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 .
This office action is a response to the amendment filed on 11/21/2025.
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 1-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ichimura et al. (PGPub 2006/0053621 A1).
Ichimura et al. teach a process of making a disk drive suspension comprising a load beam which comprises a dimple (109, Fig. 4) and a flexure which includes a tongue (107, Fig. 4) opposed to the dimple and an outrigger (106a, Fig. 4) connected to the tongue, the manufacturing method comprising: determining a first position (a step 201) on the outrigger at which a bent portion is to be formed by irradiating a first laser beam, the bent portion being bent in a thickness direction as shown in Fig. 8; calculating predicted values of a pitch angle and a roll angle of the tongue in a case where the bent portion is formed at the first position on the outrigger in Fig. 8 (see the processes of 203, 205, 221, paragraphs [0084]-[0088]); determining, before forming the bent portion by irradiating of the first laser beam, a second position on the outrigger to which a second laser beam is to be irradiated to make the predicted values approximate to predetermined target values in Fig. 8 (a step 201); and irradiating the first laser beam to the first position to form the bent portion, and irradiating the second laser beam to the second position (a step of 223, paragraphs [0065]-[0068]).
Re. claim 2: The measuring initial values of the pitch angle and the roll angle in the suspension is performed before the first laser beam and the second laser beam are irradiated and calculating the predicted values, based on the initial values and predicted amounts of change of the pitch angle and the roll angle before and after the bent portion is formed at the first position in Fig. 8 (203, see paragraph [0075]).
Re. claim 3: The predicted amounts of change is determined by measuring the pitch angle and the roll angle before and after the bent portion is formed in samples of the suspension (211 and 213, paragraphs [0081]-[0082]).
Re. claim 4: A correction data which defines a relationship between the pitch angle and the roll angle deviating from the predetermined target values and the second position for making the pitch angle and the roll angle approximate to the predetermined target values is prepared; and determining the second position for making the predicted values approximate to the predetermined target values, using the correction data as shown in Figs. 8 and 11 (paragraphs [0083]-[0087])
Re. claim 6: The first position is selected from a first region of the outrigger, and the second position is selected from a second region of the outrigger different from the first region as shown in Figs. 7-9.
Re. claim 7: The load beam and the flexure are fixed by a first fixing portion and a second fixing portion closer to a distal end of the load beam than the first fixing portion, and the first region is located between the dimple and the first fixing portion in a length direction of the load beam as shown in Fig. 15 (paragraph [0108]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The prior art of record, Ichimura et al., fails to disclose the claimed invention such as the first position for irradiating the first laser light for forming the bent portion and the second position for irradiating the second laser light are (both) determined before the first laser light is irradiated. Examiner traverses the argument. According to Fig. 8, the step 201 indicates a process of setting irradiating positions (A) – (D) before irradiating by the laser. The positions (A) – (D) include the first position and the second position, which are set to be irradiating by the laser beam. Second, Applicant also argues that the prior art of record, Ichimura et al., fails to disclose the claimed invention such as calculating predicted values of the pitch angle and the roll angle of the tongue in a case where the bent portion is formed at the first position on the outrigger are calculated, and the second position is then determined to make the predicted values approximate to predetermined target values. Examiner traverses the argument. The limitation of calculating predicted values of a pitch angle and a roll angle of the tongue as recited in lines 8-9 of claim 1 is the predicted values before the bent position is form by irradiating the laser to the first position. There is no calculating predicted values of a pitch angle and a roll angle of the tongue of the second position in the claimed invention. However, according to Fig. 8 of Ichimura et al., the steps 203, 205 and 221 indicate a process of calculating predicted values of a pitch angle and a roll angle of the tongue before the bent position is form by irradiating the laser. Lastly, Applicant also argues that the prior art of record, Ichimura et al., fails to disclose the claimed invention, as per claim 6, such as the first position is selected from a first region of the outrigger, and the second position is selected from a second region of the outrigger different from the first region. Examiner traverses the argument. According to Fig. 3 of Ichimura et al., there are four different positions to be irradiating by the laser and Fig. 9 shows how the four different positions are irradiated by the laser (see also paragraph [0073]). Although, applicant is entitled to make up new terminologies, as so desired, please clarify what the deficiencies are so that the examiner can clearly understand and prosecute the merits of the invention by pointing out the claimed devices in the specification and the drawings in the next communication. Applicant’s full cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Therefore, Ichimura et al. teach all limitations as set forth above and examiner maintains his rejection.
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 PAUL D KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 6:00 AM-2:00 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, Aneeta Yodichkas can be reached at 571-272-9773. 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.
/PAUL D KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729