Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 16, 2026
Application No. 19/055,379

Non-localized Spin Valve Multi-Free-Layer Reader Hybridized with Spin Orbit Torque Layers

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 17, 2025
Examiner
RENNER, CRAIG A
Art Unit
2688
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Institute Of Science Tokyo
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
687 granted / 818 resolved
+22.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +13% lift
Without
With
+12.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
837
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
35.2%
-4.8% vs TC avg
§102
31.8%
-8.2% vs TC avg
§112
25.0%
-15.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 818 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 February 2025 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. Drawings The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities: a. In FIG. 6B, the left-most reference character I2- should be changed to I2+ in order to be consistent with the remainder of the disclosure. b. In FIG. 8B, reference character 700 should be changed to 800 in order to be consistent with the remainder of the disclosure. 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: a. In line 11 of claim 1, “shield recessed” should be corrected to read --shield and recessed--. b. In line 24 of claim 1, “shield recessed” should be corrected to read --shield and recessed--. c. In line 8 of claim 10, “and the second shield” should be corrected to read --and the second shield; --. d. In line 9 of claim 12, “shield recessed” should be corrected to read --shield and recessed--. e. In line 23 of claim 12, “shield recessed” should be corrected to read --shield and recessed--. f. In line 11 of claim 19, “shield recessed” should be corrected to read --shield and recessed--. g. In line 29 of claim 19, “shield recessed” should be corrected to read --shield and recessed--. 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 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 3, 4, 10, 14, 15 and 19-21 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. a. In lines 5-6 of claim 3, “a second negative voltage lead connected to the third shield; and a second positive voltage lead connected to the fourth shield” is indefinite as it is misdescriptive of the disclosure in view of the positioning of the third and fourth shields with respect to base claims 1 and 2. That is, the fourth shield in base claim 2 would correspond to shield 502, and the third shield in base claim 1 would correspond to shield 504, and second negative voltage lead V2- is shown to be connected to fourth shield 502, and second positive voltage lead V2+ is shown to be connected to third shield 504. See FIG. 7A, for instance. b. In lines 5-6 of claim 4, “a second negative current lead connected to the third shield; and a second positive current lead connected to the fourth shield” is indefinite as it is misdescriptive of the disclosure in view of the positioning of the third and fourth shields with respect to base claims 1 and 2. That is, the fourth shield in base claim 2 would correspond to shield 502, and the third shield in base claim 1 would correspond to shield 504, and second negative current I2- is shown to be connected to fourth shield 502, and second positive current lead I2+ is shown to be connected to third shield 504. See FIG. 5C, for instance. c. In lines 5-7 of claim 10, “a first non-magnetic notch” and “a second non-magnetic notch” is indefinite because it is misdescriptive of the disclosure, which details that “the first notch 516a, and the second notch 516b may each individually comprise a magnetic material similar to the soft bias material, such as NiFe, NiFe/CoFe laminates, NiFe/NiFeCr laminates, or NiFe/W laminates, for example (“/” as used here denotes separate layers in a multi-layer stack)” in paragraph [0054], for instance. d. In line 13 of claim 10, “a second positive current lead connected to the fourth shield” is indefinite as it is misdescriptive of the disclosure in view of the positioning of the third and fourth shields with respect to claim 10 and base claim 1. That is, the fourth shield in claim 10 would correspond to shield 502, and the third shield in base claim 1 would correspond to shield 504, and second positive current lead I2+ is shown to be connected to third shield 504. See FIG. 6C, for instance. e. In lines 5-6 of claim 14, “a second negative voltage lead connected to the third shield; and a second positive voltage lead connected to the fourth shield” is indefinite as it is misdescriptive of the disclosure in view of the positioning of the third and fourth shields with respect to base claims 12 and 13. That is, the fourth shield in base claim 13 would correspond to shield 502, and the third shield in base claim 12 would correspond to shield 504, and second negative voltage lead V2- is shown to be connected to fourth shield 502, and second positive voltage lead V2+ is shown to be connected to third shield 504. See FIG. 7A, for instance. f. In lines 5-6 of claim 15, “a second negative current lead connected to the third shield; and a second positive current lead connected to the fourth shield” is indefinite as it is misdescriptive of the disclosure in view of the positioning of the third and fourth shields with respect to base claims 12 and 13. That is, the fourth shield in base claim 13 would correspond to shield 502, and the third shield in base claim 12 would correspond to shield 504, and second negative current I2- is shown to be connected to fourth shield 502, and second positive current lead I2+ is shown to be connected to third shield 504. See FIG. 5C, for instance. g. In line 16 of claim 19, “a first cap layer disposed over the first SOT layer” is indefinite as it is misdescriptive of the disclosure in view of the positioning of the first cap layer and the first SOT layer with respect to claim 19. That is, the first cap layer in claim 19 would correspond to cap layer 612a, and the first SOT layer in claim 19 would correspond to SOT layer 610a, and first cap layer 612a is shown to be disposed under first SOT layer 610a. See FIG. 7A, for instance. h. In line 35 of claim 19, “a third cap layer disposed over the third SOT layer” is indefinite as it is misdescriptive of the disclosure in view of the positioning of the third cap layer and the third SOT layer with respect to claim 19. That is, the third cap layer in claim 19 would correspond to cap layer 612b, and the third SOT layer in claim 19 would correspond to SOT layer 610b, and third cap layer 612b is shown to be disposed under third SOT layer 610b. See FIG. 7A, for instance. i. Claims 20 and 21 inherit the indefiniteness associated with independent claim 19 and stand rejected as well. Claim Considerations - 35 USC § 103 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. Pertinent Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes Gao et al. (US 2016/0055868), which teach a magnetic recording head (FIG. 3B) comprising a read head (includes 326 in FIG. 3B, and 750 in FIG. 3C) with a first sensor (704) disposed between a first shield (702) and a second shield (752) at a media facing surface (701) and comprising a first free layer (722, see FIG. 7B, for instance) and a second free layer (724), and a second sensor (706) disposed between the second shield (752) and a third shield (712) at the media facing surface and comprising a third free layer (722) and a fourth free layer (724). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 2, 5-9, 11-13 and 16-18 are allowable over the prior art of record. Claims 3, 4, 10, 14, 15 and 19-21 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 1-11, the prior art of record does not teach nor suggest a “magnetic recording head, comprising: a read head, the read head comprising: a first shield; a second shield; a first non-magnetic layer disposed between the first shield and the second shield; a first sensor disposed between the first shield and the second shield at a media facing surface (MFS), the first sensor comprising a first free layer and a second free layer; a first spin generator disposed between the first shield and the second shield recessed from the MFS, the first spin generator being spaced from the first sensor, wherein the first spin generator comprises: a first spin orbit torque (SOT) layer disposed between the first shield and the first non-magnetic layer; and a second SOT layer disposed between the first non-magnetic layer and the second shield; a third shield disposed over the second shield; a second non-magnetic layer disposed between the second shield and the third shield; a second sensor disposed between the second shield and the third shield at the MFS, the second sensor comprising a third free layer and a fourth free layer; and a second spin generator disposed between the second shield and the third shield recessed from the MFS, the second spin generator being spaced from the second sensor, wherein the second spin generator comprises: a third SOT layer disposed between the second shield and the second non-magnetic layer; and a fourth SOT layer disposed between the second non-magnetic layer and the third shield” (emphasis added). With respect to claims 12-18, the prior art of record does not teach nor suggest a “magnetic recording head, comprising: a read head, the read head comprising: a first shield; a first non-magnetic layer disposed over the first shield; a first sensor disposed over the first shield at a media facing surface (MFS), the first sensor comprising a first free layer and a second free layer, wherein the first non-magnetic layer is disposed between the first free layer and the second free layer; a first spin generator disposed over the first shield recessed from the MFS, the first spin generator being spaced from the first sensor, wherein the first spin generator comprises a first spin orbit torque (SOT) layer and a second SOT layer; a second shield disposed over the first sensor, the first spin generator, and the first non-magnetic layer; a third shield disposed over the second shield; a second non-magnetic layer disposed between the second shield and the third shield; a second sensor disposed between the second shield and the third shield at the MFS, the second sensor comprising a third free layer and a fourth free layer, wherein the second non-magnetic layer is disposed between the third free layer and the fourth free layer; and a second spin generator disposed between the second shield and the third shield recessed from the MFS, the second spin generator being spaced from the second sensor, wherein the second spin generator comprises: a third SOT layer disposed between the second shield and the second non-magnetic layer; and a fourth SOT layer disposed between the second non-magnetic layer and the third shield” (emphasis added). With respect to claims 19-21, the prior art of record does not teach nor suggest “magnetic recording head, comprising: a read head, the read head comprising: a first shield; a second shield; a first non-magnetic layer disposed between the first shield and the second shield; a first sensor disposed between the first shield and the second shield at a media facing surface (MFS), the first sensor comprising a first free layer and a second free layer; a first spin generator disposed between the first shield and the second shield recessed from the MFS, the first spin generator being spaced from the first sensor, wherein the first spin generator comprises: a first seed layer disposed over the first shield; a first spin orbit torque (SOT) layer disposed between the first shield and the first non-magnetic layer; a first cap layer disposed over the first SOT layer; a second seed layer disposed over the first non-magnetic layer; a second SOT layer disposed between the first non-magnetic layer and the second shield; and a second cap layer disposed over the second SOT layer; a third shield disposed over the second shield; a second non-magnetic layer disposed between the second shield and the third shield; a second sensor disposed between the second shield and the third shield at the MFS, the second sensor comprising a third free layer and a fourth free layer; and a second spin generator disposed between the second shield and the third shield recessed from the MFS, the second spin generator being spaced from the second sensor, wherein the second spin generator comprises: a third seed layer disposed over the second shield; a third SOT layer disposed between the second shield and the second non-magnetic layer; a third cap layer disposed over the third SOT layer; a fourth seed layer disposed over the second non-magnetic layer; a fourth SOT layer disposed between the second non-magnetic layer and the third shield; and a fourth cap layer disposed over the fourth SOT layer” (emphasis added). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Craig A. Renner whose telephone number is (571) 272-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 7:30 PM. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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. /CRAIG A. RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 17, 2025
Application Filed
Dec 26, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Apr 01, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597437
Rear Soft Bias Dual Free Layer Sensor With Patterned Decoupling Layer
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592254
REMOVABLE ROBOT FOR AUTOMATED DATA STORAGE LIBRARY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12592252
HARD DISK DRIVES WITH PIEZOELECTRIC ULTRASONIC MOTOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12573422
FLEXURE OF SUSPENSION FOR DISK DRIVE AND SUSPENSION FOR DISK DRIVE, THE FLEXURE HAVING AN AREA WITH REDUCED THICKNESS WHERE AN ELECTRONIC COMPONENT IS MOUNTED
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12567438
Magnetic Heads Having Low Magnetic Coercivity (Hc) and High Saturated Magnetic Flux Density (Bs) in Ferromagnetic (FM) Layer(s) or Shield(s) With Minimized Saturation
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+12.9%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 818 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month