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 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.
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) 1-8 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Haratani et al. (US 20190128882), hereinafter ‘Haratani’.
Regarding Claim 1, Haratani discloses a magnetoresistance (MR) structure (Fig. 7, 500, Fig. 1, 100) comprising: a plurality of MR elements each having a serpentine layout formed from two or more groups of parallel lines (Fig. 7, MR elements as annotated below, formed from two groups of parallel lines, are alternatively connected between the first and second pluralities of metal pads in a serpentine layout disclosed as interleaved MR elements across plurality of pads; Fig. 1), the two or more groups of parallel lines formed on the MR structure (Fig. 7, 500; Fig. 1, 100) and connected by a first plurality of metal pads at a first end of the MR structure and a second plurality of metal pads (Para [0136] electrode terminals connected to MR elements) at a second end of the MR structure opposite from the first end (Fig. 7 as annotated below), wherein the serpentine layouts of at least two MR elements of the plurality are interleaved (Fig. 7, are alternatively connected between the first and second pluralities of metal pads disclosed as interleaved MR elements across plurality of pads; Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
578
745
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 2 and 3, Haratani further discloses wherein each of the two or more groups of parallel lines include at least two parallel lines (Figs. 7 and 1) and of Claim 3, at least four parallel lines (Figs. 7 and 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Haratani further discloses wherein the two or more groups of parallel lines include at least eight groups of parallel lines (Fig. 1, element 12 disclosing groups of parallel lines of more than eight), the first plurality of metal pads includes at least five metal pads (Fig. 1, five pads 21 along element 16 end), and the second plurality of metal pads includes at least four metal pads (Fig. 1, four pads 21 along opposite end of number 16).
Regarding Claim 5, Haratani further wherein the first plurality of metal pads includes a first metal pad corresponding to a first terminal of a first MR element of the at least two MR elements and a second metal pad corresponding to a second terminal of the first MR element (Fig. 7, as annotated below, first pad coupled to first MR element, second pad coupled to first MR element on opposite end; terminal interpreted as connection of MR element to pad).
PNG
media_image2.png
578
745
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, Haratani further wherein the two or more groups of parallel lines are connected to allow current to flow between the first and second terminals of the first MR element (Fig. 1, Para [0048-0049] element 12 extends to opposite sides of terminals with magnetic field input to 12).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Haratani further discloses wherein the two or more groups of parallel lines each include parallel lines of equal width (Fig. 1, elements 12; Fig. 7, 102) and of Claim 8, wherein each of the parallel lines of the same width include at least two parallel lines with adjacent pairs of the two parallel lines separated by equal spacing (Figs. 1 and 7, showing elements 12/102 parallel lines and respective spacing).
Regarding Claim 14, Haratani further discloses wherein the plurality of MR elements includes four MR elements, wherein the serpentine layouts the four MR elements are interleaved (Fig. 1, elements 12 with interleaved pattern and meander structure; Para [0029]; Fig. 7, annotation of MR elements 1 and 2 can be expanded to include four MR elements or groups of lines).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 9, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haratani et al. (US 20190128882), hereinafter ‘Haratani’.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Haratani discloses the MR structure of Claim 1 as disclosed above. Haratani fails to explicitly disclose a first plurality of unconnected lines provided on a first side of the plurality of the MR elements and a second plurality of unconnected lines provided on a second side of the plurality of the MR elements opposite from the first side, the first and second pluralities of unconnected lines being electrically isolated from the plurality of the MR elements, and of Claim 10 wherein the first and second pluralities of unconnected lines both comprise at least two unconnected lines.
However Haratani discloses electrode terminals are connected when it is disposed at a position in contact with the magnetoresistance effect elements 12 (Para [0051]). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date for the lines to be unconnected if not disposed in a position in contact with the terminal. Further Applicants Specification fails to disclose a benefit of unconnected lines therefore no technical effect becomes apparent from the claim of unconnected lines.
Regarding Claim 12, Haratani discloses the claimed structure according to claim 11 above. Haratani fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first one of the at least two MR elements has a longer active area compared to a second one of the at least two MR elements.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a first one of the at least two MR elements having a longer active area compared to a second one of the at least two MR elements, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 uspq 237 (CCPA 1955), In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haratani et al. (US 20190128882), hereinafter ‘Haratani’ as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Endo et al. (US 20160313409).
Regarding Claims 13 and 15, Haratani discloses the claimed structure according to claims 1 and 14 above. Haratani fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least two MR elements are connected to form a half bridge of Claim 13 and wherein the four MR elements are connected to form a full bridge of Claim 15.
Endo discloses a magnetic sensor having a comb-shaped wiring line, the magnetoresistive effect elements, the straight wiring lines, and the second wiring line may be connected, thereby enabling a bridge circuit to be configured for the benefit of enabling the influence of a disturbance magnetic field to be decreased and enabling a detection sensitivity to be increased (Para [0012, 0027]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine and provide the at least two MR elements are connected to form a half bridge or wherein the four MR elements are connected to form a full bridge for the benefit of enabling the influence of a disturbance magnetic field to be decreased and enabling a detection sensitivity to be increased as taught by Endo in Para [0012, 0027].
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