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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 5, 6, 9-12 and 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to one or more non-elected inventions/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 December 2025.
Drawings
The drawing(s) were received on 30 June 2026. These drawings are accepted.
The drawings, however, are again objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include one or more reference characters mentioned in the description. Note, for instance, “816” (disclosed as a sense layer in line 6 of paragraph [0095], for instance).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or an amendment to the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 13 and 14 are 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.
a. In lines 10-13 of claim 1, it is indefinite as to what structure or means causes the electrical current to be “configured to become spin-polarized while traversing the sense layer to produce a spin-current in the spin-orbit layer that generates a transverse readout charge current modulated by rotation of the sense layer magnetization under an external magnetic field.” That is, the claim does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the specific structure that causes the electrical current to be “configured to become spin-polarized while traversing the sense layer to produce a spin-current in the spin-orbit layer that generates a transverse readout charge current modulated by rotation of the sense layer magnetization under an external magnetic field.”
b. In line 1-2 of claim 3, “wherein the spin hall angle is larger than 8⁰ or larger than 30⁰ in absolute values” is indefinite because it includes two different overlapping ranges and thus fails to clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the claim.
c. In lines 8-10 of claim 13, it is indefinite as to what structure or means causes the sense current to become “spin-polarized while traversing the sense layer to generate a transverse readout charge current in the spin-orbit layer that is modulated by the magnetic field from media.” That is, the claim does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the specific structure that causes the sense current to become “spin-polarized while traversing the sense layer to generate a transverse readout charge current in the spin-orbit layer that is modulated by the magnetic field from media.”
d. In line 10 of claim 13, “the magnetic field from media” is indefinite because it lacks clear and/or positive antecedent basis.
e. Claims 2, 4, 7, 8 and 14 inherit the indefiniteness associated with their respective base claims and stand rejected as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347).
Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347) teach a spintronic reader (see FIG. 2, for instance) for a hard disk drive (100, see FIG. 1, for instance) comprising a stack of layers (includes 202 and 204, for instance) providing an inverse spin hall effect (see line 67 in column 4 thru line 3 in column 5, for instance) including a sense layer (202) with a magnetization (212) configured to be biased primarily in a cross-track direction (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) relative to an air-bearing surface (MFS, see FIG. 3, for instance), the sense layer comprising a first length at the air-bearing surface in the cross-track direction (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance); a spin-orbit layer (204), wherein the spin-orbit layer comprises a second length of a first side (i.e., the side that abuts conductive portion 226) that is greater than the first length of the sense layer at the air-bearing surface in the cross-track direction (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), and wherein the spin-orbit layer is characterized by a spin hall angle (see lines 23-26 in column 2, and 42-45 in column 4, for instance, i.e., a “spin Hall layer… formed of… Ta,” for instance, would inherently be characterized by a spin hall angle); and an electrical contact layer (226) disposed adjacent to the spin-orbit layer to enable an electrical current (i) to flow throughout the sense layer and spin-orbit layer (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), the electrical current configured to become spin-polarized (to at least some extent as the spintronic reader of Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347) is no different structurally from that set forth in the claim) while traversing the sense layer to produce a spin-current in the spin-orbit layer that generates a transverse readout charge current modulated by rotation of the sense layer magnetization under an external magnetic field (to at least some extent as the spintronic reader of Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347) is no different structurally from that set forth in the claim) [as per claim 1]; wherein the spin-orbit layer is configured to enable electrical contacts (each 222, for instance) to be disposed over a first area of the spin-orbit layer that extends beyond a second area covered by the sense layer (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) [as per claim 2]; wherein the spintronic reader further comprises an electrical component (includes 218, for instance) configured to flow a spin-polarized current (i) in a direction perpendicular to a plane direction throughout the sense layer and the spin-orbit layer (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) [as per claim 4]; wherein the sense layer comprises any of a first set of materials comprising Iron (Fe), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), or any of the first set of materials with an addition of any of Boron (B), Niobium (Nb), Zirconium (Zr), or Hafnium (Hf) (see lines 35-37 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “magnetic free layer 202 can be constructed of a magnetic material such as one or more layers of Co—Fe, Co—Fe—B”) [as per claim 7]; and wherein the spin orbit layer is made of a material with a large spin-orbit interaction including any of Tantalum (Ta), Platinum (Pt), Tungsten (W), Bismuth (Bi), Gold (Au), a CuBi alloy, or a AuW alloy (see lines 42-44 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “layer 204 is preferably constructed of a heavy metal such as Ta, W, Pt,… Bi or alloys thereof”) [as per claim 8].
Claims 1, 2, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le et al. (US 10,720,570).
Le et al. (US 10,720,570) teach a spintronic reader (see FIG. 2, for instance) for a hard disk drive (100, see FIG. 1, for instance) comprising a stack of layers (includes 208 and 210, for instance) providing an inverse spin hall effect (see lines 47-59 in column 7, for instance) including a sense layer (210) with a magnetization configured to be biased primarily in a cross-track direction (see lines 54-56 in column 5, for instance) relative to an air-bearing surface (MFS, see FIG. 3A, for instance), the sense layer comprising a first length at the air-bearing surface in the cross-track direction (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance); a spin-orbit layer (208), wherein the spin-orbit layer comprises a second length of a first side (i.e., the side that abuts portion 202a and layers 204a, 204b and 206) that is greater than the first length of the sense layer at the air-bearing surface in the cross-track direction (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), and wherein the spin-orbit layer is characterized by a spin hall angle (see lines 26-29 in column 5, for instance, i.e., a “spin Hall layer… preferably constructed of a heavy metal such as Ta,” for instance, would inherently be characterized by a spin hall angle); and an electrical contact layer (202) disposed adjacent to the spin-orbit layer to enable an electrical current to flow (I+ to I-) throughout the sense layer and spin-orbit layer (see lines 4-8 in column 6, for instance, i.e., “Circuitry (not shown) can be provided to supply an electrical current i through the sensor that is oriented in a direction that is perpendicular to the planes of the top and bottom push terminals (e.g., top and bottom shield layers) (202, 214)”), the electrical current configured to become spin-polarized (to at least some extent as the spintronic reader of Le et al. (US 10,720,570) is no different structurally from that set forth in the claim) while traversing the sense layer to produce a spin-current in the spin-orbit layer that generates a transverse readout charge current modulated by rotation of the sense layer magnetization under an external magnetic field (to at least some extent as the spintronic reader of Le et al. (US 10,720,570) is no different structurally from that set forth in the claim) [as per claim 1]; wherein the spin-orbit layer is configured to enable electrical contacts (204a and 204b, for instance) to be disposed over a first area of the spin-orbit layer that extends beyond a second area covered by the sense layer (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) [as per claim 2]; wherein the sense layer comprises any of a first set of materials comprising Iron (Fe), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), or any of the first set of materials with an addition of any of Boron (B), Niobium (Nb), Zirconium (Zr), or Hafnium (Hf) (see lines 20-22 in column 5, for instance, i.e., “magnetic free layer (FL) 210 may be made of a magnetic material such as one or more layers of Co—Fe, Co—Fe—B, NiFe”) [as per claim 7]; and wherein the spin orbit layer is made of a material with a large spin-orbit interaction including any of Tantalum (Ta), Platinum (Pt), Tungsten (W), Bismuth (Bi), Gold (Au), a CuBi alloy, or a AuW alloy (see lines 28-29 in column 5, for instance, i.e., “SHL 208 is preferably constructed of a heavy metal such as Ta, W, Pt,… Bi or alloys thereof”) [as per claim 8].
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347).
Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347) teach the spintronic reader as detailed in paragraph 8, supra. Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347), however, remain silent as to “wherein the spin hall angle is larger than 8° or larger than 30⁰ in absolute values.”
Official notice is taken of the fact that it is notoriously old and well known in the spintronic reader art to modify the parameters of spintronic reader components during the course of routine optimization/experimentation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the spin hall angle of Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347) be larger than 8° or larger than 30⁰ in absolute values. The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the spin hall angle of Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347) be larger than 8° or larger than 30⁰ in absolute values since such range(s), absent any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), are generally achievable through routine optimization/ experimentation, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 30 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the drawing objections, the applicant states that “correction has been made.” The drawing objection under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5), however, has not been corrected and is repeated in paragraph 4, supra.
With respect to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), the applicant “respectfully submits that the amendments to claim 3 obviate the present rejection.” The amendment to claim 3, however, did not obviate the rejection and is repeated in paragraph 6b, supra.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347), the applicant argues that Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347) do not teach “the electrical current configured to become spin-polarized while traversing the sense layer to produce a spin-current in the spin-orbit layer that generates a transverse readout charge current modulated by rotation of the sense layer magnetization under an external magnetic field.” In so far as this limitation is definite and understood (see paragraph 6a, supra), Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347) do teach the electrical current configured to become spin-polarized (to at least some extent as the spintronic reader of Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347) is no different structurally from that set forth in the claim) while traversing the sense layer to produce a spin-current in the spin-orbit layer that generates a transverse readout charge current modulated by rotation of the sense layer magnetization under an external magnetic field (to at least some extent as the spintronic reader of Van Der Heijden et al. (US 9,947,347) is no different structurally from that set forth in the claim).
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le et al. (US 10,720,570), the applicant argues that Le et al. (US 10,720,570) do not teach “the electrical current configured to become spin-polarized while traversing the sense layer to produce a spin-current in the spin-orbit layer that generates a transverse readout charge current modulated by rotation of the sense layer magnetization under an external magnetic field.” In so far as this limitation is definite and understood (see paragraph 6a, supra), Le et al. (US 10,720,570) do teach the electrical current configured to become spin-polarized (to at least some extent as the spintronic reader of Le et al. (US 10,720,570) is no different structurally from that set forth in the claim) while traversing the sense layer to produce a spin-current in the spin-orbit layer that generates a transverse readout charge current modulated by rotation of the sense layer magnetization under an external magnetic field (to at least some extent as the spintronic reader of Le et al. (US 10,720,570) is no different structurally from that set forth in the claim).
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 Craig A. Renner whose telephone number is (571) 272-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 7:30 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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571) 270-1210. 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.
/CRAIG A. RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
