Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected, without traverse, Species II (Fig. 5B) in the reply filed on June 3, 2026.
Currently, claims 1-20 read on the elected Species.
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 1-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) in view of Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1) and Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1).
As per claim 1 (as well as claim 8 and claim 15), Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) discloses a read head (e.g., 400 - see Figs. 4A-4B), comprising: a first lower shield (e.g., 402); a first sensor (e.g., 450) disposed over the first lower shield (402); a first upper shield (e.g., 422) disposed over the first sensor (450); a read separation gap (e.g., 424) disposed on the first upper shield (422), the read separation gap (424) being substantially planar (e.g., see Figs. 4A, 4B); a second lower shield (e.g., 426) disposed over the read separation gap (424), a second sensor (e.g., 460) disposed over the second lower shield (426); and a second upper shield (e.g., 444) disposed over the second sensor (460).
As per claim 1 (as well as claim 8 and claim 15), however, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) remains silent with regard to wherein the second lower shield (426) comprises CoFeHf.
Such shield compositions provided for in read sensors, are known in the art.
As just one example, Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1) discloses an analogous magnetic head read sensor, in the same field of endeavor as Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1), wherein, as per claim 1 (and similarly, as per claims 8 and 15) Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1) teaches providing a ferromagnetic shield within the read sensor as comprising CoFeHf - see, inter alia, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 4.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Lin (US 2009/0161268 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 second lower shield (426) of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) as comprising CoFeHf, as taught by Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1), in order to advantageously provide anisotropic soft magnetic properties as desired as part of a ferromagnetic shield (e.g., see paragraph [0051] of Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1).
Additionally, as per amended claim 1 (as well as amended claims 8 and 15), the read separation gap of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) is disposed in contact with the first upper shield. However, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) does not expressly disclose a seed layer disposed in contact with the read separation gap, with the second lower shield disposed in contact with the seed layer.
That is, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) does not disclose a seed layer sandwiched (and in contact with) the read separation gap and the second lower shield layer.
Additionally, as per claim 8 and claim 15, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) in view of Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1), but remains silent with regard to wherein a seed layer disposed on the read separation gap, the seed layer comprising one of NiCr or a bilayer of Ru/NiFe.
Seed layers used in magnetic read sensors of the type disclosed by Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1), underlying magnetic shield layers and including the materials set forth in claims 1, 8 and 15, however, are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1) disclose an analogous read head, in the same field of endeavor as Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) (and Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1)),
wherein a seed layer (e.g., 125 and/or 101) is disposed as underlying a shield layer and in contact with the overlying shield layer (as per amended claims 1, 8, 15); the placement of such a seed layer as taught by Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), when combined with the sensor of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1), would necessarily be in contact with the read separation gap of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1), in order to underlie the second lower shield of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) (sandwiched therebetween).
As per claim 2 and 15, the aforementioned seed layer (e.g., 125 and/or 101) of Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1) is provided underlying a magnetic read head shield layer, wherein such thin seed layer (101, 125) is less than a corresponding thickness of the shield layer (e.g., S2) of which it underlies - see col. 4, ll. 8-10 and Fig. 4.
Moreover, as per claim 8, the seed layer (e.g. 101, 125) comprises one of single layer of NiCr or a bilayer of Ru/NiFe (e.g. see col. 3, l. 63-col. 4, l. 10; col. 4, ll. 29-38).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 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 second lower read head shield of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) as providing a seed layer disposed on and contacting the read separation gap of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) (thus underlying the shield layer), with the seed layer comprising one of NiCr or a bilayer of Ru/NiFe, as taught by Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), in order to advantageously facilitate the electroplating of a much more relatively thicker shield layer thereon - see col. 4, ll. 8-10 and Fig. 4, utilizing a conventional seed layer material.
As per claim 8 and claim 16, although Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), in combination with Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1), remains silent with regard to wherein the seed layer has a thickness of about 50 Å to about 150 Å, and wherein the second lower shield has a thickness of about 200 Å to about 250 Å, given the teachings and suggestions of Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), as applied to Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1), providing such a particular range of thickness of the second lower shield layer and underlying seed layer would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan at the time of the filing of the invention, as mere optimization of such shielding and/or seed layers.
The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention was effectively filed to satisfy the claimed range(s) and/or dimension(s) of claims 9, 16, particularly in light of the teachings of Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1)/ Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan, as a whole, 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). Providing such a particular thickness range of the layers within the multilayer second lower shield of Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), in combination with Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1), would still provide the advantages espoused by Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), including wherein the read head shield has "improved magnetic shields that reduce noise in the sensor during read operations." See col. 2, ll. 3-5 of Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1).
Additionally, with respect to the particular claimed ranges, given the teachings and suggestions of Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), in combination with Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan for providing a multilayer shield of a read head, using the teachings of Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), in combination with Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan, as a demonstrative template, it would have been within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely modify the thicknesses of the individual layers within the multilayer read head shield in the course of routine optimization/experimentation and thereby obtain various standard optimized relationships including those set forth in claims 8, 9, and 16 as nothing more than a predictable variation based the on the overarching teachings of Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), in combination with Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan.
Additionally, the 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.
No new or unobvious result is seen to be obtained, given the express teachings and motivations of the applied prior art, and as such, the claimed ranges are seen, absent any unobvious evidence, as nothing more than a predictable variation based the on such overarching and pertinent teachings of Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), in combination with Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan, in light of the general knowledge of an artisan having ordinary skill in the art, with the express rationale provided supra. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., No. 04-1350 (U.S. Apr. 30, 2007).
Moreover still, the Supreme Court opined “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentably.” (Emphasis added) 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740.
As per claims 10 and 15, Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1) (as applied to Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1)), further discloses wherein the second lower shield has an anisotropic magnetic field of about 63 Oe. See Fig. 4 of Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1).
As per claims 11 and 19, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) further discloses wherein the first sensor (450) and the second sensor (460) are each a dual free layer sensor (e.g., see, inter alia, col. 8, ll. 1-13 and ll. 31-46).
As per claim 12 (and as per claim 17, rejected, infra), Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) further discloses a first rear hard bias (RHB) structure (e.g., 446) disposed adjacent to the first sensor (450), the first sensor (450) being disposed at a media facing surface (MFS) (left-side vertical line as seen in Fig. 4B) and the first RHB structure being recessed from the MFS (Fig. 4B); and a second RHB structure (e.g., 448) disposed adjacent to the second sensor (460), the second sensor (460) being disposed at the MFS (Fig. 4B) and the second RHB structure being recessed from the MFS (Fig. 4B), wherein the first upper shield (422), the read separation gap (424), and the second lower shield (426) are disposed between the first RHB structure (446) and the second RHB structure (448).
As per claims 14 and 20, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) further discloses a magnetic recording device (100, 200) is provided - see Figs. 1, 2.
As per claim 18, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) further discloses wherein the read separation gap (e.g., 424) comprises Al203 (e.g. see col. 8, ll. 28-30) and wherein the second lower shield (426) has a greater thickness than the read separation gap (424) see Figs. 4A, 4B.
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.
As per claim 3, although Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1)/Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1) remain silent with regard to wherein the second lower shield (comprising the layer of CoFeHf) has a thickness of about 200 Å to about 300 Å, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention was effectively filed to satisfy the claimed range(s) and/or dimension(s), particularly in light of the teachings of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) and Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1) as a whole, through routine optimization/experimentation. MPEP § 2144.05(II) recognizes that such a rejection may indeed be made when appropriate. “[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).
As per claim 4, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) further discloses wherein the first sensor (450) and the second sensor (460) are each a dual free layer sensor (e.g., see, inter alia, col. 8, ll. 1-13 and ll. 31-46).
As per claim 5, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) further discloses a first rear hard bias (RHB) structure (e.g., 446) disposed adjacent to the first sensor (450), the first sensor (450) being disposed at a media facing surface (MFS) (left-side vertical line as seen in Fig. 4B) and the first RHB structure being recessed from the MFS (Fig. 4B); and a second RHB structure (e.g., 448) disposed adjacent to the second sensor (460), the second sensor (460) being disposed at the MFS (Fig. 4B) and the second RHB structure being recessed from the MFS (Fig. 4B).
As per claim 6, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) further discloses the first upper shield (422), the read separation gap (424), and the second lower shield (426) are disposed between the first RHB structure (446) and the second RHB structure (448).
As per claim 7, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) further discloses a magnetic recording device (100, 200) is provided - see Figs. 1, 2.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) in view of Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1) and Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1) as applied to claims 12 and 15, respectively, above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (US 9,065,043 B1).
See the description of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) in view of Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1) and Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), supra.
As per claims 13 and 17, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) in view of Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1) and Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1) do not expressly disclose wherein the first RHB structure is recessed into the first lower shield a distance of about 15 nm to about 20 nm.
Xiao et al. (US 9,065,043 B1), however, discloses an analogous magnetic head read sensor, in the same field of endeavor as Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) in view of Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1) and Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), and teaches that advantages of recessing a biasing structure (e.g., 208) of a read sensor into a shield (e.g., 203). See, e.g., Fig. 2D.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Xiao et al. (US 9,065,043 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 RHB structure of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) as being recessed into the first lower shield, as taught by Xiao et al. (US 9,065,043 B1), in order to advantageously reduce the shield-to-shield spacing of the read sensor - see abstract of Xiao et al. (US 9,065,043 B1).
Additionally, with respect to the particular claimed ranges of recessing the biasing structure into the first lower shield a distance of about 15 nm to about 20 nm, using the teachings of Xiao et al. (US 9,065,043 B1), in combination with Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan, as a demonstrative template, it would have been within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely modify the recession distance of the biasing structure into the shield, in the course of routine optimization/experimentation and thereby obtain various standard optimized relationships including those set forth in claim 13 and claim 17, as nothing more than a predictable variation based the on the overarching teachings of Xiao et al. (US 9,065,043 B1), in combination with Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan.
Additionally, the 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.
No new or unobvious result is seen to be obtained, given the express teachings and motivations of the applied prior art, and as such, the claimed ranges are seen, absent any unobvious evidence, as nothing more than a predictable variation based the on such overarching and pertinent teachings of Xiao et al. (US 9,065,043 B1), in combination with Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan, in light of the general knowledge of an artisan having ordinary skill in the art, with the express rationale provided supra. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., No. 04-1350 (U.S. Apr. 30, 2007).
Moreover still, the Supreme Court opined “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentably.” (Emphasis added) 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleges that the amendments to the claims, as presented in the Response filed on September 3, 2026, are neither taught nor suggested by the combination of the prior art.
The Examiner disagrees.
As noted in the rejection, supra, as per amended claim 1 (as well as amended claims 8 and 15), the read separation gap of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) is disposed in contact with the first upper shield. However, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) does not expressly disclose a seed layer disposed in contact with the read separation gap, with the second lower shield disposed in contact with the seed layer.
That is, Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) does not disclose a seed layer sandwiched (and in contact with) the read separation gap and the second lower shield layer.
Seed layers used in magnetic read sensors of the type disclosed by Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1), underlying magnetic shield layers and including the materials set forth in claims 1, 8 and 15, however, are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1) disclose an analogous read head, in the same field of endeavor as Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) (and Lin (US 2009/0161268 A1)),
wherein a seed layer (e.g., 125 and/or 101) is disposed as underlying a shield layer and in contact with the overlying shield layer (as per amended claims 1, 8, 15); the placement of such a seed layer as taught by Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), when combined with the sensor of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1), would necessarily be in contact with the read separation gap of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1), in order to underlie the second lower shield of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) (sandwiched therebetween).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 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 second lower read head shield of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) as providing a seed layer disposed on and contacting the read separation gap of Mao et al. (US 11,087,785 B1) (thus underlying the shield layer), with the seed layer comprising one of NiCr or a bilayer of Ru/NiFe, as taught by Hsu et al. (US 8,638,530 B1), in order to advantageously facilitate the electroplating of a much more relatively thicker shield layer thereon - see col. 4, ll. 8-10 and Fig. 4, utilizing a conventional seed layer material.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights