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 filed 02/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In view of Applicant Remarks, Pages 8-9, disclosing “The Examiner asserts that claim 4 is indefinite because the claim discloses "a second vortex magnetization with a second closed flux" without claim 1 allegedly disclosing "a first vortex magnetization with a first closed flux.". Examiner disagrees. Office Action of 12/22/2025 explicitly discloses “Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein the free layer has a second vortex magnetization with a second closed flux" in Lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.” Applicant has failed to point to a citation in Claim 1 of the free layer having a first vortex magnetization with a first closed flux, and relies on “the shielding element” having a first vortex magnetization. Claim 1 fails to disclose the free layer having a “first” vortex magnetization with a “first” closed flux. By disclosing the free layer having "a second vortex magnetization with a second closed flux" implies the free layer has a “first” vortex magnetization with a “first closed flux”, however not defined in the claim. The sequence of first, second, third, etc. is well known as defining a formation of or following in a logical order. Therefore the free layer having a second vortex magnetization with a second closed flux is unclear and the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection stands.
In view of Applicants Remarks, Page 9, disclosing “the cited sections of the applied reference, whether taken alone or in any reasonable combination, does not disclose at least "shielding element that is configured, in a presence of the external magnetic field, to generate a linear magnetic stray field that is directed counter to the external magnetic field," as recited in claim 1. Therefore, independent claim 1, and the claims that depend thereon, are patentable over the cited sections of the applied reference. While Quan discloses that the top shield 15 has a vortex magnetization (paragraphs 50-51), Quan does not disclose that the top shield generates a linear magnetic stray field that is directed counter to the external magnetic field, wherein the shielding element has a first vortex magnetization with a first closed flux in the layer plane. Quan provides no disclosure of generating, in the presence of the external magnetic field, a linear magnetic stray field, let alone one counter to an external magnetic field”. Examiner disagrees.
Quan discloses in Para [0013] the top shield has a shape substantially in the form of a ring; Magnetization within the ring has a stable vortex state with a clockwise or counterclockwise direction. Quan discloses in Para [0050] Magnetization 15m1 forms a vortex around the center and thus provides an optimum stable state, which increases stability of reader response. A key feature is that all of the closed shapes have an open center portion and a vortex magnetization around the center portion. Quan discloses in Para [0051] a HM layer 20c may be formed on a top surface, bottom surface, or within a portion of the ring shaped top shield and when the HM layer is within a portion of the top shield, the HM layer and top shield magnetizations form a vortex magnetization.
Thus, by Quan disclosing having a ring shaped shield combined with the HM layer this results in a stable vortex magnetization with a clockwise or counterclockwise direction. This combination generates opposite fields directed counter to the magnetic field dependent on the direction of the external magnetic field.
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "wherein the free layer has a second vortex magnetization with a second closed flux" in Lines 2-3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 fails to disclose the free layer having a “first” vortex magnetization with a “first” closed flux. By disclosing the free layer having "a second vortex magnetization with a second closed flux " implies a first vortex magnetization with a first closed flux” exist, however not defined in the claim. The sequence of first, second, third, etc. is well known as defining a formation of or following in a logical order. Therefore the second vortex magnetization with a second closed flux is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Quan et al. (US 20180144766), hereinafter ‘Quan’.
Regarding Claim 1, Quan discloses a magnetoresistive sensor, comprising: a magnetoresistive element having a layer stack (Fig. 2, MR sensor stack 2d, 2f, 2h) that has at least one free layer (Fig. 2, free layer 2f; Para [0031]; Fig. 2, free layer 3f), wherein the at least one free layer has a magnetization that is changeable in a layer plane and that varies depending on a field strength of an external magnetic field acting parallel to the layer plane (Para [0003] a free layer with a magnetization that rotates in response to external magnetic fields, and is aligned either parallel or anti-parallel to the magnetization in the pinned layer. When an external magnetic field is applied by passing the MR sensor over a recording medium at an air bearing surface (ABS), the free layer magnetic moment may rotate to an opposite direction); and a shielding element that is configured, in a presence of the external magnetic field, to generate a linear magnetic stray field that is directed counter to the external magnetic field, wherein the shielding element has a first vortex magnetization with a first closed flux in the layer plane (Para [0013] Magnetization within the shield ring has a stable vortex state with a clockwise or counterclockwise direction; Magnetization within the HM layer is set or reset in a direction that maintains the desired clockwise or counterclockwise magnetization in the top shield ring shape; Para [0050] Magnetization 15m1 forms a vortex around the center and thus provides an optimum stable state; all of the closed shapes have an open center portion and a vortex magnetization around the center portion; Para [0051] When the HM layer is within a portion of the top shield, the HM layer and top shield magnetizations form a vortex magnetization; by Quan disclosing having a ring shaped shield combined with the HM layer this results in a stable vortex magnetization with a clockwise or counterclockwise direction. This combination generates opposite fields directed counter to the magnetic field dependent on the direction of the external magnetic field.).
Regarding Claim 2, Quan further discloses wherein the shielding element is arranged opposite the free layer in a direction perpendicular to the layer plane (Fig. 2, top shield 55 arranged opposite free layer 3f in direction perpendicular to the layer plane, stack direction).
Regarding Claim 3, Quan further discloses wherein the shielding element has a geometric shape that is configured to generate the first vortex magnetization in the shielding element (Para [0050]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding Claim 4, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the free layer has a second vortex magnetization with a second closed flux in the layer plane” in combination with all other limitations of the claim would render the claim allowable over the prior art and overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection above.
Claims 5-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 5, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the shielding element is galvanically coupled to magnetoresistive element” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 6, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the magnetoresistive sensor has an electrode structure that is configured to make electrical contact with the magnetoresistive element, and wherein the shielding element adjoins the electrode structure directly and is galvanically coupled directly to the electrode structure” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 7, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the shielding element is electrically isolated from the magnetoresistive element” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art. All subsequent claims are also allowable due to dependency.
Regarding Claim 9, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the shielding element is spaced from the magnetoresistive element by a distance that is approximately 0.1 to 1 times as great as a diameter of the shielding element” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 10, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the shielding element has a layer thickness between 50 nm and 500 nm” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 11, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “furthermore having a substrate having a metallization layer forming a metal contact, wherein the magnetoresistive element is galvanically coupled to the metallization layer, wherein the magnetoresistive element faces a first surface of the metallization layer, wherein the shielding element faces second surface of the metallization layer, the second surface being opposite to the first surface, wherein the metallization layer is arranged between the magnetoresistive element and the shielding element, and wherein the magnetoresistive element and the shielding element are arranged opposite one another, such that the magnetoresistive element and the shielding element overlap, when viewed in a plan view” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art. All subsequent claims are also allowable due to dependency.
Regarding Claim 13, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “further comprising: a substrate having a metallization layer forming a metal contact, wherein the magnetoresistive element is galvanically coupled to the metallization layer, wherein the magnetoresistive element faces a first surface of the metallization layer, and wherein the shielding element faces the first surface of the metallization layer, wherein the magnetoresistive element is arranged between the metallization layer and the shielding element, and wherein the magnetoresistive element and the shielding element are arranged opposite one another, such that the magnetoresistive element and the shielding element overlap, when viewed in a plan view” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 14, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “further comprising: a substrate having a metallization layer forming a metal contact, wherein the shielding element is galvanically coupled to the metallization layer and the magnetoresistive element, wherein the shielding element is arranged between the metallization layer and the magnetoresistive element, and wherein the magnetoresistive element and the shielding element are arranged opposite one another, such that the magnetoresistive element and the shielding element overlap, when viewed in a plan view” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art. All subsequent claims are also allowable due to dependency.
Regarding Claim 16, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the magnetoresistive sensor with the shielding element exhibits linear behavior in a predefined working range, and wherein the predefined working range is greater than a linear working range of a structurally identical magnetoresistive sensor without the shielding element” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art. All subsequent claims are also allowable due to dependency.
Regarding Claim 19, the closest prior art fails to disclose nor would it be obvious to combine “wherein the magnetoresistive sensor has an electrode structure that is configured to make electrical contact with the magnetoresistive element, and wherein the shielding element is galvanically coupled to the electrode structure indirectly via an electrically conductive layer” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art.
Regarding Claim 21, “wherein, without the external magnetic field, the first vortex magnetization is in equilibrium, and wherein, in the presence of the external magnetic field, the first vortex magnetization shifts such that the shielding element generates the linear magnetic stray field outside of the shielding element to attenuate the external magnetic field” in combination with all other limitations of the claim renders the claim allowable over the prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kasiraj et al. (US 20050174701) discloses a sense current generates a vortex magnetic field in the free layer in a generally circular direction opposite to the direction of the fixed vortex magnetic domains. This field essentially counteracts the vortex magnetic domains and essentially "erases" the effect of the vortex magnetic domains in free layer, with the result that the preferred single-domain longitudinal magnetization in free layer is recovered. The sense current also generates a magnetic field in the stabilizing layer, but because the exchange coupling between stabilizing layer and the second antiferromagnetic layer is strong enough, the sense current will not affect the vortex magnetization pattern.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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