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 .
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.
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 01/16/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Oath/Declaration
Oath/Declaration as file 01/16/2025 is noted by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 7 is directed to “…obtaining a first output from the magnetic detection unit by applying the measurement magnetic field thereto; obtaining a second output from the magnetic detection unit by applying a magnetic field thereto in the direction of the measurement magnetic field such that the free magnetic layer is magnetically saturated; and calculating the measurement magnetic field based on the first output and the second output.”, which are mathematical-calculations and/or mental process perform by a processor. The additional elements “A method of measuring a measurement magnetic field with a magnetic detection unit including a magnetoresistance effect element having a pinned magnetic layer, a free magnetic layer, and an intermediate layer formed between the pinned magnetic layer and the free magnetic layer, the method comprising…” are data collection and an extra-solution activity that is simply the outputting the result of the mathematical-calculations, which both elements simply include routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim 7 is Ineligible due to the following analysis:
4.1) Step 1 (Statutory Category): Claim 7 is directed to a method of measuring a measurement magnetic field, therefore, it is directed to a statutory category, i.e., a method (Step 1: YES).
4.2) Step 2A, Prong-1 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether it is directed to a judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 7 recites: “…obtaining a first output from the magnetic detection unit by applying the measurement magnetic field thereto; obtaining a second output from the magnetic detection unit by applying a magnetic field thereto in the direction of the measurement magnetic field such that the free magnetic layer is magnetically saturated; and calculating the measurement magnetic field based on the first output and the second output.”, which are mathematical-calculations and/or mental process. Therefore, it is directed to a judicial exception/abstract-idea (Step 2A, Prong-1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong-2 (the claim is evaluated to determine whether the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is integrated into a Practical Application): Claim 7 do not claim a particular machine in which the judicial-exception/abstract-idea is implemented and/or integrated, and do not claim any transformation of a particular article to a different state in which the judicial exception/abstract-idea is implemented and/or integrated. Consequently, the claimed mathematical-calculations and/or mental process above are not integrated into a practical application and/or apply, rely on, or use to an additional element or elements in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the mathematical-calculations and/or mental process, thus, monopolizing the mathematical-calculations and/or mental process in variety of technologies (Step 2A, Prong-2: NO, because there is no integration of the judicial exception/abstract-idea into a practical application).
4.3) Step 2B (the claim is evaluated to determine whether recites additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, or also, the additional elements are significantly more than the recited the judicial-exception/abstract-idea): Claim 7 recites the additional element(s) “A method of measuring a measurement magnetic field with a magnetic detection unit including a magnetoresistance effect element having a pinned magnetic layer, a free magnetic layer, and an intermediate layer formed between the pinned magnetic layer and the free magnetic layer, the method comprising …”, which are/is simply routine and conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry that includes microprocessors for acquiring data and outputted the calculated result, which fall in the category of data collection and extra-solution activity. Therefore, the claim does not include additional element(s) significantly more, or, does not amount to more than the judicial-exception/abstract-idea itself and the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 7, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 8 is further recites the element(s) “… wherein the measurement magnetic field is calculated based on a difference between the first output and the second output.”, which are/is simply more calculations/mental-steps, value numbers, routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 8 does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures previously known to the pertinent industry that serve to generate the data to be processed by implementing the idea on a computer, and/or recitation of generic computer structure and also serve to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “…a magnetic field calculation unit configured to calculate a measurement magnetic field based on an output of the magnetic detection unit…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…a magnetic field calculation unit configured to calculate a measurement magnetic field based on an output of the magnetic detection unit…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “magnetic field calculation unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…a magnetic field calculation unit configured to calculate a measurement magnetic field based on an output of the magnetic detection unit …”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…a magnetic field calculation unit configured to calculate a measurement magnetic field based on an output of the magnetic detection unit …”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “…a saturation magnetic field application unit configured to apply a magnetic field to the free magnetic layer in a direction of the measurement magnetic field, thereby magnetically saturating the free magnetic layer…” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use the term “means” or equivalent term coupled with functional language “…a saturation magnetic field application unit configured to apply a magnetic field to the free magnetic layer in a direction of the measurement magnetic field, thereby magnetically saturating the free magnetic layer…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the term “saturation magnetic field application unit” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following table shows that all three prongs of the 3-prong analysis are met and the limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (See MPEP 2181(I) for details):
The 3-Prong Analysis for Claim Limitation : “…a saturation magnetic field application unit configured to apply a magnetic field to the free magnetic layer in a direction of the measurement magnetic field, thereby magnetically saturating the free magnetic layer…”
Met
Prong A
Explicit recitation of “means” or equivalent term
YES
Prong B
Functional recitation of “…a saturation magnetic field application unit configured to apply a magnetic field to the free magnetic layer in a direction of the measurement magnetic field, thereby magnetically saturating the free magnetic layer…”
YES
Prong C
No structure that performs the function
YES
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claim(s) 1 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Note: The 112(f) invocation regarding the “saturation magnetic field application unit” is not a rejection because Claim 6 discloses “wherein the saturation magnetic field application unit includes a coil, a current line, or a magnet.”
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 1 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. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform each of the claimed functions cited above in the row of the 112(f) grid entitled “Prong B” for each of the respective placeholders.
The specification with regards to the magnetic field calculation unit; does not demonstrate that the application has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
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 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…a magnetic field calculation unit configured to calculate a measurement magnetic field based on an output of the magnetic detection unit …”;. The term “magnetic field calculation unit” renders the claim indefinite as the claim does not define sufficient structure to achieve the function of calculate a measurement magnetic field based on an output of the magnetic detection unit; the original specification does not provide clarification as to what structure performs the particular functions of this claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art could interpret so many structures that can perform the particular function of calculate a measurement magnetic field based on an output of the magnetic detection unit. Thus, for these reasons, the phrase “magnetic field calculation unit” renders claim 1 indefinite.
Claims 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph as they further limit Claim 1.
Please make the proper corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Solignac et al. US 2021/0141033 (Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Solignac).
Regarding claim 1, Solignac teaches a magnetic sensor (Figs. 1-13; Abstract; [0001]) comprising:
a magnetic detection unit (Fig. 8; [0114]) including at least one magnetoresistance effect element (Fig. 8; [0114]) having:
a pinned magnetic layer (Fig. 8; [0114]);
a free magnetic layer (Fig. 8; [0114]); and
an intermediate layer (Fig. 8; [0114]) formed between the pinned magnetic layer (Fig. 8; [0114]) and the free magnetic layer (Fig. 8; [0114]);
a magnetic field calculation unit (Fig. 9; [0120]) configured to calculate a measurement magnetic field (Fig. 9; [0120]) based on an output of the magnetic detection unit (Fig. 9; [0120]); and
a saturation magnetic field application unit (Fig. 7; [0109, 0110]) configured to apply a magnetic field (Fig. 7; [0109, 0110]) to the free magnetic layer in a direction of the measurement magnetic field (Fig. 7; [0109, 0110]), thereby magnetically saturating the free magnetic layer (Fig. 7; [0109, 0110]),
wherein the magnetic field calculation unit (Fig. 9; [0120]) calculates the measurement magnetic field (Fig. 7; [0111-0113]) based on a first output of the magnetic detection unit (Fig. 7; [0111-0113]) when the measurement magnetic field is applied to the free magnetic layer (Fig. 7; [0111-0113]), and a second output (Fig. 7; [0111-0113]) of the magnetic detection unit (Fig. 7; [0111-0113]) when the free magnetic layer is magnetically saturated (Fig. 7; [0111-0113]).
Regarding claim 2, Solignac further teaches the magnetic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic field calculation unit (Fig. 9; [0120]) calculates the measurement magnetic field (Fig. 9; [0120]) based on a difference between the first output and the second output (Fig. 9; [0120]).
Regarding claim 4, Solignac further teaches the magnetic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the at least one magnetoresistance effect element includes a plurality of magnetoresistance effect elements (Fig. 5; [0100-0101]), and the plurality of magnetoresistance effect elements form a bridge circuit (Fig. 5; [0100-0101]).
Regarding claim 6, Solignac further teaches the magnetic sensor according to claim 1, wherein the saturation magnetic field application unit includes a coil, a current line, or a magnet (Fig. 5; [0099-0101]).
Regarding claim 7, Solignac teaches a method of measuring a measurement magnetic field (Figs. 1-13; Abstract; [0001]) with a magnetic detection unit (Fig. 8; [0114]) including a magnetoresistance effect element (Fig. 8; [0114]) having a pinned magnetic layer (Fig. 8; [0114]), a free magnetic layer (Fig. 8; [0114]), and an intermediate layer (Fig. 8; [0114]) formed between the pinned magnetic layer (Fig. 8; [0114]) and the free magnetic layer (Fig. 8; [0114]), the method comprising:
obtaining a first output (Fig. 9; [0120]) from the magnetic detection unit (Fig. 9; [0120]) by applying the measurement magnetic field thereto (Fig. 9; [0120]);
obtaining a second output (Fig. 7; [0109-0113]) from the magnetic detection unit (Fig. 7; [0109-0113]) by applying a magnetic field thereto (Fig. 7; [0109-0113]) in the direction of the measurement magnetic field (Fig. 7; [0109-0113]) such that the free magnetic layer is magnetically saturated (Fig. 7; [0109-0113]); and
calculating the measurement magnetic field (Fig. 7; [0109-0113]) based on the first output (Fig. 7; [0109-0113]) and the second output (Fig. 7; [0109-0113]).
Regarding claim 8, Solignac further teaches the magnetic measurement method according to claim 7, wherein the measurement magnetic field (Fig. 9; [0120]) is calculated based on a difference between the first output (Fig. 9; [0120]) and the second output (Fig. 9; [0120]).
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.
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) 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Solignac in view of Shoji US 2006/0002031 (Provided by Applicant; Hereinafter Shoji).
Regarding claim 3, Solignac teaches the magnetic sensor according to claim 1, but not specifically wherein the pinned magnetic layer has a fixed magnetization direction in a first direction, and the free magnetic layer has a magnetization direction orthogonal to the first direction when the magnetic field is not applied thereto, and wherein the direction of the measurement magnetic field is parallel or anti-parallel to the first direction.
However, Shoji teaches wherein the pinned magnetic layer has a fixed magnetization direction in a first direction, and the free magnetic layer has a magnetization direction orthogonal to the first direction when the magnetic field is not applied thereto ([0009]), and wherein the direction of the measurement magnetic field is parallel or anti-parallel to the first direction ([0009]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for suppressing low frequency noise of magnetoresistive sensors of Solignac by implementing the teachings of Shoji regarding wherein the pinned magnetic layer has a fixed magnetization direction in a first direction, and the free magnetic layer has a magnetization direction orthogonal to the first direction when the magnetic field is not applied thereto, and wherein the direction of the measurement magnetic field is parallel or anti-parallel to the first direction; for the purpose of “stably sensing a signal magnetic field with high sensitivity by suppressing occurrence of hysteresis to reduce 1/f noise” (See Shoji; Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Solignac teaches the magnetic sensor according to claim 4, but not specifically wherein the pinned magnetic layer has a fixed magnetization direction in a first direction, and the free magnetic layer has a magnetization direction orthogonal to the first direction when the magnetic field is not applied thereto, wherein the direction of the measurement magnetic field is the first direction, and wherein the saturation magnetic field application unit is configured to apply the magnetic field to the free magnetic layer of each of the plurality of magnetoresistance effect elements in a direction parallel or anti-parallel to the first direction.
However, Shoji does teach wherein the pinned magnetic layer has a fixed magnetization direction in a first direction, and the free magnetic layer has a magnetization direction orthogonal to the first direction when the magnetic field is not applied thereto ([0009]), wherein the direction of the measurement magnetic field is the first direction ([0009]), and wherein the saturation magnetic field application unit is configured to apply the magnetic field to the free magnetic layer of each of the plurality of magnetoresistance effect elements in a direction parallel or anti-parallel to the first direction ([0009]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for suppressing low frequency noise of magnetoresistive sensors of Solignac by implementing the teachings of Shoji regarding wherein the pinned magnetic layer has a fixed magnetization direction in a first direction, and the free magnetic layer has a magnetization direction orthogonal to the first direction when the magnetic field is not applied thereto, wherein the direction of the measurement magnetic field is the first direction, and wherein the saturation magnetic field application unit is configured to apply the magnetic field to the free magnetic layer of each of the plurality of magnetoresistance effect elements in a direction parallel or anti-parallel to the first direction; for the purpose of “stably sensing a signal magnetic field with high sensitivity by suppressing occurrence of hysteresis to reduce 1/f noise” (See Shoji; Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mather et al. US 2016/0320462 - A magnetic field sensor is disclosed with built-in self-test coils in a configuration to provide magnetic field stimulation along three axes, with a high field factor, and thus, reduce a power budget of the sensor and physical size of the self-test coils. The magnetic field sensor comprises a first bridge circuit including a plurality of sense elements configured to sense a magnetic field. The magnetic field sensor further comprises re-configurable self-test current lines coupled to a self-test source to perform high field, high power wafer and die level testing and trim, as well as low power in-situ characterization and calibration of the sensor.
Mather et al. US 2016/0320460 - Various means for improvement in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for a magnetic field sensor are disclosed for low power and high resolution magnetic sensing. The improvements may be done by reducing parasitic effects, increasing sense element packing density, interleaving a Z-axis layout to reduce a subtractive effect, and optimizing an alignment between a Z-axis sense element and a flux guide, etc.
Tanabe US 2016/0266216 - The present invention relates to a magnetic sensor which can improve the detection precision of a weak magnetic field. A magnetic sensor wherein a magnetic body which changes the direction of a magnetic field input to a magnetoresistance effect element is provided in the vicinity of the magnetoresistance effect element in which the resistance value changes according to the direction of the input magnetic field, and the magnetic body has a recess with a concave shape on the surface at a side where the magnetoresistance effect element is formed. The center of the recess may be substantially identical to that of the magnetic body.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAUL J RIOS RUSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-3459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 10am-6pm, EST.
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, Huy Phan can be reached at 571-272-7924. 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.
/RAUL J RIOS RUSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
