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 .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2025 and 07/29/2024 are considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 discloses “acute angel” in the last line of the claim. Examiners recommends “acute angle”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-11, 16, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Mather (US 20140266187), hereinafter ‘Mather’.
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Mather discloses a magnetic sensor comprising: a substrate including a reference plane (Fig. 13, substrate 13 with plane); a support member disposed on the substrate (Fig. 13, support 120 on substrate 115), the support member including an inclined surface inclined with respect to the reference plane (Fig. 13, incline surface of 120 in contact with elements 116; Fig. 2, slopes 101/102) of Claim 16 wherein the support member further includes a slope, and the inclined surface is a wall surface of the slope (Figs. 2 and 13); and a magnetic detection element disposed on the inclined surface (Fig. 13, ferromagnetic sense elements 116; Para [0034]; Para [0022] disclosing enlarged view of ferromagnetic sense elements 105, 107, 108, 109 formed on angled surfaces), the magnetic detection element having a long shape in one direction (Fig. 13, 116; Fig. 3, 105, 107, 108, 109) wherein: the magnetic detection element includes (see annotated Fig. 3 below): a top surface; a side surface located at an end in a short-side direction of the magnetic detection element, the side surface including an upper end; and a first non-constant portion in which at least a part of the upper end of the first side surface is linear (Fig. 3, upper end of side surface as annotated is linear towards annotated 1st non-constant portion), and a gap between the upper end of the side surface and a center of the top surface in the short-side direction becomes smaller along a longitudinal direction of the magnetic detection element (Fig. 3, as annotated discloses gap smaller in short side direction smaller).
PNG
media_image1.png
235
948
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Mather further discloses wherein the upper end of the side surface constitutes a part of an outer edge of the top surface (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
235
948
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 3 and 5, Mather further discloses wherein the side surface is located at a position forward in a first direction, the first direction being a direction along the inclined surface (Fig. 3 as annotated below; direction along inclined surface is up/inclined) and also being a direction away from the reference plane (Fig. 13, reference plane of substrate 13).
PNG
media_image3.png
235
948
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and of Claim 5, wherein the side surface is located at a position forward in a second direction, the second direction being a direction along the inclined surface (Fig. 3 as annotated below; direction along inclined surface is down the incline/decline) and also being a direction closer to the reference plane (Fig. 13, decline direction is closer to reference plane of substrate 13).
PNG
media_image4.png
235
968
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 4 and 6, Mather further discloses wherein the side surface further includes a lower end; and the lower end of the side surface is located at a position forward of the upper end of the side surface in the first direction and of Claim 6, wherein: the side surface further includes a lower end; and the lower end of the side surface is located at a position forward of the upper end of the side surface in the second direction (Fig. 13, as annotated below).
PNG
media_image5.png
346
452
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Mather further discloses wherein the magnetic detection element further includes a constant portion in which the upper end of the side surface is linear and a gap between the upper end of the side surface and the center of the top surface in the short-side direction is constant along the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3, annotated below. Gap between upper end and in center is constant, along with linear upper end side surface).
PNG
media_image6.png
235
968
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, Mather further discloses wherein an edge is formed between the upper end of the first non-constant portion and the upper end of the constant portion (Fig. 3, angled/joint interpreted as edge between upper end of side surface and 1st non-constant portion as annotated above).
Regarding Claim 9, Mather further discloses wherein the magnetic detection element further includes a second non-constant portion that is disposed at a position where the constant portion is sandwiched between the first non-constant portion and the second non-constant portion and in which the upper end of the side surface is linear and a gap between the upper end of the side surface and the center of the top surface in the short-side direction becomes smaller along the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3, as annotated below, with 2nd non-constant portion and smaller gap).
PNG
media_image7.png
238
968
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Mather further discloses wherein the second non-constant portion has a shape symmetrical to a shape of the first non-constant portion about a virtual plane as a center, the virtual plane crossing the magnetic detection element and being orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3 as annotated below with approx. line of symmetry along longitudinal direction).
PNG
media_image8.png
238
968
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 11, Mather further discloses wherein a maximum value of a dimension of the side surface in a first cross section crossing the first non-constant portion and orthogonal to the longitudinal direction is larger than a maximum value of a dimension of the side surface in a second cross section crossing the constant portion and orthogonal to the longitudinal direction (Fig. 3, as annotated above, digitated lines orthogonal to longitudinal direction showing one larger along cross section and one smaller along cross section).
Regarding Claim 17, Mather discloses a magnetic sensor comprising: a substrate including a reference plane (Fig. 13, substrate 13 with plane); a support member disposed on the substrate (Fig. 13, support 120 on substrate 115), the support member including an inclined surface inclined with respect to the reference plane (Fig. 13, incline surface of 120 in contact with elements 116; Fig. 2, slopes 101/102); and a magnetic detection element disposed on the inclined surface (Fig. 13, ferromagnetic sense elements 116; Para [0034]; Para [0022] disclosing enlarged view of ferromagnetic sense elements 105, 107, 108, 109 formed on angled surfaces), the magnetic detection element having an upper end in contact with the top surface; the magnetic detection element at least includes (see annotated Fig. 3 below): a first portion in which a width of the top surface does not vary along the first direction and a second portion in which the width of the top surface becomes gradually smaller with decreasing distance to an end portion of the magnetic detection element in the first direction, when seen in a thickness direction of the magnetic detection element; and an angle formed by a first extension line of the top surface of the first portion from a position where the first portion is contact with the second portion towards the end portion of the magnetic detection element and a second extension line of the top surface of the first portion from the position where the first portion is contact with the second portion towards the end portion of the magnetic detection element is an acute angel.
PNG
media_image9.png
244
960
media_image9.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mather (US 20140266187), hereinafter ‘Mather’ as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lei et al. (US 20140247042), hereinafter ‘Lei’.
Regarding Claims 12-14, Mather fails to explicitly disclose wherein the magnetic detection element includes a plurality of stacked magnetic layers, and is configured such that a current flows in a stacking direction of the plurality of magnetic layers, wherein the plurality of magnetic layers include a free layer and a magnetization pinned layer, the free layer having a magnetization whose direction is variable depending on an external magnetic field, the magnetization pinned layer having a magnetization whose direction is fixed, the magnetization pinned layer being provided between the free layer and the inclined surface, and further comprising a coil configured to apply a magnetic field in a predetermined direction to the free layer.
Lei discloses a magnetic field sensor includes a plurality of stacked magnetic layers (Para [0044]), and is configured such that a current flows in a stacking direction of the plurality of magnetic layers (Para [0061]), of Claim 13 wherein the plurality of magnetic layers include a free layer and a magnetization pinned layer (Para [0044, 0062]), the free layer having a magnetization whose direction is variable depending on an external magnetic field (Para [0047] The free ferromagnetic layer 6 is composed of a ferromagnetic material, and the magnetization direction of the ferromagnetic free layer is able to change in response to an external magnetic field), the magnetization pinned layer having a magnetization whose direction is fixed (Para [0047] The ferromagnetic pinning layer 2 has a magnetization direction that is pinned in one direction, and it does not change under general operating conditions), the magnetization pinned layer (Figs. 1 and 2, pinned layer 2) being provided between the free layer (Figs. 1 and 2, free layer 6) and the inclined surface (Fig. 13, substrate 18 with inclined surface; Para [0076] MJT sensors built on surface), and of Claim 14 further comprising a coil configured to apply a magnetic field in a predetermined direction to the free layer (Para [0061]) for the benefit of providing a highly integrated sensor with high sensitivity, low power consumption, good linearity, wide dynamic range, excellent thermal stability, and low magnetic noise (Abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine wherein the magnetic detection element includes a plurality of stacked magnetic layers, and is configured such that a current flows in a stacking direction of the plurality of magnetic layers, wherein the plurality of magnetic layers include a free layer and a magnetization pinned layer, the free layer having a magnetization whose direction is variable depending on an external magnetic field, the magnetization pinned layer having a magnetization whose direction is fixed, the magnetization pinned layer being provided between the free layer and the inclined surface, and further comprising a coil configured to apply a magnetic field in a predetermined direction to the free layer for the benefit of providing a highly integrated sensor with high sensitivity, low power consumption, good linearity, wide dynamic range, excellent thermal stability, and low magnetic noise as taught by Lei in Figs. 1, 2, 13, Para [0044, 0047, 61-62, 76 and in the Abstract.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mather (US 20140266187), hereinafter ‘Mather’ in view of Lei et al. (US 20140247042), hereinafter ‘Lei’ as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kong (US 20130207646), hereinafter ‘Kong’.
Regarding Claim 15, Mather in view of Lei disclose the sensor according to Claim 14 above. Mather and Lei fail to explicitly disclose wherein the coil overlaps at least a part of the first non-constant portion when seen in one direction perpendicular to the reference plane.
Kong discloses a coil overlapping a magnetoresistance sensor on a substrate for the benefit of introducing a current and establishing a magnetic field used for the magnetoresistance sensor (Para [0036]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine wherein the coil overlaps the magnetoresistance sensor on a substrate for the benefit of introducing a current and establishing a magnetic field used for the magnetoresistance sensor as taught by Kong in Para [0036].
Further Mather in view of Lei in view of Kong discloses the claimed invention except for overlapping at least a part of the first non-constant portion when seen in one direction perpendicular to the reference plane. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to overlap at least a part of the first non-constant portion when seen in one direction perpendicular to the reference plane, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 8 USPQ 70.
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALESA ALLGOOD whose telephone number is (571)270-5811. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 AM-3:30 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, Eman Alkafawi can be reached at (571) 272-4448. 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.
/ALESA ALLGOOD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858