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 .
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, 3-6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. 2014/0207007 to Giddings et al. Giddings et al. disclose a strain measurement device (200) (see Figs. 7 & 8 and entire reference) including a substrate (15); a first element (10) formed on the substrate and having a first magnetization layer (130, 140), a second magnetization layer (20, 40) whose change in a magnetization direction when strain is applied to the substrate is larger than that of the first magnetization layer, and a first spacer layer (30) placed between the first magnetization layer and the second magnetization layer; a second element (10) formed on the substrate and having a third magnetization layer (130, 140), a fourth magnetization layer (20, 40) whose change in a magnetization direction when strain is applied to the substrate is larger than that of the third magnetization layer, and a second spacer layer (30) placed between the third magnetization layer and the fourth magnetization layer, wherein in a state where no strain is applied to the substrate, at least one magnetization direction out of the magnetization direction of the first magnetization layer, the magnetization direction of the second magnetization layer, the magnetization direction of the third magnetization layer, and the magnetization direction of the fourth magnetization layer is different from the other magnetization directions (see arrows in Fig. 7) (as recited in instant independent claim 1); wherein the at least one magnetization direction perpendicularly intersects the other magnetization directions (see arrow in Fig. 7) (as recited in instant dependent claim 3); wherein the first spacer layer and the second spacer layer are each made of MgO (magnesium oxide, see para 0046) a non-magnetic electrical insulator (as recited in instant dependent claims 4 and 5); wherein the second magnetization layer (20) is placed on the substrate side with respect to the first magnetization layer (130, 140), and the fourth magnetization layer (20) is placed on the substrate side with respect to the third magnetization layer (130, 140) (as recited in instant dependent claim 6); wherein in a state where no strain is applied to the substrate, the magnetization direction of the second magnetization layer (20, 40) is different from the magnetization direction of the fourth magnetization layer (130, 140) (see arrows in Fig.7) (as recited in instant dependent claim 9).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2014/0207007 to Giddings et al. Giddings et al. disclose a strain measurement device having all of the elements cited previously. Giddings et al. does not explicitly disclose that the magnetization direction of the first magnetization layer when strain is applied to the substrate is within ±10° from the magnetization direction of the first magnetization layer when no strain is applied to the substrate, and the magnetization direction of the third magnetization layer when strain is applied to the substrate is within +10° from the magnetization direction of the third magnetization layer when no strain is applied to the substrate, as recited in instant dependent claim 2. However, Giddings et al. clearly discloses that the magnetization direction of the first magnetization layer changes in different amounts depending on the amount of strain experienced by the strain measurement system (see Figs. 11B and 11C and paras 0124-0128). As such, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the instant invention that the strain measurement device disclosed by Giddings et al. is completely functionally capable of having the first or third magnetization layers changing ±10° magnetization direction based on amount of strain applied, thus meeting the limitations recited in instant dependent claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, 11 and 12 are allowed.
Claim 10 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is invited to review PTO form 892 accompanying this Office Action listing Prior Art relevant to the instant invention cited by the Examiner.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner John Fitzgerald whose telephone number is (571) 272-2843. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM E.S.T. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor John Breene, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4107. 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. The central 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.
/JOHN FITZGERALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights