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 April 11, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on April 11, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III (Figs. 23-40) in the reply filed on February 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 18, 2026.
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 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The following phrase(s) lack clear antecedent basis within the claim(s), i.e., either the particularly recited passage fails to be properly introduced prior to its appearance at that point in the claim or the structure recited in the passage is not an inherent part of or component of the previously recited structure:
(i) Claim 6 (lines 5-6), "the third magnetic pole".
(ii) Additionally, since claims 7-9 depend directly or indirectly from claim 6, they too are thus rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
(iii) Claim 10 (lines 2-3; see also lines 4-5), "the fifth magnetic layer".
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,917 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 11 of the instant application are anticipated by the claims 1, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,917 B2.
More specifically, the limitations of claim 1 (and claim 11) of the instant application are all found in claims 1, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,917. That is, claims 1 and 11 of the instant application are anticipated by claims 1, 4, and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,917 B2.
More concretely, claim 1 of the instant application recites a magnetic head, comprising: a first magnetic pole; a second magnetic pole; and a magnetic element provided between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole, the magnetic element including a first magnetic layer, a second magnetic layer provided between the first magnetic layer and the second magnetic pole, a third magnetic layer provided between the second magnetic layer and the second magnetic pole, and a fourth magnetic layer provided between the third magnetic layer and the second magnetic pole (e.g., see lines 1-13 of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,917 B2); the fourth magnetic layer including a first element and at least one of Fe, Co and Ni, the first element including at least one selected from the group consisting of Cr, V, Mn, Ti, N and Sc (e.g., see lines 24-27 of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,917 B2), one end of the magnetic element being electrically connected to the first magnetic pole, another end of the magnetic element being electrically connected to the second magnetic pole (e.g., see lines 4-7 of claim 4 (which depends from claim 1) of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,917 B2), a differential electric resistance of the magnetic element when a voltage between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole being changed including a first peak and a first bottom, the voltage corresponding to the first peak being a first peak voltage, the voltage corresponding to the first bottom being a first bottom voltage the first bottom voltage being positive, an element voltage applied between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole in a recording operation being higher than the first peak voltage and higher than the first bottom voltage (e.g., see lines 3-12 of claim 5 (which depends from claim 4) of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,917 B2).
As per claim 11 of the instant application, see claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,190,917 B2.
A patent to a genus would, necessarily, extend the rights of a species or sub-species should the genus claims of the instant application issue after the after the species or subgenus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al. (US 10,522,174).
As per claim 1, Chen et al. (US 10,522,174) teach a magnetic head (see FIG. 39, for instance) comprising a first magnetic pole (e.g., 14); a second magnetic pole (e.g., 17); and a magnetic element provided between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole, the magnetic element including a first magnetic layer (e.g., 8g), a second magnetic layer (e.g., 8a) provided between the first magnetic layer (8g) and the second magnetic pole (17), a third magnetic layer (e.g., 8e) provided between the second magnetic layer (8a) and the second magnetic pole (17), a fourth magnetic layer (e.g., 3) provided between the third magnetic layer (8e) and the second magnetic pole (17), the fourth magnetic layer (3) including a first element and at least one of Fe, Co or Ni, the first element including at least one selected from the group consisting of Cr, V, Mn, Ti, N and Sc (e.g., see lines 54-63 in column 10, for instance, i.e., "one or more of the SP, SP1, SP2, and FGL layers may be a laminated stack of layers such as… (CoM/X)n where… M is… Ti"; additionally, see col. 12, ll. 20-26; col. 16, ll. 6-18, col. 17, ll. 8-15), one end of the magnetic element being electrically connected to the first magnetic pole (as shown in FIG. 39, for instance), another end of the magnetic element being electrically connected to the second magnetic pole (as shown in FIG. 39, for instance), the element circuit being configured to apply an element voltage between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole (generating current Ia), when the element voltage is applied, a potential of the first magnetic pole is lower than a potential of the second magnetic pole (see the abstract, for instance, i.e., “a direct current of sufficient magnitude is applied… from the TS to MP” thereby making a potential of the first magnetic pole (MP) lower than a potential of the second magnetic pole (TS)); wherein a differential electric resistance of the magnetic element when a voltage between the first magnetic pole and the second magnetic pole is changed includes at least one peak and at least one bottom (inherently and/or having the capability of achieving such a functional result, as the magnetic head of Chen et al. (US 10,522,174) is no different structurally/compositionally from that set forth in the claims), the voltage corresponding to the at least one peak is a peak voltage, the voltage corresponding to the at least one bottom is a bottom voltage, and the element voltage is higher than the peak voltage and higher than the bottom voltage (inherently as the magnetic head of Chen et al. (US 10,522,174) is no different structurally/compositionally from that set forth in the rejected claims).
As per claim 2, it is noted that the claim is drawn to a magnetic head, per se, and not a magnetic recording device with a controller that generates a reference voltage. As such, the limitation set forth in claim 2 "wherein the first peak voltage is positive" is considered to be a capability of a magnetic head. As noted, supra, since the magnetic head as disclosed by Chen et al. (US 10,522,174) is structurally/compositionally identical to the claimed magnetic head, Chen et al. (US 10,522,174) is considered to have the capability of achieving the functional results when the peak voltage is positive.
As claim 3 and analogously, as per claim 5, the magnetic element includes a second non-magnetic layer (8f) is provided between the first magnetic layer (8g) and the second magnetic layer (8a), a third non-magnetic layer (8b) provided between the second magnetic layer (8a) and the third magnetic layer (8e), a fourth non-magnetic layer (e.g., 4) provided between the third magnetic layer (8e) and the fourth magnetic layer (3), and a fifth non-magnetic layer (2) provided between the fourth magnetic layer (3) and the second pole (17), the fourth non-magnetic layer including at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Au, Cr, Al, V and Ag (see lines 39-42 in column 10, for instance, i.e., "spacers 2 and 4 may be single layer or multilayer films as appreciated by those skilled in the art, and are preferably a non-magnetic metal with a long spin diffusion length such as Cu, Ag, or Au") and the fifth non-magnetic layer including at least one selected from the group consisting of Cu, Au, Cr, Al, V and Ag (see lines 39-42 in column 10, for instance, i.e., "spacers 2 and 4 may be single layer or multilayer films as appreciated by those skilled in the art, and are preferably a non-magnetic metal with a long spin diffusion length such as Cu, Ag, or Au").
As per claim 4, it is noted that the claim is drawn to a magnetic head, per se, and not a magnetic recording device with a controller that generates a reference voltage. As such, the limitation set forth in claim 2 "wherein the first peak voltage is negative" is considered to be a capability of a magnetic head. As noted, supra, since the magnetic head as disclosed by Chen et al. (US 10,522,174) is structurally/compositionally identical to the claimed magnetic head, Chen et al. (US 10,522,174) is considered to have the capability of achieving the functional results when the peak voltage is negative.
As per claim 5, see the discussion of claim 3, supra.
Insofar as claim 6 can be best understood, as per claim 6, wherein the magnetic element further includes: a fifth magnetic layer (e.g., 8c) provided between the third magnetic layer (8e) and the second magnetic layer (8a); and a sixth non-magnetic layer (e.g. 8d) provided between the fifth magnetic layer (8c) and the third magnetic pole/layer (8e).
As per claim 7, wherein the differential electric resistance includes a second peak. Again, it is noted that Chen et al. (US 10,522,174) inherently and/or has the capability of achieving such a functional result, as the magnetic head of Chen et al. (US 10,522,174) is no different structurally/compositionally from that set forth in the claims.
As per claim 8, wherein the second peak voltage is positive. Chen et al. (US 10,522,174) inherently and/or has the capability of achieving such a functional result, as the magnetic head of Chen et al. (US 10,522,174) is no different structurally/compositionally from that set forth in the claims.
As per claim 9, wherein the second peak voltage is negative. Chen et al. (US 10,522,174) inherently and/or has the capability of achieving such a functional result, as the magnetic head of Chen et al. (US 10,522,174) is no different structurally/compositionally from that set forth in the claims.
As per claim 11, a magnetic recording device (e.g. 100 - see Fig. 3) is provided, comprising: the magnetic head according to claim 1; and a controller (e.g., the control means for controlling the source (50)) including an element circuit (includes 50, for instance), the element circuit being configured to supply the element voltage (note that the dc current source provides a voltage across the load.
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 any rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including the use of magnetic elements disposed within magnetic recording gaps (between first/second poles of a magnetic head), to increase magnetic field gradients during recording.
However, none of the art cited discloses (the double patenting rejection notwithstanding), teaches or suggest (alone or in combination), the emphasized elements of the allowed claims, as noted above.
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 on (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