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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 12-15 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, and in consideration of and necessitated by amendment. See new ground of rejection below.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Tondra (US 6875621), hereinafter ‘Tondra’.
Regarding Claim 1, A magnetoresistance (MR) structure (Fig. 14, interleaved GMR magnetic field detector structure; Col. 13, Lines 15-18) comprising: a plurality of MR elements (Fig. 14, designated 13, 13', 13" and 13'" for one group of active resistors, and designated 14, 14', 14" and 14'" for the other group of active resistors) each having: a serpentine layout formed from two or more groups of parallel lines (see annotation of Fig. 14 below), the two or more groups of parallel lines formed on the MR structure and connected by a first plurality of metal pads at a first end of the MR structure and a second plurality of metal pads at a second end of the MR structure opposite from the first end (see annotation of Fig. 14 below), and a pair of terminals formed on the MR structure at opposite ends of the serpentine layout (Figs. 6 and 7, terminals 21 and 22; Col. 13, Lines 15-22 discloses these groups are again taken as like the magnetoresistors in FIG. 6), the pair of terminals separate from those of other MR elements of the plurality (Fig. 6, terminals 21 and 22 separate from MR elements 13 and 14), wherein the serpentine layouts of at least two MR elements of the plurality are interleaved (Fig. 14, interleaved GMR magnetic field detector structure; Col. 13, Lines 15-18).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
476
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 1-10 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haratani et al. (US 20190128882), hereinafter ‘Haratani’, and further in view of Tondra (US 6875621), hereinafter ‘Tondra’.
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), and a pair of terminals formed on the MR structure at opposite ends of the serpentine layout (Fig. 7 as annotated below showing terminals 1 and 2 at opposite ends of serpentine layout, and serpentine layout is between terminals 1 and 2; Applicant’s specification discloses metal pads may correspond to terminals Spec. [0058], thus Fig. 7 pads as relied on are interpreted as interchangeable to terminals), the pair of terminals separate from those of other MR elements of the plurality (as annotated in Fig. 7, terminals separate from MR element).
Haratani fails to explicitly disclose wherein the serpentine layouts of at least two MR elements of the plurality are interleaved.
Tondra discloses a magnetic field detection system wherein serpentine layouts of at least two MR elements of the plurality are interleaved (Fig. 14, interleaved GMR magnetic field detector structure; Col. 13, Lines 15-18 designated 13, 13', 13" and 13'" for one group of active resistors, and designated 14, 14', 14" and 14'" for the other group of active resistors) for the benefits of rejecting common mode noise and differential detection and providing temperature compensation (Col. 9, Lines 1-13; Col. 13, Lines 13-21).
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 serpentine layouts of at least two MR elements of the plurality are interleaved in an arrangement of a full bridge for the benefits of rejecting common mode noise and differential detection and providing temperature compensation as taught by Tondra in Col. 9, Lines 1-13; Col. 13, Lines 13-21 and Fig. 14.
PNG
media_image2.png
468
650
media_image2.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).
Haratani fails to explicitly disclose the first plurality of metal pads includes at least five metal pads, and the second plurality of metal pads includes at least four metal pads.
Tondra discloses the GMR detector structure having multiple individual detectors across a detection site by having several individual GMR magnetic field detector structure magnetoresistors electrically connected together in series (Col. 12, Lines 57-62). Thus with the multiple individual GMR magnetic field detector structure magnetoresistors electrically connected together in series, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date a at least five metal pads would be needed.
Further it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to provide a plurality of metal pads, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Benis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding Claim 5, Haratani further wherein the first plurality of metal pads includes a first metal pad corresponding to a first terminal of the pair of terminals of a first MR element of the at least two MR elements and a second metal pad corresponding to a second terminal of the pair of terminals of the first MR element (Fig. 7 as annotated above; Applicant’s specification discloses metal pads may correspond to terminals Spec. [0058], thus Fig. 7 pads as relied on are interpreted as interchangeable to terminals).
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 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).
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).
Regarding Claims 13 and 15, Haratani in view of Tondra 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.
Tondra discloses a magnetic sensor wherein the at least two MR elements are connected to form a half bridge and wherein the four MR elements are connected to form a full bridge for the benefits of rejecting common mode noise and differential detection and providing temperature compensation (Col. 9, Lines 1-13; Col. 13, Lines 13-21).
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 at least two MR elements are connected to form a half bridge and wherein the four MR elements are connected to form a full bridge for the benefits of rejecting common mode noise, differential detection, and providing temperature compensation as taught by Tondra in Col. 9, Lines 1-13; Col. 13, Lines 13-21 and Fig. 14.
Conclusion
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