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 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of updating the first paragraph of the Specification with US Patent No. 12/057,147 issued from the parent application.
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 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Carey et al. (US20070139826).
Regarding claim 1, Carey discloses a method of forming a thin film structure (paragraph 0042 and Fig. 2) comprising: performing one or more first repetitions to form a first template on a substrate, the first repetitions comprising: depositing a first thickness of a template material (the thickness of layer 226 before ion milling reads on a first thickness, paragraphs 0050 and 0059; Fig. 2; CoFe reads on a template material, paragraph 0055 and Fig. 2); and ion beam milling the template material at a first angle to the substrate to remove a second thickness less than the first thickness (the thickness of layer 226 removed by the ion milling reads on a second thickness, paragraphs 0059-0060 and 0062; Fig. 5A); and performing one or more second repetitions to form a second template on the first template, the second repetitions comprising: depositing a third thickness of the template material (the thickness of layer 220 before ion milling reads on a third thickness, paragraphs 0048 and 0059; Fig. 2); and ion beam milling the template material at second angle to the substrate different than the first angle to remove a fourth thickness less than the third thickness (the thickness of layer 220 removed by the ion milling reads on a forth thickness, paragraphs 0059-0060 and Fig. 5A), wherein one of the first and second angles is a channeling angle (paragraph 0060 and Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 2, Carey discloses after the one or more first repetitions and the one or more second repetitions, depositing additional material on the second template, the additional material having a same crystalline microstructure as the template material (paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 3, Carey discloses wherein depositing the first and third thicknesses of the template material comprises ion beam deposition and depositing the additional material comprises deposition without ion beam assistance (paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 4, Carey discloses wherein the substrate comprises a flat surface on which the first template is formed to have an exposed flat surface, and wherein the ion beam milling the template material to remove the second thickness comprises removing a uniform thickness from the exposed flat surface (paragraph 0059 and Figs. 2 and 5A).
Regarding claim 5, Carey discloses wherein the thin film structure comprises a component of a recording head (magnetic write head, paragraph 0059).
Regarding claim 8, Carey discloses wherein the thin film structure comprises a first surface parallel to the substrate and a second surface orthogonal to the first surface, and wherein the channeling angle is selected to result in: a first majority of crystalline grains at the first surface being oriented at a first plane orientation to have a first surface energy at the first surface; and a second majority of crystalline grains at the second surface oriented at a second plane orientation to have a second surface energy (paragraph 0060 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Carey discloses wherein the channeling angle is further selected to minimize the second surface energy (paragraph 0060 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Carey discloses wherein the channeling angle is further selected to minimize a weighted combination of the first and second surface energies based on surface size of the thin film structure (paragraph 0060 and Fig. 2).
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Carey et al. (US20070139826).
Regarding claim 6, Carey is silent about wherein another of the first and second angles is about 0°. However, Carey teaches that the angled ion milling is applied to induce desired anisotropic roughness or texture (paragraph 0059), and the angle condition depends on the type and characteristics of the ion source in use (paragraph 0061). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the angle condition based on the ion source characteristics to result in desired anisotropic roughness or texture. Additionally, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range by routine experimentation and there is no evidence of the criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Regarding claim 7, Carey discloses wherein the template material is an fcc metal (CoFe, paragraph 0055), and wherein the channeling angle is between 35° to 80° (paragraph 0061), which overlaps with the range recited in the instant claim. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05(I).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 11, the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a method comprising: depositing a first thickness T1 of a template material; ion beam milling the template material at a first angle to the substrate to remove a second thickness T2; and ion beam milling the template material at second angle different to the substrate than the first angle to remove a third thickness T3, wherein T2+T3<T1, wherein one of the first and second angles is a channeling angle. The closest cited prior art of Carey fails to disclose ion beam milling the template material at second angle different to the substrate than the first angle to remove a third thickness T3. None of the cited prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, discloses or renders obvious a method comprising the missing limitation.
Regarding claims 12-20, they are dependent on claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIONG-PING LU whose telephone number is (571) 270-1135. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00am – 5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua L Allen, can be reached at telephone number (571)270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/JIONG-PING LU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights