RESPONSE TO AMENDMENT
Request for Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/08/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 5-17, 21 and 23-32 are pending in the application. Amendments to the claims filed on 07/08/2025 have been entered in the above-identified application.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claims made of record in the office action mailed on 05/29/2025 have been withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment in the response filed 07/08/2025.
REJECTIONS
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-17, 21, 23-24, 26-29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasawa et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2012/0243120) in view of Tachibana et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2014/0363700).
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4, Harasawa et al. discloses a magnetic tape and method of making thereof wherein the magnetic tape comprises:
A non-magnetic support (i.e. a base layer) (par. [0042]);
A magnetic layer comprising a ferromagnetic powder and a binder on the non-magnetic support. (par. [0042]).
The thickness of the support is in the range of 3 to 80 micrometers and the magnetic layer thickness is in the range of 10 to 150 nm for a total of 3.01 to 80.15 micrometers for the thickness of the magnetic recording tape (par. [0075]), which substantially overlaps with the presently claimed range. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Harasawa et al. discloses that the average plate diameter of the hexagonal ferrite is 10 to 100 nm and the average plate thickness is in the range of 4 to 15 nm (par. [0060]). According to the formula in par. [0170] of the current specification, this would result in an average particle volume of 259 nm3 ((3√3/8) x 4 x 10 x 10) to 97427 nm3 (((3√3/8) x 15 x 100 x 100).
A magnetic interaction ΔM of between -0.30 to -0.05 wherein ΔM is measured according to the formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
16
172
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(par. [0056]-[0057]).
Harasawa et al. differs from the present claim limitations in that the Ir (∞) is measured under a magnetic field of approximately 10 kOe (par. [0057]). However, in view of the large overlap between the values disclosed in the prior art reference and the claim limitations for ΔM, it would be expected that the values for Ir (∞) under an applied magnetic field of 6 kOe in Harasawa et al. would result in a ΔM value that substantially overlaps with the presently claimed ΔM range, rendering the range obvious over the teachings in the prior art. (see MPEP 2144.05).
With respect to the layer structure of the magnetic tape, Harasawa et al. discloses a magnetic recording medium having a bottom support layer, a nonmagnetic layer (i.e. a foundation layer) thereon and a magnetic layer ontop. (par. [0087]-[0088]). Harasawa et al. discloses that the thickness of the support is in the range of 3 to 80 micrometers, the magnetic layer thickness is in the range of 10 to 150 nm and the nonmagnetic layer thickness is 0.1 to 3.0 micrometers (par. [0075]-[0076]). The ratio of the relative layers therefore lies between 0.0013 ((0.1+0.01)/80) to 1.05 ((3+0.15)/3)) using the claimed formula. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the relative layer thicknesses based on the relative properties for each layer as taught in par. [0075]-[0076]).
Harasawa et al. does not disclose a thermal stability KuVact/kBT of 63 or greater as presently claimed.
Tachibana et al. teaches a magnetic recording medium having a thermal stability value KuVact/kBT of 65 or greater. (Abstract, par. [0025]-[0030]). Tachibana et al. teaches that the value is set to be over 65 in order to prevent the influence of thermal disturbance on the magnetic state. (par. [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set the thermal stability of the magnetic recording medium to be 65 or greater as disclosed in Tachibana et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to set the thermal stability of 65 or greater in order to prevent disturbance from heat which would degrade the performance of the magnetic material as disclosed in Tachibana et al.
Regarding claim 2, the magnetic particles are subjected to a vertical orientation. (par. [0015] and [0048]-[0049]).
Regarding claim 5, according to the formula in par. [0170] of the current specification, average particle volume based on the disclosures of average plate thickness and average plate diameter would be in the range of 259 nm3to 97427 nm3 (par. [0060]) which overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claims 6-7, the thickness of the support is in the range of 3 to 80 micrometers and the magnetic layer thickness is in the range of 10 to 150 nm for a total of 3.01 to 80.15 micrometers for the thickness of the magnetic recording tape (par. [0075]), which substantially overlaps with the presently claimed range.
Regarding claims 8-9, the thickness of the support is in the range of 3 to 80 micrometers. (par. [0075]).
Regarding claim 10, the support may be made of PET or PEN. (par. [0073]).
Regarding claim 12-14, Harasawa et al. discloses that the magnetic layer thickness is in the range of 10 to 150 nm (par. [0075]).
Regarding claims 15-17, Harasawa et al. discloses a squareness in the vertical direction of 0.7 (i.e. 70% or more). (par. [0055]).
Regarding claim 21, Harasawa et al. discloses that the thickness of the support is in the range of 3 to 80 micrometers, the magnetic layer thickness is in the range of 10 to 150 nm, the backcoat layer thickness is int eh range of 0.1 to 0.7 micrometers and the nonmagnetic layer thickness is 0.1 to 3.0 micrometers (par. [0075]-[0076]). The ratio of the relative layers therefore lies between 0.0026 ((0.1+0.01+0.1)/80) to 1.28 ((3+0.15+0.7)/3)) using the claimed formula. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the relative layer thicknesses based on the relative properties for each layer as taught in par. [0075]-[0076]).
Regarding claim 22, Harasawa et al. discloses that the object of his invention is to provide both high SNR and thermal stability (par. [0045]) and while not measuring the thermal stability using the same formula as claimed, Harasawa et al. measures a drop from a sample at a recording density of 200 kfci and the same sample 2 weeks layer is 0% (see Table 1, Examples 1-8), suggesting an extremely high thermal stability. Based on the teachings of Harasawa et al., thermal stability is an important parameter for measuring the quality of a magnetic recording medium. It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the thermal stability of the magnetic recording medium in order to improve the longevity of the product that does not degrade over time and temperature.
Regarding claim 23, Harasawa et al. teaches an SNR of 6.0 on the top end. (Table 1, page 10).
Regarding claim 24, Harasawa et al. discloses that the magnetic powder includes hexagonal ferrite. (Abstract).
Regarding claims 26-27, the claims are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5, above.
Regarding claim 28-29, the claims are rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6-7, above.
Regarding claim 32, the claim is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1, above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasawa et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2012/0243120) in view of Terakawa et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2017/0330661)
Harasawa et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Harasawa et al. does not disclose the saturation magnetization of the magnetic tape.
Terakawa et al. discloses a magnetic powder for use as a soft magnetic material in a recording medium. (Abstract and par. [0001]). Terakawa et al. teaches that the saturation magnetization of the magnetic particles should be in the range of 10 emu/g to 100 emu/g from the standpoint of having improved output levels and good CNR. (par. [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the saturation magnetization of the magnetic tape disclosed in Harasawa et al. based on the teachings of Terakawa et al. regarding the advantageous control of saturation magnetization for soft magnetic particles used in magnetic media.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the saturation magnetization of the magnetic tape in view of the result effective nature of the property with respect to output level and CNR. "Where 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, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 (II).
Claims 25 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harasawa et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2012/0243120) in view of Cherubini et al. (U.S. App. Pub. No. 2009/0316296).
Harasawa et al. is relied upon as described in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Harasawa et al. does not disclose a tape cartridge, communication section, storage section and control section as claimed.
Cherubini et al. teaches a servo control and apparatus for a tape drive including a tape cartridge, read/write heads for communication, a drive (i.e. storage system) and servo controller (i.e. control section) which adjusts the tension on magnetic tape. (Abstract, par. [0005], [0007], [0027] and [0032]). Cherubini et al. teaches that tape storage systems containing cartridges are well known in the art for use as information storage mediums and require high performance and capacity. (par. [0005]-[0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic tape of Harasawa et al. in a tape cartridge system as disclosed in Cherubini et al.
Combining prior art element according to known methods to yield is prima facie obvious MPEP 2143 (A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the magnetic tape of Harasawa et al. in a cartridge system as disclosed in the secondary reference since Cherubini et al. explicitly teaches that such systems are well known in the art for use in information storage. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a high expectation of success of being able to use the magnetic tape of Harasawa et al. in an apparatus/system as suggested in the secondary reference to obtain a magnetic recording device having high performance and capacity.
Regarding claims 30-31, as set forth in the rejection of claim 25, above, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious art to use the magnetic tape of Harasawa et al. in a tape cartridge system as disclosed in Cherubini et al. Cherubini et al. discloses a cartridge with a section having variable tension adjustment applied to the magnetic recording medium. (Abstract, par. [0005] and [0007]).
ANSWERS TO APPLICANT’S ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 07/08/2025 regarding the prior art rejection made of record in the office action mailed on 05/29/2025 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection.
With respect to the arguments directed to the magnetic interaction, thickness and average particle volume, the Examiner notes that the values presently claimed overlap with the ranges disclosed in Harasawa et al. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRE F FERRE whose telephone number is (571)270-5763. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am to 4 pm 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 5712721490. 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.
/ALEXANDRE F FERRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788 10/31/2025