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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July8, 2026 has been entered.
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 § 102
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 11, 15-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sato (US-2014/0287271).
Claims 1 and 3: Sato teaches magnetic recording medium comprising a non-magnetic support and a magnetic layer containing ferromagnetic powder (para. 0017), having an arithmetic average roughness Ra measured on a surface of the magnetic layer within the claimed range of 0.8 nm to 2.5 nm or less and a protrusion height difference C (=a-b) within the claimed range of 0.7 nm to 3 nm. See Sato, Page 14, Tables 2 & 3, Example 9 which exemplifies a magnetic recording medium with an arithmetic average roughness Ra of 1.9 nm and a protrusion height difference C of 0.7 nm. Although the measurement of protrusion height difference C of Sato is slightly different from that of the claimed invention, it appears that a value C of 0.7 nm would necessarily fall within the claimed range of 0.7 to 3 nm.
Claims 5-6 and 11: Sato teaches that the magnetic layer contains two or more kinds of non-magnetic powders including alumina. See Sato, Example 9.
Claim 15: Example 9 models after Example 1 which includes a non-magnetic layer provided between the magnetic layer and the non-magnetic support (Sata, para. 0160-0161).
Claim 16: Example 9 models after Example 1 which includes a back coating layer on the opposite side of the non-magnetic support (Sato, para. 0159-0160).
Claim 19: The magnetic recording medium is used in magnetic recording and reproducing devices (Sato, para.0006-0013).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7-8, 10, 12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Masaki (US-2007/0231611).
Claims 7-8, 10, 12 and 14: Sato teaches the magnetic recording medium of the claimed invention as discussed above, in particular, Example 9. In addition, Sato teaches the magnetic layer to contain non-magnetic powder including alumina and silica but not carbon black. In the same field of endeavor, Masaki teaches magnetic recording medium comprising a magnetic layer containing non-magnetic powder including alumina and carbon black (Masaki, para. 0117, 0119 and 0121). Similar to Sato, Masaki teaches a magnetic recording medium comprising a non-magnetic support; and a magnetic layer containing a ferromagnetic powder, wherein an arithmetic average roughness Ra measured on a surface of the magnetic layer is 2.1 nm or less (Masaki, Page 15, Table 3), Therefore, in light of Masaki's teaching, it would have been obvious as matter of choice for the POSITA to utilize alumina, silica or carbon black as the non-magnetic powder in the magnetic layer.
Claims 17-19: Masaki teaches it is common to use magnetic recording medium as materials in magnetic tapes and cartridges (i.e. floppy disks) and recording/reproducing devices (Masaki, para. 0004-0006).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 has been reviewed. Although Sato’s Examples 4, 5 and 11 which have surface roughness within the claimed range of 0.8 to 2.5 nm have been demonstrated in the Declaration to fall outside the value of protrusion height difference, D(HD-HB), of 0.7 to 3.0 nm. However, Applicant fails to show that the protrusion height difference in Example 9 falls outside the claimed range of protrusion height difference. It appears that at a value of 0.7 nm, the protrusion height difference, even if measured according to Applicant’s measuring method, it would necessarily fall within the claimed range of 0.7 to 3.0 nm.
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOA (Holly) LE whose telephone number is (571)272-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10:00 am to 7:00 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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
HOA (Holly) LE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
/HOA (Holly) LE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights