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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 13, 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 January 20, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 13, 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) 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.
(ii) With regard to page 16 (line 16), the term "n the magnetic heads" should be changed to the term --In the magnetic heads--. Appropriate correction is required.
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 Objections/Suggestive Changes
Claims 12, 13, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to claim 12 (lines 4 and 6), the term "non-magnetic" should be changed to the term --nonmagnetic-- in order to remain consistent with preceding and/or subsequently recited claim terminology.
(ii) With regard to claim 13 (line 5), the term "non-magnetic" should be changed to the term --nonmagnetic-- in order to remain consistent with preceding and/or subsequently recited claim terminology.
(iii) With regard to claim 16, the Applicant should consider changing the claim language to set forth a "controller" or "electric circuit" that is connected/couple to the magnetic head, and is configured to carry out the claimed functional/method/intended use steps set forth in clam 16, which would afford the product claim enhanced patentable weight consideration, in lieu of setting forth an intended use or mere capability of the magnetic head, per se.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-9, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US 2022/0270641 A1) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1).
As per claim 1, Nakagawa et al. (US 2022/0270641 A1) discloses a magnetic head (e.g., 110 - see Figs. 1A, 1B, 2), comprising: a first magnetic pole (e.g., 31); a second magnetic pole (e.g. 32) ; a magnetic element (e.g., 20) provided between the first magnetic pole (31) and the second magnetic pole (32) in a first direction (e.g., D1) from the first magnetic pole (31) to the second magnetic pole (32), the magnetic element (20) including (see Figs. 1A-1B): a first magnetic layer (e.g., 21) provided between the first magnetic pole (31) and the second magnetic pole (32), a second magnetic layer (e.g., 22) provided between the first magnetic layer (21) and the second magnetic pole (32), a third magnetic layer (e.g., 23) provided between the second magnetic layer (22) and the second magnetic pole (32), and a fourth magnetic layer (e.g., 24) provided between the third magnetic layer (23) and the second magnetic pole (32), the first magnetic layer (21) including a first face facing the first magnetic pole (31), the fourth magnetic layer (24) including a second face facing the second magnetic pole (32).
As per claim 5, wherein the magnetic element (20) includes: a first nonmagnetic layer (e.g., 41) provided between the first magnetic pole (31) and the first magnetic layer (21); a second nonmagnetic layer (e.g., 42) provided between the first magnetic layer (21) and the second magnetic layer (22); a third nonmagnetic layer (e.g., 43) provided between the second magnetic layer (22) and the third magnetic layer (23); a fourth nonmagnetic layer (e.g., 44) provided between the third magnetic layer (23) and the fourth magnetic layer (24); and a fifth nonmagnetic layer (e.g., 45) provided between the fourth magnetic layer (24) and the second magnetic pole (32).
As per claim 6, wherein the first nonmagnetic layer (41) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Au, Cr, V, Al, and Ag (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0036]), the second nonmagnetic layer (42) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ru, Ir, Ta, Rh, Pd, Pt, and W (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0037]), the third nonmagnetic layer (43) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Au, Cr, V, Al, and Ag (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0037]); the fourth nonmagnetic layer (44) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Au, Cr, V, Al, and Ag (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0037]), and the fifth nonmagnetic layer (45) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ru, Ir, Ta, Rh, Pd, Pt, and W (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0036]).
As per claim 7, wherein a first thickness (t1) of the first magnetic layer (21) along the first direction (D1) is thicker than a second thickness (t2) of the second magnetic layer (22) along the first direction (D1), and a third thickness (t3) of the third magnetic layer (23) along the first direction (D1) is thicker than a fourth thickness (t4) of the fourth magnetic layer along the first direction (D1) - see paragraph [0043].
As per claim 8, wherein the first nonmagnetic layer (41) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Au, Cr, V, Al, and Ag (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0036]), the second nonmagnetic layer (42) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Au, Cr, V, Al, and Ag (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0037]), the third nonmagnetic layer (43) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ru, Ir, Ta, Rh, Pd, Pt, and W (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0037]), the fourth nonmagnetic layer (44) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Au, Cr, V, Al, and Ag (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0037]), and the fifth nonmagnetic layer (45) includes at least one selected from the group consisting of Ru, Ir, Ta, Rh, Pd, Pt, and W (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0036]).
As per claim 9, wherein a first thickness (t1) of the first magnetic layer (21) along the first direction (D1) is thicker than a second thickness (t2) of the second magnetic layer (22) along the first direction (D1), and a third thickness (t3) of the third magnetic layer (23) along the first direction (D1) is thicker than a fourth thickness (t4) of the fourth magnetic layer along the first direction (D1) - see paragraph [0043].
As per claim 12, wherein the first nonmagnetic layer (41) is in contact with the first magnetic pole (31) and the first magnetic layer (21), the second nonmagnetic layer (42) is in contact with the first magnetic layer (21) and the second magnetic layer (22), the third nonmagnetic layer (43) is in contact with the second magnetic layer (22) and the third magnetic layer (23), the fourth nonmagnetic layer (44) is in contact with the third magnetic layer (23) and the fourth magnetic layer (24), and the fifth nonmagnetic layer (45) is in contact with the fourth magnetic layer (24) and the second magnetic pole (32).
As per claim 16, the claim limitations "wherein a first operation and a second operation are performed, in the first operation, an element current supplied between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole flows from the first magnetic pole to the second magnetic pole, and in the second operation, the element current flows from the second magnetic pole to the first magnetic pole" are considered method/functional/intended use limitations that are performed on the product of a magnetic head, and do not in any way impose any structural limitations on the claimed magnetic head. Since the magnetic head of Nakagawa et al. (US 2022/0270641 A1) has the capability of performing such method/functional/intended use limitations (current flows in the magnetic element between the poles (31, 32), via electric circuit (20D)), it is seen to meet such non-structural, method/functional/intended use limitations.
As set forth in MPEP 2114, "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
It is well settled that the recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable. See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("The discovery of a new property or use of a previously known composition, even when that property and use are unobvious from prior art, cannot impart patentability to claims to the known composition."); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 782, 227 USPQ 773, 778 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (composition claim reciting a newly discovered property of an old alloy did not satisfy section 102 because the alloy itself was not new); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1403, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974) (intended use of an old composition does not render composition claim patentable); In re Zierden, 411 F.2d 1325, 1328, 162 USPQ 102, 104 (CCPA 1969) ("[M]ere statement of a new use for an otherwise old or obvious composition cannot render a claim to the composition patentable."); In re Sinex, 309 F.2d 488, 492, 135 USPQ 302, 305 (CCPA 1962) (statement of intended use in an apparatus claim failed to distinguish over the prior art apparatus); In re Hack, 245 F.2d 246, 248, 114 USPQ 161, 162 (CCPA 1957) ("the grant of a patent on a composition or a machine cannot be predicated on a new use of that machine or composition":); In re Benner, 174 F.2d 938, 942, 82 USPQ 49, 53 (CCPA 1949) ("no provision has been made in the patent statutes for granting a patent upon an old product based solely upon discovery of a new use for such product").
As per claim 1, however, Nakagawa et al. (US 2022/0270641 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein and a first area of the first face being larger than a second area of the second face. Nakagawa et al. (US 2022/0270641 A1) further remains silent with regard to the features of claims 2-4
However, such features in magnetic heads having such magnetic elements (including microwave assisted magnetic recording STOs) disposed between first/second magnetic poles are known in the art.
As just one example, as per claim 1, Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1) discloses an analogous magnetic head, in the same field of endeavor as Nakagawa et al. (US 2022/0270641 A1), wherein a corresponding first magnetic layer (e.g., 12 - magnetic layer of STO closest to corresponding first magnetic write pole (61)) includes a first face facing the first magnetic pole (61), the corresponding (fourth) magnetic layer (e.g., 14) includes a second face facing the corresponding second magnetic pole (trailing shield (81)), wherein and a first area of the first face (face of 12) facing (61)) being larger than a second area of the second face (face of (14) facing (81) - see Figs. 7, 8).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the first magnetic layer (21) of Nakagawa et al. (US 2022/0270641 A1) as including the first face facing the first magnetic pole (31), the fourth magnetic layer (24) as including the second face facing the second magnetic pole (32), such that a first area of the first face being larger than a second area of the second face, as expressly suggested by Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1), in order to advantageously "cause the spin torque oscillator 10 to oscillate well and to generate a magnetic field (microwave magnetic field) of sufficient intensity." See col. 11, ll. 1-37 of Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Additionally, as per claim 2, Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1) further discloses wherein the first magnetic pole (61) includes a medium facing face (e.g., the surface in the plane of Fig. 7), a first length (e.g., WFGL) of the first face along a second direction (Y -direction) is longer than a second length of the second face (e.g., the length of the upper surface of (14) closest to pole (81) as seen in Fig. 7) along the second direction (Y -direction), and the second direction (Y -direction) is along the medium facing face and perpendicular to the corresponding first direction (Z-direction) - Fig. 7.
Additionally, as per claim 3, Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1) further discloses wherein the first face (e.g., 12c) includes a first end (e.g., left end side of (12) at first face as depicted in Fig. 7) and a first other end (e.g., right end side of (12) at first face as depicted in Fig. 7), a direction from the first other end to the first end is along the second direction (Y -direction), the second face (face of (14) facing (81) - see Figs. 7, 8) includes a second end (e.g., left end side of (14) at second face as depicted in Fig. 7) and a second other end (e.g., right end side of (14) at second face as depicted in Fig. 7), a direction from the second other end to the second end is along the second direction (Y -direction), a distance between the first end and the second end is shorter than a distance between the first end and the second other end, and a first angle between a first straight line passing through the first end and the second end (see Fig. 7); as per claim 3, however, Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1) remains silent with regard to a direction perpendicular to the first face is not less than 5 degrees and not more than 15 degrees. That is, Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1) remains silent with regard to the angle α′ as depicted in Fig. 7.
Analogously as per claim 4, Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1) remains silent with regard to wherein a second angle between a second straight line passing through the first other end and the second other end, and the direction perpendicular to the first face is not less than 5 degrees and not more than 15 degrees (corresponding to the same angle α′, only this time on the side face 10e as depicted in Fig. 7 - symmetric about axis along the Z-direction to angle α′
It is noted, however, that Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1) readily and expressly discloses that the angles of the magnetic element (10), including α′ as per claim 3 (and its symmetric paring about the Z-axis, as per claim 4) are adjustable in order to advantageously provide for "the spin torque oscillator 10 to oscillate well and to generate a magnetic field (microwave magnetic field) of sufficient intensity." See col. 11, ll. 1-37 of Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1).
Thus, Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1) demonstrates that the such a corresponding angle α′ is a result-effective variable.
As such, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to satisfy the claimed range(s) and/or dimension(s) as set forth in claims 3 and 4, particularly in light of the teachings of Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1), 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, it has been held that determining the optimal value of a result effective variable would have been obvious and ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980).
Moreover, there is no evidence of record that shows the claimed ranges to be critical or otherwise result in nonobvious (providing "unexpected results"), when viewed in light of the teachings of Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1).
Patent 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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa et al. (US 2022/0270641 A1) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Narita et al. (US 2018/0268848 A1).
See the description of Nakagawa et al. (US 2022/0270641 A1) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1), supra.
As per claim 17, Nakagawa et al. (US 2022/0270641 A1) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1) remain silent with regard to providing a magnetic recording device, comprising: an element circuit configured to supply an element current between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole, the element circuit being configured to perform a first operation and a second operation, in the first operation, the element current being configured to flow from the first magnetic pole to the second magnetic pole, and in the second operation, the element current being configured to flow from the second magnetic pole to the first magnetic pole.
Such current reversal for differing operations of the magnetic head, as per claim 17, are known in the art.
As just one example, Narita et al. (US 2018/0268848 A1) discloses an analogous magnetic head having an analogous magnetic element disposed between two magnetic poles, in the same field of endeavor as Nakagawa et al. (US 2022/0270641 A1) and Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1) wherein, as per claim 17, a magnetic recording device (e.g., 120 including the power source (190) - see Fig. 19), comprising: a magnetic head (e.g., 120); and an element circuit (e.g., 190) configured to supply an element current ("current" as seen in Figs. 20A, 20B, 22A, 22B) between the corresponding first magnetic pole (e.g., 11) and the corresponding second magnetic pole (e.g., 12), the element circuit (190) being configured to perform a first operation (e.g., operation and associated directional current flow as depicted in Figs. 22A, 22B) and a second operation (e.g., operation and associated directional current flow as depicted in Figs. 20A, 20B), in the first operation, the element current being configured to flow from the first magnetic pole (11) to the second magnetic pole (12), and in the second operation, the element current being configured to flow from the second magnetic pole (12) to the first magnetic pole (11) - see Figs. 20A, 20B, 22A, 22B.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Narita et al. (US 2018/0268848 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the magnetic recording device with the element circuit providing for differing operations (and associated switched directional current flow, as per claim 17), as taught by Narita et al. (US 2018/0268848 A1) to the combined magnetic head of Nakagawa et al. (US 2022/0270641 A1) in view of Takahashi et al. (US 10,121,497 B1), in order to simply control the relationship of the acting spin torque changes, in order to alter and control the magnetization and associated oscillation frequency of the magnetic element, as taught by Narita et al. (US 2018/0268848 A1) - see abstract and paragraph [0143] of Narita et al. (US 2018/0268848 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 11, and 13-15 are tentatively objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but, pending an updated search, amendments or arguments presented by the Applicant and considered by the Examiner in reply to this office communication, would be favorably considered if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Prior or Relevant Art on enclosed PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art made of record (see the enclosed PTO-892), not applied to the rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including wherein magnetic heads include STOs (spin torque oscillators - magnetic elements) disposed between main poles/trailing shields, which enhance the recording characteristics by providing microwave oscillations within grains of underlying magnetic media, utilizing multiple laminated magnetic layers within the gap of the magnetic head.
The best prior art has been applied to the claimed invention (see the rejection of the claims on the applied prior art, supra). However, if Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a manner to obviate the applied prior art, as noted in the rejection, supra, the Applicant is advised to not only carefully review the applied prior art for all it teaches and/or suggests, but also the cited prior art of record in order to obviate any potential rejections based on potential amendment(s); by doing so, compact prosecution on the merits can be enhanced.
Conclusion
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