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
Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of “Species VI, Figures 8A-8B, claims 1, 4-11, and 13-20,” in the reply filed on 30 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claim 16, however, does not read on elected Species VI of FIGS. 8A and 8B as this species does not include “wherein the first lead, the second lead, and the third lead are recessed from a media facing surface.”
With respect to the traversal, the traversal is on the ground(s) “that claim 1 is generic to each of Species II, Species III, Species IV, Species V, and Species VI, and claim 11 is generic to at least Species IV and Species V. Moreover, at least claims 1, 4, 5, 7-11, and 14-20 are generic to Species IV and Species VI, and at least claims 1, 3, and 6 are generic to Species V and Species VI. As such, a search for at least Species II-VI would overlap. At a minimum, searching for at least Species IV-VI would not require a different field of search, would not necessitate search queries tailored to different structures, and thus, would not be a burden for the Examiner.”
This argument, however, is not found to be persuasive because each of the various disclosed species details a mutually exclusive characteristic of a head as evidenced by the representation of each various species with a different figure or set of figures. A search for one of these mutually exclusive characteristics is not coextensive with a search for the other mutually exclusive characteristics and therefore searching for all mutually exclusive characteristics could not be done without serious burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Accordingly, claims 2, 3, 12, 16 and 21-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to one or more non-elected inventions/ species, there being no allowable generic or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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 25 June 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. The drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include one or more reference characters not mentioned in the description. Note, for instance, 241 (shown in FIG. 2).
b. In FIG. 2, reference character 212 should be drawn to the “MFS,” i.e., “media facing surface,” in order to be consistent with the remainder of the disclosure.
c. In FIG. 2, left-most reference character 254 should be removed as it is not drawn to the gap “between the main pole 220 and the trailing shield 240” as detailed in lines 8-9 of paragraph [0029].
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or an amendment to the specification 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 § 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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kief et al. (US 9,218,823).
Kief et al. (US 9,218,823) teach a read head (includes 50, see FIGS. 2A-2D, for instance) comprising a bottom shield (60, see line 15, in column 4, for instance); a first lead (62, see line 38 in column 4, for instance) disposed over the bottom shield (as shown in FIG. 2D, for instance); a second lead (64, see line 38 in column 4, for instance) disposed adjacent to the first lead (as shown in FIGS. 2C and 2D, for instance); a third lead (corresponding to reader stack 802, see FIG. 8A, for instance) disposed adjacent to the second lead (corresponding to reader stack 801, for instance, see lines 38-39 in column 10, for instance, i.e., “electrical coupling and shielding of the reader stacks 800-802 may be configured as shown in… FIGS. 2A-2D”); a sensing layer (54b, see line 12 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “AF layer” may be considered a sensing layer as it is a layer in a sensing device) disposed in contact with at least the second lead (as shown in FIG. 2B, for instance); a free layer (54e, see line 13 in column 4, for instance) disposed over the sensing layer (as shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B, for instance); a first side shield (70, see lines 17-18 in column 4, for instance) disposed adjacent to the free layer (as shown in FIG. 2A, for instance); a second side shield (72, see lines 17-18 in column 4, for instance) disposed adjacent to the free layer (as shown in FIG. 2A, for instance); and a top shield (66, see line 58 in column 4, for instance) disposed over the free layer and the first and second side shields (as shown in FIG. 2A, for instance) [as per claim 1]; wherein the read head is a component of a magnetic recording device (as shown in FIG. 1A, for instance) [as per claim 10].
Claims 1, 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Le et al. (US 11,437,061).
Le et al. (US 11,437,061) teach a read head (400, see FIGS. 4 and 8, for instance) comprising a bottom shield (401, see line 24 in column 6, for instance); a first lead (right-most 405 in FIG. 4, see line 25 in column 6, for instance) disposed over the bottom shield (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance); a second lead (left-most 405 in FIG. 4, see line 25 in column 6, for instance) disposed adjacent to the first lead (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance); a third lead disposed adjacent to the second lead (corresponding to one of the “additional read sensors 410” detailed in lines 27-36 in column 14, for instance); a sensing layer (411, see line 37 in column 6, for instance, i.e., “buffer layer” may be considered a sensing layer as it is a layer in a sensing device) disposed in contact with at least the second lead (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance); a free layer (413, see line 40 in column 6, for instance) disposed over the sensing layer (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance); a first side shield (left-most 420 in FIG. 4, see line 43 in column 6, for instance) disposed adjacent to the free layer (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance); a second side shield (central 420 in FIG. 4, see line 43 in column 6, for instance) disposed adjacent to the free layer (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance); and a top shield (403, see lines 24-25 in column 6, for instance) disposed over the free layer and the first and second side shields (as shown in FIGS. 4 and 8, for instance) [as per claim 1]; wherein the sensing layer and the free layer collectively provide sensing of an external magnetic field via one of an inverse spin Hall effect, a spin Hall effect, or an anomalous Hall effect (i.e., “a spin Hall effect,” for instance, due to “buffer layer 411” being “nonmagnetic and… formed of… tantalum (Ta),” which is a spin Hall material, see lines 55-57 in column 6, for instance) [as per claim 7]; wherein the sensing layer comprises a topological insulator, a topological semi-metal, or a spin Hall material (see lines 55-57 in column 6, for instance, i.e., “buffer layer 411… is formed of… tantalum (Ta),” which is a spin Hall material) [as per claim 8]; and wherein the read head is a component of a magnetic recording device (100, see FIGS. 1 and 2, see line 17 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “storage device 100 is a magnetic media drive”) [as per claim 10].
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.
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 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kief et al. (US 9,218,823).
Kief et al. (US 9,218,823) teach the read head as detailed in paragraph 6, supra, further wherein the sensing layer (54b) has a length (as shown in FIG. 2A, for instance), and wherein the free layer (54e) is disposed at a media facing surface (56, as shown in FIG. 2A, for instance, see lines 61-62 in column 3, for instance) [as per claim 5]; and the sensing layer (54) comprises an antiferromagnetic material (see lines 7 and 12 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “AF layer” includes “antiferromagnetic” material) [as per claim 9].
Kief et al. (US 9,218,823), however, further remain silent as to the length being “about 5 nm to about 1 µm” as per claim 5, and the antiferromagnetic material be one “with large anomalous Hall effect” as per claim 9.
Official notice is taken of the fact that it is notoriously old and well known in the read head art to modify the parameters of read head components during the course of routine optimization/experimentation. Official notice is also taken of the fact that IrMn, which has a large anomalous Hall effect, is a notoriously old and well known antiferromagnetic material in the read head art. 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 length in Kief et al. (US 9,218,823) be about 5 nm to about 1 µm, and the antiferromagnetic material in Kief et al. (US 9,218,823) be one with large anomalous Hall effect. The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the length in Kief et al. (US 9,218,823) be about 5 nm to about 1 µm since such a range, absent any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is 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).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the antiferromagnetic material be one with large anomalous Hall effect since IrMn, which has a large anomalous Hall effect, is a notoriously old and well known antiferromagnetic material in the read head art, and selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 4, 11, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le et al. (US 11,437,061) in view of Braganca et al. (US 8,164,861).
With respect to claim 4, Le et al. (US 11,437,061) teach the read head as detailed in paragraph 7, supra.
With respect to claims 11, 15 and 17-20, Le et al. (US 11,437,061) teach a read head (400, see FIGS. 4 and 8, for instance) comprising a bottom shield (401, see line 24 in column 6, for instance); a first lead (left-most 405 in FIG. 4, see line 25 in column 6, for instance); a second lead (right-most 405 in FIG. 4, see line 25 in column 6, for instance) disposed over the bottom shield adjacent to the first lead (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance); a third lead disposed over the bottom shield adjacent to the first lead (corresponding to one of the “additional read sensors 410” detailed in lines 27-36 in column 14, for instance); a sensing layer (411, see line 37 in column 6, for instance, i.e., “buffer layer” may be considered a sensing layer as it is a layer in a sensing device) disposed in contact with at least the first lead (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance); a free layer (413, see line 40 in column 6, for instance) disposed over the sensing layer (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance); a first side shield (left-most 420 in FIG. 4, see line 43 in column 6, for instance) disposed adjacent to the free layer (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance); a second side shield (central 420 in FIG. 4, see line 43 in column 6, for instance) disposed adjacent to the free layer (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance); and a top shield (403, see lines 24-25 in column 6, for instance) disposed over the free layer and the first and second side shields (as shown in FIGS. 4 and 8, for instance) [as per claim 11]; wherein the first lead, the second lead, and the third lead are disposed at a media facing surface (as shown in FIGS. 4 and 8, for instance) [as per claim 15]; wherein the second lead is spaced from the first lead and the third lead a distance (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance) [as per claim 17]; wherein the sensing layer and the free layer collectively provide sensing of an external magnetic field via one of an inverse spin Hall effect, a spin Hall effect, or an anomalous Hall effect (i.e., “a spin Hall effect,” for instance, due to “buffer layer 411” being “nonmagnetic and… formed of… tantalum (Ta),” which is a spin Hall material, see lines 55-57 in column 6, for instance) [as per claim 18]; wherein the sensing layer comprises a topological insulator, a topological semi-metal, or a spin Hall material (see lines 55-57 in column 6, for instance, i.e., “buffer layer 411… is formed of… tantalum (Ta),” which is a spin Hall material) [as per claim 19]; and wherein the read head is a component of a magnetic recording device (100, see FIGS. 1 and 2, see line 17 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “storage device 100 is a magnetic media drive”) [as per claim 20].
Le et al. (US 11,437,061), however, further remain silent as to “wherein the bottom shield comprises the second lead” as per claim 4, or “the bottom shield comprising [the] first lead” as per claims 11, 15 and 17-20, and the distance being “less than or equal to about 1 µm” as per claim 17.
Braganca et al. (US 8,164,861) teach that a shield comprising a lead is a notoriously old and well known shield configuration (see lines 34-37 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “shields… can be made of an electrically conductive, magnetic material such as NiFe so that they can function as electrical leads as well as magnetic shields”). Official notice is taken of the fact that it is notoriously old and well known in the read head art to modify the parameters of read head 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 bottom shield of Le et al. (US 11,437,061) comprise the first or second lead as taught/suggested by Braganca et al. (US 8,164,861), and to have had the distance in Le et al. (US 11,437,061) be less than or equal to about 1 µm. The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the bottom shield of Le et al. (US 11,437,061) comprise the first or second lead as taught/ suggested by Braganca et al. (US 8,164,861) since a shield comprising a lead is a notoriously old and well known shield configuration as shown by Braganca et al. (US 8,164,861), and selecting a known shield configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the distance in Le et al. (US 11,437,061) be less than or equal to about 1 µm since such a range, absent any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is 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).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Le et al. (US 11,437,061) in view of Braganca et al. (US 8,164,861) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hasegawa (US 6,952,328).
Le et al. (US 11,437,061) in view of Braganca et al. (US 8,164,861) teach/ suggest the read head as detailed in paragraph 11, supra.
Le et al. (US 11,437,061), however, further remain silent as to the read head “further comprising a rear bias disposed adjacent to the free layer, the rear bias being recessed from a media facing surface.”
Hasegawa (US 6,952,328) teach that a read head (FIG. 9, for instance) further comprising a rear bias (33) that is disposed adjacent to a free layer (67) and recessed from a media facing surface (as shown in FIG. 9, for instance) is a notoriously old and well known free layer magnetization biasing configuration. 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 read head of Le et al. (US 11,437,061) further comprising a rear bias disposed adjacent to the free layer, the rear bias being recessed from a media facing surface, as taught/suggested by Hasegawa (US 6,952,328). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the read head of Le et al. (US 11,437,061) further comprising a rear bias disposed adjacent to the free layer, the rear bias being recessed from a media facing surface, as taught/ suggested by Hasegawa (US 6,952,328) since such is a notoriously old and well known free layer magnetization biasing configuration, and selecting a known free layer magnetization biasing configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes Maat et al. (US 8,208,228), Braganca et al. (US 8,259,409), Braganca et al. (US 8,432,644), Edelman et al. (US 8,786,987), Edelman et al. (US 9,142,232), Singleton et al. (US 9,633,679), and Kief et al. (US 9,672,849), which each individually teaches one or more read head lead configurations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 13 are 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
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