DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0001 under “Cross Reference to Related Applications”, please also indicate that Application No. 18/678,681 is now U.S. Patent Number 12,444,436.
Appropriate correction is requested by the Examiner.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2 & 4-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,444,436 (hereafter “patent claims”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the following reasons.
(a) Method claims in this application and corresponding product claims in patent:
Claims 1, 2 & 4-11 in the instant application recite a method of manufacturing a write head having the same limitations as those recited in patent claims 1-9. While the two sets of claims have different statutory classes, the same inventive concept is being claimed in both method and product claims, please see the mapping of claims provided below. The method of manufacturing the product is obvious in view of the product itself, and vice-versa. Therefore, the two sets of claims are not patentably distinct from each other. The grant of two separate patents to the two sets of claims, without a terminal disclaimer, would unjustifiably and improperly extend the inventor’s “right to exclude”. See In re Boylan 392 F.2d 1017 (C.C.P.A. 1968).
(b) Claims in this application being generic to the species of the claims in the patent:
The patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims (please see mapping of the claims provided below). The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, “a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim”, In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, “Thus, the generic invention is ‘anticipated’ by the species of the patented invention” and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
The instant claims are believed to map to the patent claims as follows:
Claim 1 maps to patent claim 1:
In regard to claim 1, patent claim 1 recites/suggests a method for manufacturing a write head for a hard disk drive (lines 1-2: “A near-field transducer (NFT) for a hard disk drive write head”), the method comprising: providing a main pole (MP) (line 3: “a main pole (MP)”); disposing a bilayer transducer adjacent to the MP (line 4: “a bilayer transducer disposed adjacent to the MP”); providing a waveguide core (line 5: “a waveguide core”); and disposing a waveguide blocker disposed adjacent to the waveguide core (lines 6-7: “a waveguide blocker disposed adjacent to the waveguide core”), wherein the waveguide blocker comprises a parabolic shape with a surface configured to be exposed to an ABS surface of the write head (lines 7-9: “the waveguide blocker comprises a parabolic shape with a surface configured to be exposed to an ABS surface of the write head”).
Claim 2 maps to patent claim 1:
In regard to claim 2, patent claim 1 recites wherein the waveguide blocker is configured to reduce electromagnetic radiation from the waveguide core and recycle a scattering field to mitigate a thermal background in a recording medium and improve a thermal gradient to increase an area density capacity (ADC) of the write head (patent claim 1, lines 9-15: “wherein the waveguide blocker is configured to reduce electromagnetic radiation from the waveguide core and recycle a scattering field emitting from the NFT to mitigate a thermal background in a recording medium and improve a thermal gradient to increase an area density capacity (ADC) of the hard disk drive write head.”).
Claim 4 maps to patent claim 2:
In regard to claim 4, patent claim 2 recites wherein the waveguide blocker comprises a parabolic curved surface in a center portion of a first side of the waveguide blocker (patent claim 2: “wherein the waveguide blocker comprises a parabolic curved surface in a center portion of a first side of the waveguide blocker”).
Claim 5 maps to patent claim 3:
In regard to claim 5, patent claim 3 recites wherein the parabolic curved surface is defined as a function of y = x^2/(4*focal), wherein focal is a focal length of the waveguide blocker (patent claim 3: “wherein the curved surface is defined as a function of y = x^2/(4*focal), wherein focal is a focal length of the waveguide blocker”).
Claim 6 maps to patent claim 4:
In regard to claim 6, patent claim 4 recites wherein the first side of the waveguide blocker comprises a slope angle WGBa ranging between 10 and 90 degrees (patent claim 4: “wherein the first side of the waveguide blocker comprises a slope angle WGBa ranging between 10 and 90 degrees”).
Claim 7 maps to patent claim 5:
In regard to claim 7, patent claim 5 recites wherein the waveguide blocker at least partially comprises Rhodium Iridium, Gold, Silver or Ruthenium (patent claim 5: “wherein the waveguide blocker at least partially comprises Rhodium Iridium, Gold, Silver or Ruthenium”).
Claim 8 maps to patent claim 6:
In regard to claim 8, patent claim 6 recites wherein the waveguide blocker comprises a Ruthenium layer disposed above both a leading shield layer and a silicon dioxide (SiO2) layer (patent claim 6: “wherein the waveguide blocker comprises a Ruthenium layer disposed above both a leading shield layer and a silicon dioxide (SiO2) layer”).
Claim 9 maps to patent claim 7:
In regard to claim 9, patent claim 7 recites wherein any of the Ruthenium layer and SiO2 layer is tapered ranging between 10 and 90 degrees as part of an ion beam etching and photoresist masking process (patent claim 7: “wherein any of the Ruthenium layer and SiO2 layer is tapered ranging between 10 and 90 degrees as part of an ion beam etching and photoresist masking process”).
Claim 10 maps to patent claim 8:
In regard to claim 10, patent claim 8 recites wherein a full film of SiO2 is disposed over the Ruthenium layer (patent claim 8: “wherein a full film of SiO2 is disposed over the Ruthenium layer”).
Claim 11 maps to patent claim 9:
In regard to claim 11, patent claim 9 recites wherein the waveguide core comprises Tantalum Oxide (TaOx) and is disposed on the full film of SiO2 adjacent to the Ruthenium layer (patent claim 9: “wherein the waveguide core comprises Tantalum Oxide (TaOx) and is disposed on the full film of SiO2 adjacent to the Ruthenium layer”).
Claim 12 maps to patent claim 1:
In regard to claim 12, patent claim 1 recites a write head for a hard disk drive (lines 1-2: “A near-field transducer (NFT) for a hard disk drive write head”), comprising: a main pole (MP) (line 3: “a main pole (MP)”); a bilayer transducer adjacent to the MP (line 4: “a bilayer transducer disposed adjacent to the MP”); a waveguide core (line 5: “a waveguide core”); and a waveguide blocker disposed adjacent to the waveguide core (lines 6-7: “a waveguide blocker disposed adjacent to the waveguide core”), wherein the waveguide blocker comprises a parabolic shape with a surface configured to be exposed to an ABS surface of the write head (lines 7-9: “the waveguide blocker comprises a parabolic shape with a surface configured to be exposed to an ABS surface of the write head”).
Claim 13 maps to patent claim 1:
In regard to claim 13, patent claim 1 recites wherein the waveguide blocker is configured to reduce electromagnetic radiation from the waveguide core and recycle a scattering field to mitigate a thermal background in a recording medium and improve a thermal gradient to increase an area density capacity (ADC) of the write head (patent claim 1, lines 9-15: “wherein the waveguide blocker is configured to reduce electromagnetic radiation from the waveguide core and recycle a scattering field emitting from the NFT to mitigate a thermal background in a recording medium and improve a thermal gradient to increase an area density capacity (ADC) of the hard disk drive write head.”).
Claim 14 maps to patent claim 2:
In regard to claim 14, patent claim 2 recites wherein the waveguide blocker comprises a parabolic curved surface in a center portion of a first side of the waveguide blocker (patent claim 2: “wherein the waveguide blocker comprises a parabolic curved surface in a center portion of a first side of the waveguide blocker”).
Claim 15 maps to patent claim 3:
In regard to claim 15, patent claim 3 recites wherein the parabolic curved surface is defined as a function of y = x^2/(4*focal), wherein focal is a focal length of the waveguide blocker (patent claim 3: “wherein the curved surface is defined as a function of y = x^2/(4*focal), wherein focal is a focal length of the waveguide blocker”).
Claim 16 maps to patent claim 4:
In regard to claim 16, patent claim 4 recites wherein the first side of the waveguide blocker comprises a slope angle WGBa ranging between 10 and 90 degrees (patent claim 4: “wherein the first side of the waveguide blocker comprises a slope angle WGBa ranging between 10 and 90 degrees”).
Claim 17 maps to patent claim 5:
In regard to claim 17, patent claim 5 recites wherein the waveguide blocker at least partially comprises Rhodium Iridium, Gold, Silver or Ruthenium (patent claim 5: “wherein the waveguide blocker at least partially comprises Rhodium Iridium, Gold, Silver or Ruthenium”).
Claim 18 maps to patent claim 6:
In regard to claim 18, patent claim 6 recites wherein the waveguide blocker comprises a Ruthenium layer disposed above both a leading shield layer and a silicon dioxide (SiO2) layer (patent claim 6: “wherein the waveguide blocker comprises a Ruthenium layer disposed above both a leading shield layer and a silicon dioxide (SiO2) layer”).
Claim 19 maps to patent claim 7:
In regard to claim 19, patent claim 7 recites wherein any of the Ruthenium layer and SiO2 layer is tapered ranging between 10 and 90 degrees as part of an ion beam etching and photoresist masking process (patent claim 7: “wherein any of the Ruthenium layer and SiO2 layer is tapered ranging between 10 and 90 degrees as part of an ion beam etching and photoresist masking process”).
Claim 20 maps to patent claim 8:
In regard to claim 20, patent claim 8 recites wherein a full film of SiO2 is disposed over the Ruthenium layer (patent claim 8: “wherein a full film of SiO2 is disposed over the Ruthenium layer”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2 & 4-20 would otherwise be allowable over the prior art of record if the rejections based on non-statutory double patenting are overcome.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art of record, Staffaroni et al. (US 2019/026433) discloses: in regard to claim 1, a method for manufacturing a write head (Figure 3b) for a hard disk drive, the method comprising: providing a main pole (MP) (100); disposing a bilayer transducer (150, 155) adjacent to the MP; providing a waveguide core (180); and disposing a waveguide blocker (170, 200) disposed adjacent to the waveguide core.
However, Staffaroni et al. does not disclose: in regard to claim 1, wherein the waveguide blocker comprises a parabolic shape with a surface configured to be exposed to an ABS surface of the write head.
Claim 12 recites similar distinguishing limitations as claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon (see attached PTO-892 form) is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Peng et al. (US 9,047,912) discloses a three-dimensional waveguide that extends along a light-propagation direction and includes an input coupler, a curved middle section, and a terminating end.
Gan et al. (US 10,403,313) discloses a heat-assisted magnetic recording head having a trench that serves to improve and/or reduce a thermal curvature, δ, of a hot spot by effectively narrowing the thickness, tgap. which results in a higher downtrack gradient compared to a recording head without a trench.
Bakir et al. (US 2004/0184704) discloses a curved optical waveguide defined by one or more methods such as photo-definition, wet chemical etching, dry plasma etching, thermally-induced refractive index gradients, and ion implantation.
Goulakov (US 2017/0092309) discloses heat assisted magnetic recording wherein a photoresist structure has a circular footprint and is used to form a hemispherical (or half-parabolic) sacrificial mask.
Maletzky et al. (US 2019/0066722) discloses a thermally assisted magnetic recording head that includes pre-focusing structures that concentrate plasmon energy by the creation of surface plasmon polaritons which are converted to more narrowly confined plasmons by excitation by a tapered waveguide; and a waveguide blocker at the distal end of a waveguide enhances the formation of surface plasmon polaritons at the interface between the blocker and the distal end of the waveguide.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Peter Vincent Agustin whose telephone number is (571) 272-7567. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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.
/Peter Vincent Agustin/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights