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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references as applied to the claims for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellwig et al. (US 2016/0099017).
Regarding claim 11, Hellwig discloses a magnetic recording medium comprising a substrate [0007], a heat sink layer on the substrate [0083], a bilayer underlayer [0084], which corresponds to the claimed underlayer (and interfacial layer per claim 1), and multiple magnetic layers [0112], which corresponds to the claimed first nucleation layer, second nucleation layer, and magnetic recording layer. Hellwig discloses that the magnetic layers includes FePtX, wherein X is Ag, as the magnetic grains [0079], and oxides and nitrides as the grain boundaries [0077-0078].
Although Hellwig teaches that underlayer comprises of TiN and MgTiOx, which is known in the art as MTO, and can be of a bilayer structure [0084], Hellwig fails to explicitly disclose that the bilayer underlayer is TiN/MgOTiO (MTO), wherein TiN is at the upper layer or second surface as presently claimed. Hellwig discloses other suitable materials could be used as the seed layer [0084]. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a bilayer with materials of TiN and MTO, wherein TiN is at the upper layer, as these materials are functional equivalent to each other and with reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, given that there is no TiN at the lower layer in MTO, Hellwig discloses a concentration of the TiN in the underlayer is higher at the second surface than at the first surface.
Regarding claim 12, Hellwig discloses that the interfacial layer is directly on the underlayer as set forth above. The limitation “formed of Ti from the underlayer and N2 during sputtering of the first nucleation layer”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). Hellwig discloses a TiN layer as set forth above.
Regarding claims 13-17 and 19, Hellwig discloses the oxide and nitride materials a claimed [0077-0078].
Regarding claim 18, Hellwig discloses the Ag concentration as claimed [0119].
Regarding claim 20, in light of Hellwig’s disclosure that onset layer is optional [0109] and additional layer is present above the heat sink layer, which corresponds to the claimed thermal barrier layer [0086], Hellwig discloses the stack of the magnetic recording medium as claimed.
Claims 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hellwig et al. (US 2016/0099017) in view of Ho et al. (US 2022/0139422).
Regarding claim 11, Hellwig discloses a magnetic recording medium comprising a substrate [0007], a heat sink layer on the substrate [0083], a bilayer underlayer [0084], which corresponds to the claimed underlayer and interfacial layer, and multiple magnetic layers [0112], which corresponds to the claimed first nucleation layer, second nucleation layer, and magnetic recording layer. Hellwig discloses that the magnetic layers includes FePtX, wherein X is Ag, as the magnetic grains [0079], and oxides and nitrides as the grain boundaries [0077-0078]. Although Hellwig teaches that underlayer comprises of TiN and MgTiOx, which is known in the art as MTO, and can be of a bilayer structure [0084], Hellwig fails to explicitly disclose that the bilayer underlayer is TiN/MgOTiO as presently claimed.
Ho discloses a magnetic recording medium comprising TiN layer (256) / MTO layer (252) between a magnetic recording layer and a heat-sink layer (Fig. 4, [0030]). Ho discloses that this layer structure allows for reduced laser power while still achieving a high thermal gradient [0008].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hellwig’s underlayer to be of TiN/MTO bilayer, as suggested by Ho, in order to obtain optimal R/W properties [0007-0008]. Therefore, given that there is no TiN at the lower layer in MTO, Hellwig in view of Ho discloses a concentration of the TiN in the underlayer is higher at the second surface than at the first surface.
Regarding claim 12, Hellwig in view of Ho discloses that the interfacial layer is directly on the underlayer as set forth above. The limitation “formed of Ti from the underlayer and N2 during sputtering of the first nucleation layer”, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.”, (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964,966). Once the Examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be the same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious different between the claimed product and the prior art product (In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983), MPEP 2113). Hellwig in view of Ho discloses a TiN layer as set forth above.
Regarding claim 13-17, and 19, Hellwig discloses the oxide and nitride materials as claimed [0077-0078].
Regarding claim 18, Hellwig discloses the Ag concentration as claimed [0119].
Regarding claim 20, in light of Hellwig’s disclosure that onset layer is optional [0109] and additional layer is present above the heat sink layer, which corresponds to the claimed thermal barrier layer [0086], Hellwig discloses the stack of the magnetic recording medium as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 and 28 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the closest prior art of record Hellwig discloses a magnetic recording medium comprising a substrate [0007], a heat sink layer on the substrate [0083], a bilayer underlayer [0084], which corresponds to the claimed underlayer (and interfacial layer per claim 1), and multiple magnetic layers [0112], which corresponds to the claimed first nucleation layer, second nucleation layer, and magnetic recording layer. Hellwig discloses that the magnetic layers include FePtX, wherein X is Ag, as the magnetic grains [0079], and oxides and nitrides as the grain boundaries [0077-0078].
Although Hellwig discloses a bilayer comprises of MTO and TiN, Hellwig fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render obvious a TiN that is directly over a MTO, wherein Ti is concentrated at a second or upper surface of the underlayer and a concentration of the Ti of the TiN layer (interfacial layer) is higher than a concentration of Ti in the underlayer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive regarding to claims 11-20.
Applicant argues that claim 11 requires more than a TiN/MTO layer arrangement as applicant argues that it requires TiN concentrated at the second surface of an underlayer that comprises MgO-TiO and TiN, and a TiN concentration profile within that underlayer. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner contends that claim 11 does not require a TiN gradient concentration in a MTOTIN underlayer but rather requires a concentration of the TiN in the underlayer is higher at the second surface than at the first surface. The instant specification discloses a TiN layer directly over a MTO layer [0030-0031]. This is essentially a bilayer or an underlayer comprises of two sublayers. Given that Hellwig (in view of Ho) discloses a TiN/MTO underlayer, which is a bilayer, the examiner maintains that Hellwig discloses a concentration of the TiN in the underlayer is higher at the second surface than at the first surface as claimed. This is because there is no TiN at the lower MTO layer.
As to applicant’s arguments directed to dependent claims as being patentable due to their dependency to claim 11, the rejection of claim 11 is being maintained. Applicants have not separately argued the patentability of the dependent claims. Thus, dependent claims are also being rejected.
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 LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights