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 .
Drawings
The drawing corrections filed on March 18, 2026 have been approved by the Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s elected, without traverse of Invention I (Species II - Figures 6A-6G) in the reply filed on December 8, 2025
Claims 20 and newly presented claim 28 are currently withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 8, 2025.
As set forth in the Restriction Requirement mailed on October 24, 2025, as it pertains to the species restriction, upon the allowance of a generic claim, Applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-19 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following phrase(s) lack clear antecedent basis within the claim(s), i.e., either the particularly recited passage fails to be properly introduced prior to its appearance at that point in the claim or the structure recited in the passage is not an inherent part of or component of the previously recited structure:
(i) Claim 11 (line 11), "the media facing surface"; see also claim 16 (line 3).
(ii) Additionally, since claims 12-19 depend directly or indirectly from claim 11, they too are thus rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
(iii) Claim 21 (line 12), "the media facing surface"; see also claim 25 (line 3).
(iv) Additionally, since claims 22-27 depend directly or indirectly from claim 21, they too are thus rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) 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 responses, to fully consider the references in their 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
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.
Claims 11, 12, 14-19, 21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) in view of Luo et al. (US 9,147,404 B1).
As per claim 11 (and analogously, as per claim 21), Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) discloses a method of forming a dual free layer (DFL) read head (e.g. 300, 300a - see, inter alia, Figs. 3a, 4a, 5, 6), comprising: forming a DFL sensor (e.g., 302a, 302); defining a track width (e.g., the width of 302 as depicted in Fig. 5, approximately X2) of the DFL sensor (302, 302a), the DFL sensor (302, 302a) being disposed at a media facing surface (e.g., ABS); forming synthetic antiferromagnetic (SAF) soft bias (SB) side shields (e.g., 318a, 318) adjacent to the DFL sensor (302a, 302) (see Fig. 3a); defining a stripe height (vertical height as depicted in Fig. 5) of the DFL sensor (302a, 302 and the SAF SB side shields (e.g., 318a, 318), the stripe height of the DFL sensor and the SAF SB side shields (e.g., 318a, 318) being substantially equal (e.g. see Fig. 5, wherein the vertical heights of (302) and side shields (318) are substantially equal, in relation to the stripe height X); forming a rear bias (RB) (e.g., 506) adjacent to the DFL sensor (302a, 302) and the SAF SB side shields (e.g., 318a, 318) (e.g.. see Fig. 5 or Fig. 6), the RB (506) being recessed from the media facing surface (ABS - recessed in the vertical direction); and defining a track width (e.g., X2) of the RB (506).
As per claim 12, wherein the track width (X2) of the RB (506) is equal to or greater than the track width of the DFL sensor (302a, 302) - see Figs. 5 and 6.
As per claims 14 and 23, wherein a track width (e.g., Y) of the SAF SB side shields (e.g., 318a, 318) is greater than the track width (e.g., X) of the RB (506) - see Fig. 5.
As per claims 15 and 24, wherein a stripe height (e.g., Y2) of the RB (506) is greater than the stripe height (substantially equal to X) of the DFL sensor (302a, 302) and the SAF SB side shields (stripe height of X). See Fig. 5.
As per claims 16 and 25, further comprising depositing an insulating layer (e.g., "non-magnetic fill layer" and/or the electrically insulating layer (508) - see, inter alia, col. 6, ll. 50-53) adjacent to the RB (506) and the SAF SB side shields (e.g., 318a, 318), the insulating layer being recessed (extending away) from the media facing surface (ABS).
As per claims 17 and 26, wherein the SAF SB side shields (e.g., 318a, 318) comprise one or more of NiFe, CoFe and Ru (e.g., see col. 5, ll. 26-33), and wherein the RB (506) comprises CoPt as a rear hard bias, or NiFe, CoFe, or combinations thereof as a rear soft bias - see col. 6, ll. 54-64.
As per claims 18 and 27, wherein the SAF SB side shields (e.g., 318a, 318) are multilayer structures - (e.g., see col. 5, ll. 26-33) and Fig. 3a.
As per claim 19 and newly presented claim 21, wherein the DFL sensor comprises a first shield (e.g., 314), a seed layer disposed on the first shield (e.g., 314), a first free layer (304a) disposed on the seed layer (e.g., 312a), a barrier layer (e.g. 308a - col. 4, ll. 23-25) disposed on the first free layer (304a), a second free layer (e.g., 306a) disposed on the barrier layer (308a), a capping layer (e.g. 310a) disposed on the second free layer (306a), and a second shield (e.g., 316) disposed on the capping layer (310a) - Figs. 3a, 4a, and depositing a second shield over the DFL sensor, the SAF SB (e.g., 318, 318a) and the RB (e.g., 506) - see Figs. 4a, 7, etc..
As per amended claim 11 and newly presented claim 21, although Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) does not expressly disclose wherein the stripe height of the DFL sensor and the SAF SB side shields (e.g., 318a, 318) are exactly equal, such structure is well-known in the art.
As just one example, Luo et al. (US 9,147,404 B1) discloses an analogous method of forming a dual free layer (DFL) read head (e.g., 200), wherein as per amended claim 1 and newly presented claim 21, the dual free layer (DFL) read head (200) includes the stripe height of a DFL sensor (e.g., 210) and SAF SB side shields (e.g., 220, 220) as being equal (e.g., see, inter alia, Fig. 4B).
Additionally, as per newly presented claim 21, wherein the track width (W) of an RB (e.g., 260) is greater than the track width of the DFL sensor (e.g., 210) - see Fig. 4B.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the stripe height of the DFL sensor and the SAF SB side shields (e.g., 318a, 318) of Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) as being are exactly equal, since such a minor change of the structure of the DFL read head of Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1), does not change manner in which the sensor functions or operates (or is otherwise formed), and as evidenced by Luo et al. (US 9,147,404 B1), such a structure is well-known, established and appreciated in the art; additionally simply aligning the stripe heights of the DFL sensor and the SAF SB side shields ensures direct one-to-one biasing of the side shields with the free layers of the DFL sensor, with no overhang of the biasing side shields which may inadvertently affect other layers.
Claims 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) in view of Luo et al. (US 9,147,404 B1), as per claims 12 and 21, respectively above, and further in view of Keener et al. (US 2015/0002961 A1).
See the description of Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1), supra.
As per claims 13 and 22, Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) (in combination with Luo et al. (US 9,147,404 B1)) remains silent regrading wherein the track width of the DFL sensor is about 10 nm to about 30 nm, and wherein the track width of the RB is about 20 nm to about 60 nm.
Such features of DFL sensors and associated rear bias structure dimensions, are known in the art.
As just one example, Keener et al. (US 2015/0002961 A1) discloses an analogous dual free layer (including two free layers 304, 306) read head (e.g., 300), in the same field of endeavor as Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1)/Luo et al. (US 9,147,404 B1), wherein, as per claim 13 and claim 22, Keener et al. (US 2015/0002961 A1) discloses the track width of the DFL sensor is about 10 nm to about 30 nm (less than 40 nm), and wherein the track width of the RB is about 20 nm to about 60 nm (less than 40 nm). See paragraphs [0035, 0046] and Fig. 4 of Keener et al. (US 2015/0002961 A1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the track width of the DFL sensor of Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) (in combination with Luo et al. (US 9,147,404 B1)), as being about 10 nm to about 30 nm, and the track width of the RB of Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) as being about 20 nm to about 60 nm, as expressly suggested by Keener et al. (US 2015/0002961 A1), in order to advantageously "provid[e] adequate and sufficient bias field strength to maintain the proper bias configuration of a scissor sensor." See paragraph [0046] of Keener et al. (US 2015/0002961 A1).
Moreover, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention was effectively filed to satisfy the claimed range(s) and/or dimension(s), particularly in light of the teachings of Keener et al. (US 2015/0002961 A1) and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan, as a whole, through routine optimization/experimentation. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the Applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
The Supreme Court opined "[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentably." (Emphasis added) 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740.
The Examiner finds this situation analogous to the optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the "normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). As noted above, in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955), it was held that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes the application of a new reference (i.e., Luo et al. (US 9,147,404 B1)), which has been applied in the rejection, as articulated in detail, supra, meeting the newly added claim limitations with a supporting rationale, which has been combined with the previously applied art of record.
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 William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights