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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on July 9, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 July 9, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a spin-vortex structure [claim 5], an angle sensor [claim 11] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11, the claim states: “… an angle sensor coupled in series to the one or more magnetoresistive effect elements.” However, the specification does not in such full, clear, concise provide the above claimed invention. Using the publication of this application, US 2025/0264556A1, in paragraph [0071], it states: “The stacked structure S10B [which includes the magnetoresistive effect elements] may correspond to a structure in which a magnetic field intensity data detector and a magnetic field angle data detector are stacked in the z direction…” Also in paragraph [0072], it states: “In this way, in the magnetoresistive effect element 10B, the integrated stacked structure S10B helps to detect both intensity data and angle data on the external magnetic field.” Based on the above paragraphs, it appears the angle sensor is part of the magnetoresistive effect elements rather than “couple in series” as claimed.
For examination purposes, the examiner is not giving patentable subject matter to the limitation until further explanation and clarification is provide by the applicant.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Takano et al (US Pub 2023/0103619A1) in view of Tang et al (JP2018-195730A).
PNG
media_image1.png
427
385
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
579
403
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
871
581
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
400
700
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
433
669
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Takano et al disclose [see Figs. 1 & 3] a magnetoresistive effect element (magnetoresistive element 5) comprising a stacked structure [see Fig. 3] including a first magnetization free layer (first magnetic layer 51), a first nonmagnetic layer (nonmagnetic layer 52), and a second magnetization free layer (second magnetic layer 53) that are stacked in order in a stacking direction [see Fig. 3], wherein an outer edge of the stacked structure [shown but not numbered] along a plane orthogonal to the stacking direction has an isotropic shape [implicitly described in paragraph [0057]]. However, the prior art does not explicitly show an isotropic shape. Tang et al disclose [see Figs. 1-2 above] a magnetoresistive effect element (magnetoresistive effect element 10) comprising a stacked structure [see Figs 1-2 above] including a first magnetization free layer (ferromagnetic metal layer 3), a first nonmagnetic layer (nonmagnetic layer 2), and a second magnetization free layer (ferromagnetic metal layer 1) that are stacked in order in a stacking direction [see Figs. 1-2], wherein an outer edge of the stacked structure [shown but not numbered] along a plane orthogonal to the stacking direction has an isotropic shape [see Fig. 1]. Further, Tang et al teaches that the addition of isotropic shape is advantageous because the polarization direction of the polarized spin and the orientation direction of the first spin coincide with each other means that the main directions of the spin vectors coincide with each other. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to maybe modify the apparatus of Takano et al by having isotropic shape for the stack edge as taught by Tang et al in order to have directions of the spin vectors coincide with each other.
Regarding claim 2, Takano et al disclose wherein the first magnetization free layer (51) has an easy axis of magnetization along the stacking direction, and the second magnetization free layer (53) has a hard axis of magnetization along the stacking direction.
Regarding claim 3, Takano et al disclose wherein the first magnetization free layer (51) and the second magnetization free layer (53) each have an easy axis of magnetization along the stacking direction.
Regarding claim 5, Takano et al disclose wherein the second magnetization free layer (53) has a hard axis of magnetization along the stacking direction. However, the prior arts do not disclose the first magnetization free layer has a spin-vortex structure including a magnetization that spirals along the plane as claimed. It is well known to have different design shapes for the magnetization free layer where needed [see MPEP 2144.04 In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966)]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a magnetization free layer having a spin-vortex structure since it was held a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed magnetization free layer was significant.
Regarding claim 6, Takano et al disclose wherein the first magnetization free layer (51) and the second magnetization free layer (53) are antiferromagnetically coupled to each other.
Regarding claim 7, Takano et al disclose wherein an angle between a magnetization direction of the first magnetization free layer (51) and a magnetization direction of the second magnetization free layer (53) in a state where no external magnetic field is applied is greater than 90 degrees and less than or equal to 180 degrees.
Regarding claim 8, Takano et al disclose wherein the outer edge of the stacked structure has a circular shape [see Fig. 1 above].
Regarding claim 9, Takano et al disclose wherein an anisotropic magnetic field intensity of the first magnetization free layer (51) and an anisotropic magnetic field intensity of the second magnetization free layer (53) are different from each other.
Regarding claim 10, Takano et al disclose a magnetic field detection device comprising one or more magnetoresistive effect elements (magnetoresistive elements 5), wherein the one or more magnetoresistive effect elements (5) each include a stacked structure [see Fig. 3] including a first magnetization free layer (first magnetic layer 51), a first nonmagnetic layer (nonmagnetic layer 52), and a second magnetization free layer (second magnetic layer 53) that are stacked in order in a stacking direction [see Fig. 3], wherein an outer edge of the stacked structure [shown but not numbered] along a plane orthogonal to the stacking direction has an isotropic shape [implicitly described in paragraph [0057]]. However, the prior art does not explicitly show an isotropic shape. Tang et al disclose [see Figs. 1-2 above] a magnetoresistive effect element (magnetoresistive effect element 10) comprising a stacked structure [see Figs 1-2 above] including a first magnetization free layer (ferromagnetic metal layer 3), a first nonmagnetic layer (nonmagnetic layer 2), and a second magnetization free layer (ferromagnetic metal layer 1) that are stacked in order in a stacking direction [see Figs. 1-2], wherein an outer edge of the stacked structure [shown but not numbered] along a plane orthogonal to the stacking direction has an isotropic shape [see Fig. 1]. Further, Tang et al teaches that the addition of isotropic shape is advantageous because the polarization direction of the polarized spin and the orientation direction of the first spin coincide with each other means that the main directions of the spin vectors coincide with each other. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to maybe modify the apparatus of Takano et al by having isotropic shape for the stack edge as taught by Tang et al in order to have directions of the spin vectors coincide with each other.
Regarding claim 12, Takano et al disclose [see Fig. 9 above] a first terminal [node under V1 or V2] to be set to a first potential; a second terminal [node above G1 or G2] to be set to a second potential different from the first potential; and a bridge circuit (bridge circuit 14 or 24) disposed between the first terminal [node under G1 or G2] and the second terminal [node above G1 or G2], wherein the one or more magnetoresistive effect elements (5) include a first magnetoresistive effect element (R11, R12, R13 or R14) and a second magnetoresistive effect element (R11, R12, R13 or R14), and the bridge circuit (14 or 24) includes the first magnetoresistive effect element (R11, R12, R13 or R14) and the second magnetoresistive effect element (R11, R12, R13 or R14) [see paragraphs [0097]-[0098] for details].
Regarding claim 13, Takano et al disclose wherein the bridge circuit (14 or 24) includes a first fixed resistor (R11, R12, R13 or R14) and a second fixed resistor (R11, R12, R13 or R14) in addition to the first magnetoresistive effect element (R11, R12, R13 or R14) and the second magnetoresistive effect element (R11, R12, R13 or R14).
Regarding claim 17, Takano et al disclose wherein the outer edge of the stacked structure has a circular shape [see Fig. 1 above].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for details.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 14-16 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: regarding claim 4, the primary reason for the allowance of the claim is due to the stacked structure further includes a second nonmagnetic layer and a magnetization pinned layer that are stacked in order on a side, of the second magnetization free layer, opposite to the first nonmagnetic layer.
Regarding claim 14, the primary reason for the allowance of the claim is due to the third magnetoresistive effect element and the fourth magnetoresistive effect element each include a magnetization pinned layer, and a magnetization direction of the magnetization pinned layer of the third magnetoresistive effect element and a magnetization direction of the magnetization pinned layer of the fourth magnetoresistive effect element are opposite to each other.
Regarding claim 15, the primary reason for the allowance of the claim is due to wherein the one or more magnetoresistive effect elements are disposed between the first terminal and the bridge circuit, or between the second terminal and the bridge circuit, or disposed between the first terminal and the bridge circuit, and between the second terminal and the bridge circuit. Since claim 16 depends from claim 15, it also has allowable subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERMELE M HOLLINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-1960. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Lee E Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights