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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 1/6/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species I in the reply filed on 1/6/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of all claims and species sufficiently relate that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one group of species would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims and species. This is not found persuasive because a search for any one group or species would not reasonably relate such that a search for one group or species would reasonably encompass the other claims or species as argued. No specific explanation is provided as to why a search for one group or species would reasonably identify prior art for the others or be sufficiently similar to encompass the other claims and species. The previous restriction requirement noted the extensive distinctions between the various species and groups, demonstrating the distinctiveness of these species and groups. The previous restriction further provided an example, where some species require inclined surfaces or yokes while others do not, and a search for a species not requiring a yoke or inclined surface would not reasonably find prior art or encompass a species that does required such features. Similarly, a species that does require an inclined surface, for example, would not reasonably identify prior art or sufficiently encompass a species that does not include or use an inclined surface where the surface is not inclined. The Examiner therefore respectfully disagrees, because a search for all of the various elements required in the species or groups as identified would not reasonably be coextensive or find prior art for the other species or groups.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 27-30 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species or group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 1/6/2026.
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 17-26 and 31 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.
As to Claim 17,
The phrase “wherein the at least one connection portion has a contact surface being in contact with the at least one magnetoresistive element and having an identical shape to a shape of the free layer when seen in the stacking direction” on lines 8-10 is indefinite.
1) The first issue is that, as worded, it is unclear whether the connection portion or the contact surface is intended to have an identical shape to a shape of the free layer. This claim phrase could reasonably be read such that either of these two components has the identical shape, thus rendering the claim phrase indefinite.
2) The second issue is that it is unclear whether the connection portion or contact surface must have the identical shape as that of the free layer. Claim 17 is directed towards an apparatus, and thus the final product. As such, the shapes of the components are fixed, and the connection portion or contact surface therefore either does or does not have the identical shape in the stacking direction. Claiming that the identical shape is present “when seen in the stacking direction” renders the feature indefinite because it is unclear whether one or both the connection portion and contact surface must always have the identical shape, or only when viewed as claimed. For example, when not viewed along the stacking direction, it is unclear if the portion or surface must still have the identical shape. The difference between reciting “wherein the at least one connection portion has a contact surface being in contact with the at least one magnetoresistive element and having an identical shape to a shape of the free layer when seen in the stacking direction” and “wherein the at least one connection portion has a contact surface being in contact with the at least one magnetoresistive element and having an identical shape to a shape of the free layer in the stacking direction” is therefore unclear.
As to Claim 19,
The phrase “wherein the at least one connection portion has an identical shape to a shape of the magnetization pinned layer when seen in the stacking direction” on lines 1-3 is indefinite. It is unclear whether the connection portion must have the identical shape as that of the pinner layer. Claim 19 is directed towards an apparatus, and thus the final product. As such, the shapes of the components are fixed, and the connection portion therefore either does or does not have the identical shape in the stacking direction. Claiming that the identical shape is present “when seen in the stacking direction” renders the feature indefinite because it is unclear whether the connection portion must always have the identical shape, or only when viewed as claimed. For example, when not viewed along the stacking direction, it is unclear if the portion or surface must still have the identical shape. The difference between reciting “wherein the at least one connection portion has an identical shape to a shape of the magnetization pinned layer when seen in the stacking direction” and “wherein the at least one connection portion has an identical shape to a shape of the magnetization pinned layer as seen in the stacking direction” is therefore unclear.
As to Claim 21,
The phrase “distance between a circumferential surface of the first connection portion and a circumferential surface of the second connection portion are substantially constant irrespective of a position in the stacking direction” on lines 3-7 is indefinite. At issue here is that it is unclear what is meant by the phrase “irrespective of a position in the stacking direction.” It is unclear what limitation this phrase imposes, such that the difference between reciting “distance between a circumferential surface of the first connection portion and a circumferential surface of the second connection portion are substantially constant irrespective of a position in the stacking direction” and “distance between a circumferential surface of the first connection portion and a circumferential surface of the second connection portion are substantially constant in the stacking direction” is unclear. If the distance between the portions are constant in the stacking direction, then they are constant in that direction. It is unclear what reciting “irrespective of position” adds to this concept.
As to Claim 23,
The phrase “the at least one magnetoresistive element includes a portion having a shape larger than the at least one connection portion when seen in the stacking direction” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
It is unclear whether the magnetoresistive element must have a portion larger than the connection portion. Claim 23 is directed towards an apparatus, and thus the final product. As such, the shapes of the components are fixed, and the at least one magnetoresistive element either does or does not include a portion having a shape larger than the at least one connection portion. Claiming that the identical shape is present “when seen in the stacking direction” renders the feature indefinite because it is unclear whether the element must always have a portion having a larger shape than then connection portion, or only when viewed as claimed. For example, when not viewed along the stacking direction, it is unclear if the portion must have the larger shape. The difference between reciting “the at least one magnetoresistive element includes a portion having a shape larger than the at least one connection portion in the stacking direction” and “the at least one magnetoresistive element includes a portion having a shape larger than the at least one connection portion when seen in the stacking direction” is therefore unclear.
As to Claims 18-26 and 31,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 17-26 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kubota et al. (Kubota) (US 2021/0382123 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
274
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claim 17,
Kubota discloses A magnetoresistive device comprising: at least one magnetoresistive element (13) including a magnetization pinned layer (SAF) having a magnetization whose direction is fixed (Paragraph [0093]), (Figure 1 / note the arrow for layer 135 indicates the pinned magnetization direction), a free layer (137) configured to have a magnetic vortex structure and configured so that a center of the magnetic vortex structure moves depending on a target magnetic field (Paragraph [0103]), and a gap layer (136) disposed between the magnetization pinned layer and the free layer (Figure 2), the magnetization pinned layer, the free layer, and the gap layer being stacked together in a certain stacking direction (Figure 2 / note the stacking direction is the up/down direction); and at least one electrode (138) including at least one connection portion connected to the at least one magnetoresistive element (Figure 2 / note the connection portion is the surface of the cap layer in contact with the free layer), (Paragraphs [0173],[0201] / note that in either the first or second embodiment, either of which disclose the claim features, the cap layer is a metal layer used to connect an electrode to the magnetoresistive device formed from the free, pinned, and gap layers, and the cap layer can therefore reasonably be said to be an electrode as it is used for the same purpose as any other electrode, which is to connect to the actual layers of the magnetoresistive device to an external device), wherein the at least one connection portion has a contact surface being in contact with the at least one magnetoresistive element and having an identical shape to a shape of the free layer when seen in the stacking direction, and a circumferential surface connected to the contact surface and having a certain dimension in the stacking direction (Figures 1,2), (Paragraph [0182] / note the surface of the cap layer in contact with the free layer is the connection portion, and note that the entire element (13) is disk shape, which in light of Figure 2 must mean that all layers are disk shape of the same diameter).
As to Claim 18,
Kubota discloses an angle of the circumferential surface with respect to the stacking direction is within a range of 0° to 7° (Figure 2 / note the circumferential surface extends in the up/down direction in the same direction as the stacking direction, and thus parallel to this direction).
As to Claim 19,
Kubota discloses wherein the at least one connection portion has an identical shape to a shape of the magnetization pinned layer when seen in the stacking direction (Figure 2 / note the connection portion is the same shape as a shape of the pinned layer surface), (Paragraph [0182] / note the entire device is a disk).
As to Claim 20,
Kubota discloses the at least one magnetoresistive element is two magnetoresistive elements (13,14) (Figures 1,2), (Paragraph [0075]); the at least one connection portion is a first connection portion and a second connection portion (top surface of cap layer 138); and in a section intersecting the first connection portion and the second connection portion and being parallel to the stacking direction, a circumferential surface of the first connection portion and a circumferential surface of the second connection portion are substantially parallel to each other (Figures 1-3,13 / note a rectangular section extending in the left/right direction and passing through both the first and second connection portions can be said to exist, and the first and second connection portions are parallel to each other, and thus parallel to each other in the section).
As to Claim 21,
Kubota discloses the at least one magnetoresistive element is two magnetoresistive elements (13,14) (Figures 1-3, (Paragraph [0075]); the at least one connection portion is a first connection portion and a second connection portion (top surface of cap layer 138); and a distance between a circumferential surface of the first connection portion and a circumferential surface of the second connection portion are substantially constant irrespective of a position in the stacking direction (Figure 2 / note the distance between the two connection portions are fixed at all positions in the stacking direction).
As to Claim 22,
Kubota discloses the at least one magnetoresistive element has a bottom surface (bottom surface of layer (132) (Figure 2), a top surface opposite to the bottom surface (top surface of layer (137) in Figure 2), and a side surface connecting the bottom surface and the top surface (the side surface of the device extending between the above surfaces) (Figure 2); and the at least one connection portion is connected to the top surface of the at least one magnetoresistive element (Figure 2 / note the connection portion is electrically connected to and in contact with the top surface of layer (137) (Figure 2).
As to Claim 23,
Kubota discloses the at least one magnetoresistive element includes a portion having a shape larger than the at least one connection portion when seen in the stacking direction (Figure 13 / the element can be said to include wiring layer (631) which is larger than the connection portion as viewed in the stacking direction (Paragraph [0189]).
As to Claim 24,
Kubota discloses an insulating layer (65) disposed around the at least one magnetoresistive element and the at least one connection portion (Figure 13), (Paragraph [0189]), wherein the at least one magnetoresistive element has an end surface (top of layer (137) in Figure 2) with which the contact surface is in contact (Figure 2), the insulating layer is not in contact with the end surface (Figure 2 / note that because the entirety of the end surface is in contact with the contact surface of layer (138), none of it can be contact with insulator (65)).
As to Claim 25,
Kubota discloses the at least one magnetoresistive element further has a side surface connected to the end surface (the side surface of the device extending between the top of layer (137) and bottom of layer (132)) (Figure 2); the insulating layer has a facing surface facing the side surface of the at least one magnetoresistive element and the circumferential surface of the at least one connection portion (Figure 13 / note the inner surface of the insulator faces the side and circumferential surfaces); and an angle of at least a part of the facing surface with respect to the stacking direction is within a range of 0° to 7°(Figure 13 / note the facing surface extends in the up/down direction, which is parallel to the stacking direction).
As to Claim 26,
PNG
media_image2.png
304
718
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kubota discloses an insulating layer (65) disposed around the at least one magnetoresistive element and the at least one connection portion (Figure 13), (Paragraph [0189]), wherein the insulating layer includes a first portion and a second portion that are arranged to sandwich the at least one magnetoresistive element and the at least one connection portion (Figure 13), (see above figure), each of the first portion and the second portion has an end portion located at one end in the stacking direction, and the end portion of the first portion and the end portion of the second portion are at a substantially same position in the stacking direction (see above figure).
As to Claim 31,
Kubota discloses A magnetic sensor comprising the magnetoresistive device according to claim 17, the magnetic sensor being configured to detect the target magnetic field and generate a detection signal (Claim 3), (Paragraph [0028]), wherein the detection signal has a correspondence with a resistance of the at least one magnetoresistive element (Paragraph [0029]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) US 2014/0131652 to Yu which discloses circular free and reference layers for a TMR sensor, 2) US 10,416,000 to Ohta which discloses circular TMR sensor structures, and 3) US 12,498,434 to Takeshima et al. which circular TMR sensor structures.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858