DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/2/26 has been entered.
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 .
Examiner’s Comments
The examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the references 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 the responses, to fully consider the references in 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites a magnetic recording medium comprising a Brvertical to be of 1201-1830 G (1201.37 = -0.01(34863)+1550). However, claim 11, which depends upon claim 10, comprise of a broader range (minimum value is 1200 G). Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 10-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinbo et al. (US 2005/0048323) in view of Sato (US 2016/0293196).
Regarding claims 10-12, Zinbo discloses R/R device comprising a magnetic recording medium comprising a non-magnetic support [0074], a magnetic layer containing a ferromagnetic powder [0020], wherein Brδ is 5-200 mT·µm [0103]. Since Zinbo discloses δ (thickness) of 0.01-0.5µm [0103], Zinbo therefore discloses Br of 100-200,000 G. Further, Zinbo discloses a squareness is calculated in a vertical direction [0104]. Since squareness involves Br, one of ordinary skill in the art would immediately recognize that Br is measured in vertical direction as well.
Although Zinbo discloses a R/R device, Zinbo fails to explicitly disclose a reproduction bit size is 14941-34863 nm2 or less as claimed.
Sato discloses a magnetic recording medium comprising a linear recording density of 540 kbpi and a reproduction element width of 0.50 µm [0214]. This thereby has a reproduction bit size of 23,518 nm2 (= (25,400,000 nm/540,000) x 500 nm). Thereby, X=1785.18
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zinbo’s device to have a reproduction bit size as claimed, since Sato discloses that this is a typical or known reproduction bit size for a better electromagnetic conversion characteristics and low bit error rates [0222-0223].
In light of Zinbo’s Br of 100-200,000 G and Zinbo in view of Sato’s reproduction bit size of 23,518 nm2 (wherein X=1785.18 G), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges, to satisfy the claim X, disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549.
Regarding claim 14, Zinbo discloses hexagonal barium ferrite powder [0020].
Regarding claim 15, Zinbo disclose magnetic tape [0118].
Regarding claim 16, Zinbo discloses a non-magnetic layer as claimed [0037-0039].
Regarding claim 17, Zinbo discloses a back coating layer as claimed (claim 14).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zinbo et al. (US 2005/0048323) in view of Sato (US 2016/0293196) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ozawa et al. (US 2018/0286446).
Zinbo discloses the claimed invention except that it uses hexagonal barium ferrite powder instead of hexagonal strontium ferrite powder. Ozawa shows that hexagonal strontium ferrite powder is an equivalent structure known in the art [0084]. Therefore, because these two materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute hexagonal barium ferrite powder for hexagonal strontium ferrite powder in the invention of Zinbo. Substitution of equivalents requires no express motivation as long as the prior art recognizes the equivalency. In re Fount 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt 152 USPQ 618 (CCPA 1967); Grover Tank & Mfg. Co. Inc V. Linde Air Products Co. 85 USPQ 328 (USSC 1950).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Zinbo in view of Ozawa has been withdrawn based upon the narrowed claimed range of the reproduction bit size.
Claim 10 recites a magnetic recording and reproducing device comprising a reproduction bit size of 14941-34863 nm2 and a magnetic recording medium comprising a Brvertical of 1201-1830 G (1201.37 = -0.01(34863)+1550).
Applicant argues that the effect demonstrated in Table 3 is one that would not have been expected by those skilled in the art. Thereby, applicant argues that Zinbo in view of Sato would not have been obvious in the invention of claim 10. This has been found unpersuasive.
Applicant stated that “even if the relationship in claim 10 is not satisfied, a reproduction output of 1.0 dB (equivalent to the threshold described in paragraph [0101] of the specification as filed) is obtained” with regards to medium 3 having a Brvertical of 900 G. Applicant further goes on to state that, “when the relationship specified in claim 10 is satisfied, a reproduction output of 1.0 dB or higher (i.e., excellent electromagnetic conversion characteristics) is obtained. Because an output of 1.0 dB can be satisfied with and without the claimed relationship, there appears to be no criticality associated with the reproduction bit size in combination of Brvertical. Although applicant appears to argue an unexpected result of improve electromagnetic conversion characteristics, the issues with the data as highlighted above illustrate that such unexpected results have not been persuasively demonstrated.
Therefore, the invention of claim 10 would have been obvious from Zinbo in view of Sato.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINDA N CHAU whose telephone number is (571)270-5835. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571)272-1291. 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.
Linda Chau
/L.N.C/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
/Holly Rickman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1785