR devices the further device arrangement as recited was a known functional variant at the time of the invention. See Hayashi et al. for support.
Hayashi disclose an analogous GMR device structure, wherein the ceramic substrate further includes: an electrode 12 electrically connected to the giant magnetoresistive effect layer GMR 13 (Hayashi ¶34 & Fig. 7); an electrode 18/19 electrically connected to the giant magnetoresistive effect layer GMR 13 (Hayashi ¶34 & Fig. 7); and a conductor 17 electrically connected to the electrode, the substrate body 11 has: a first surface on which the glazing layer 12 is formed; a second surface which is opposite from the first surface and on which the electrode 19 is disposed; and a through hole penetrating through the first surface and the second surface, and the conductor 17 is passed through the through hole to electrically connect the electrode 18/19 and the giant magnetoresistive effect layer to each other.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of [Reference A] by adopting the alternative [electrode] arrangement taught by Suwabe. The arrangement taught by Hayashi is a known configuration in this field of art and is merely a design choice or a predictable variation of the conventional arrangement shown in Suwabe. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine the specific undercoat containing a BCC solid solution of Suwade with the electrode[s]/conductor arrangement of Hayashi to achieve predictable results, as this combination does not alter the fundamental operation of the elements and each performs the same function as it does separately.
CLAIM 6. Suwabe et al. in view of Okumura et al. and Noritaka et al. in view of Chiu et al. in view of Yoshiaki et al. in view fo Hayashi et al. disclose a magnetic sensor of claim 1, however may be silent upon wherein the glazing layer has a thickness equal to or greater than 10 μm and equal to or less than 100 μm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the thickness through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the thickness is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
CLAIM 7. Suwabe et al. in view of Okumura et al. and Noritaka et al. in view of Chiu et al. in view of Yoshiaki et al. in view of Hayashi et al. disclose a magnetic sensor of claim 1, however may be silent upon wherein a surface, on which the undercoat layer is formed, of the glazing layer has an arithmetic mean roughness equal to or less than 0.02 μm. This range would however be a obvious optimization, as a understood function of a glaze layer in the ceramic substrate art for GMR devices is to provide and facilitate a smooth surface. As such one of ordinary skill in the art would look to achieve the surface roughness within the range (ie. approach zero).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of making semiconductor devices to determine the workable or optimal value for the surface roughness through routine experimentation and optimization to obtain optimal or desired device performance because the surface roughness is a result-effective variable and there is no evidence indicating that it is critical or produces any unexpected results and it has been held that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of a result-effective variable within given prior art conditions by routine experimentation. See MPEP § 2144.05
Given the teaching of the references, it would have been obvious to determine the optimum thickness, temperature as well as condition of delivery of the layers involved. See In re Aller, Lacey and Hall (10 USPQ 233-237) “It is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” Note that the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed ranges or any unexpected results arising therefrom. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in a claim, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical. In re Woodruff, 919 f.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Any differences in the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicants have the burden of explaining the data in any declaration they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. Ex parte Ishizaka, 24 USPQ2d 1621, 1624 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
An Affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARRETT J STARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6005. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4 M-F.
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, Jessica Manno can be reached at 571-272-2339. 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.
JARRETT J. STARK
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2822
11/4/2025
/JARRETT J STARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898