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 . 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01 August 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include one or more reference characters not mentioned in the description. Note, for instance, H (shown in FIG. 8).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or an amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizuno (US 2015/0116865).
Mizuno (US 2015/0116865) teaches a disk hub (28, see FIG. 2, for instance) for retaining a magnetic recording medium (8) comprising an annulus shape and a layer configured for magnetic recording (see paragraph [0035], for instance, i.e., “magnetic recording disk”), the disk hub comprising a base plate portion (28c) configured to support an inner diameter area of the magnetic recording medium (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance); and a stem portion (28b) on the base plate portion and configured to extend into a circular opening of the magnetic recording medium (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), the stem portion comprising a first section (28k, see FIGS. 3 and 4, for instance) with a frustoconical shape (see paragraph [0082], for instance, i.e., “inclined surface 28k is a part of a conical surface”) and a second section (includes inclined surface above 28r in FIG. 4, for instance) extending between the first section and the base plate portion (as shown in FIG. 4 relative to FIG. 3, for instance), wherein a circumference of the second section increases in a direction away from the base plate portion (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance), and wherein a circumference of the first section decreases in the direction away from the base plate portion (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance) [as per claim 1]; wherein a height of the second section between the first section and the base plate portion is less than a thickness of the magnetic recording medium (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) [as per claim 2]; and wherein the disk hub is a component of an apparatus (100, see FIG. 2, for instance) comprising the disk hub; and an actuator (includes 40 and 42, for instance) coupled to the disk hub and configured to rotate the disk hub and the magnetic recording medium positioned thereon to one or more positions (when the actuator comes to rest) [as per claim 10].
With respect to the intended use limitation(s) appearing in claim 10, note that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed “apparatus” is intended to be employed (i.e., “for characterizing a magnetic recording medium for a data storage device” and “for film thickness measurements of the magnetic recording medium,” for instance) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (PTO BPAI 1987).
Claims 1, 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chessman et al. (US 5,270,999).
Chessman et al. (US 5,270,999) teach a disk hub (12, see FIG. 2, for instance) for retaining a magnetic recording medium (14) comprising an annulus shape and a layer configured for magnetic recording (see line 53 in column 1, for instance, i.e., “a floppy disk,” for instance), the disk hub comprising a base plate portion (22) configured to support an inner diameter area of the magnetic recording medium (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance); and a stem portion (includes 34, for instance) on the base plate portion and configured to extend into a circular opening of the magnetic recording medium (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), the stem portion comprising a first section (upper-most section of 12 above surface 34, for instance) with a frustoconical shape (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) and a second section (includes conical surface 34, for instance) extending between the first section and the base plate portion (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), wherein a circumference of the second section increases in a direction away from the base plate portion (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), and wherein a circumference of the first section decreases in the direction away from the base plate portion (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) [as per claim 1]; wherein a height of the second section between the first section and the base plate portion is less than a thickness of the magnetic recording medium (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) [as per claim 2]; and wherein the disk hub is a component of an apparatus (as shown in FIG. 1, for instance) comprising the disk hub; and an actuator coupled to the disk hub and configured to rotate the disk hub and the magnetic recording medium positioned thereon (see lines 60-61 in column 3, for instance, i.e., “hub 12 is rotationally driven by a motor (not shown)”) to one or more positions (when the motor comes to rest) [as per claim 10].
With respect to the intended use limitation(s) appearing in claim 10, note that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed “apparatus” is intended to be employed (i.e., “for characterizing a magnetic recording medium for a data storage device” and “for film thickness measurements of the magnetic recording medium,” for instance) does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations, Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (PTO BPAI 1987).
Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibahara et al. (US 7,798,721).
Shibahara et al. (US 7,798,721) teach a disk hub (3, see FIG. 1, for instance) for retaining a magnetic recording medium (see lines 32-34 in column 12, for instance, i.e., “member 3 retains one or a plurality of disk-like information recording mediums, such as magnetic disks”) comprising an annulus shape and a layer configured for magnetic recording (inherent to all magnetic disks), the disk hub comprising a base plate portion (3a) for supporting an inner diameter area of the magnetic recording medium; and a stem portion (extending above reference character 2) on the base plate portion and configured to extend into a circular opening of the magnetic recording medium, wherein the disk hub comprises an electrostatic dissipative material (see line 64 in column 6 thru line 10 in column 7, for instance, i.e., “A filler consisting of reinforcement fibers, a conductive agent, etc. is blended into these base resins, and, by using the resin compositions thus obtained, the housing 7 and the disk [hub] 3 are formed separately through injection molding. Examples of the filler to be selected and used as needed include a fibrous filler, such as glass fibers and carbon fibers, a whisker-like filler, such as potassium titanate, a scaly filler, such as mica, and fibrous or powdered conductive fillers, such as carbon black, graphite, carbon nanomaterial, and metal powder. By way of example, in this embodiment, PAN-based carbon fibers, which are superior in strength, elastic modulus, etc., are used as the reinforcement fibers, and carbon nanotube, which helps to secure high conductivity in a small blending amount, is used as the electrical conductive agent”) [as per claim 20]; wherein the electrostatic dissipative material is infused with carbon nanotubes (see line 64 in column 6 thru line 10 in column 7, for instance, i.e., “A filler consisting of reinforcement fibers, a conductive agent, etc. is blended into these base resins… and carbon nanotube, which helps to secure high conductivity in a small blending amount, is used as the electrical conductive agent”) [as per claim 21]; wherein the electrostatic dissipative material comprises a thermoplastic or poly ether ether ketone (see line 64 in column 6 thru line 10 in column 7, for instance, i.e., “PAN,” which is an abbreviation for polyacrylonitrile, is a thermoplastic) [as per claim 22]; and wherein the electrostatic dissipative material comprises a poly ether ether ketone material infused with carbon nanotubes (see lines 48-54 in column 6 and line 64 in column 6 thru line 10 in column 7, for instance, i.e., “the housing 7 and the disk hub 3 are formed as resin molded parts. Examples of the material to be used for these components include thermoplastic resins, such as… polyetherether ketone…” “A filler consisting of reinforcement fibers, a conductive agent, etc. is blended into these base resins… and carbon nanotube, which helps to secure high conductivity in a small blending amount, is used as the electrical conductive agent”) [as per claim 23].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-9, 11-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno (US 2015/0116865) in view of Shibahara et al. (US 7,798,721).
With respect to claims 6-9, Mizuno (US 2015/0116865) teaches the disk hub as detailed in paragraph 5, supra.
With respect to claims 11-12 and 16-19, Mizuno (US 2015/0116865) teaches a method of manufacturing a disk hub (28, see FIG. 2, for instance) for retaining a magnetic recording medium (8) comprising an annulus shape and a layer configured for magnetic recording (see paragraph [0035], for instance, i.e., “magnetic recording disk”), the method comprising forming the disk hub using a hub material (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), comprising, providing a base plate portion (28c) configured to support an inner diameter area of the magnetic recording medium (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance); and providing a stem portion (28b) on the base plate portion and configured to extend into a circular opening of the magnetic recording medium (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), the stem portion comprising a first section (28k, see FIGS. 3 and 4, for instance) with a frustoconical shape (see paragraph [0082], for instance, i.e., “inclined surface 28k is a part of a conical surface”) and a second section (includes inclined surface above 28r in FIG. 4, for instance) extending between the first section and the base plate portion (as shown in FIG. 4 relative to FIG. 3, for instance), wherein a circumference of the second section increases in a direction away from the base plate portion (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance), and wherein a circumference of the first section decreases in the direction away from the base plate portion (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance) [as per claims 11 and 16-19]; wherein a height of the second section between the first section and the base plate portion is less than a thickness of the magnetic recording medium (as shown in FIG. 4, for instance) [as per claim 12].
Mizuno (US 2015/0116865), however, remains silent as to the hub material being a “thermoplastic polymer” as per claims 11-12 and 16-19, “wherein the stem portion comprises a material with a hardness less than that of stainless steel” as per claims 6 and 16, “wherein the material comprises an electrostatic dissipative material” as per claims 7 and 17, “wherein the electrostatic dissipative material is infused with carbon nanotubes” as per claims 8 and 18, and “wherein the material comprises a thermoplastic or poly ether ether ketone” as per claims 9 and 19.
Shibahara et al. (US 7,798,721) teach that a thermoplastic polymer with a hardness less than that of stainless steel, that is an electrostatic dissipative material, is infused with carbon nanotubes, and comprises a thermoplastic or poly ether ether ketone is a notoriously old and well known hub material in the art (see lines 48-54 in column 6 and line 64 in column 6 thru line 10 in column 7, for instance, i.e., “the housing 7 and the disk hub 3 are formed as resin molded parts. Examples of the material to be used for these components include thermoplastic resins, such as… polyetherether ketone…” “A filler consisting of reinforcement fibers, a conductive agent, etc. is blended into these base resins… and carbon nanotube, which helps to secure high conductivity in a small blending amount, is used as the electrical conductive agent”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the hub material of Mizuno (US 2015/0116865) be a “thermoplastic polymer” as per claims 11-12 and 16-19, “wherein the stem portion comprises a material with a hardness less than that of stainless steel” as per claims 6 and 16, “wherein the material comprises an electrostatic dissipative material” as per claims 7 and 17, “wherein the electrostatic dissipative material is infused with carbon nanotubes” as per claims 8 and 18, and “wherein the material comprises a thermoplastic or poly ether ether ketone” as per claims 9 and 19, as taught/suggested by Shibahara et al. (US 7,798,721). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the hub material of Mizuno (US 2015/0116865) be a “thermoplastic polymer” as per claims 11-12 and 16-19, “wherein the stem portion comprises a material with a hardness less than that of stainless steel” as per claims 6 and 16, “wherein the material comprises an electrostatic dissipative material” as per claims 7 and 17, “wherein the electrostatic dissipative material is infused with carbon nanotubes” as per claims 8 and 18, and “wherein the material comprises a thermoplastic or poly ether ether ketone” as per claims 9 and 19, as taught/suggested by Shibahara et al. (US 7,798,721), since such is a notoriously old and well known hub material in the art, and selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 6-9, 11-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chessman et al. (US 5,270,999) in view of Shibahara et al. (US 7,798,721).
With respect to claims 6-9, Chessman et al. (US 5,270,999) teaches the disk hub as detailed in paragraph 6, supra.
With respect to claims 11-12 and 16-19, Chessman et al. (US 5,270,999) teaches a method of manufacturing a disk hub (12, see FIG. 2, for instance) for retaining a magnetic recording medium (14) comprising an annulus shape and a layer configured for magnetic recording (see line 53 in column 1, for instance, i.e., “a floppy disk,” for instance), the method comprising forming the disk hub using a hub material (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), comprising, providing a base plate portion (22) configured to support an inner diameter area of the magnetic recording medium (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance); and providing a stem portion (includes 34, for instance) on the base plate portion and configured to extend into a circular opening of the magnetic recording medium (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), the stem portion comprising a first section (upper-most section of 12 above surface 34, for instance) with a frustoconical shape (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) and a second section (includes conical surface 34, for instance) extending between the first section and the base plate portion (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), wherein a circumference of the second section increases in a direction away from the base plate portion (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), and wherein a circumference of the first section decreases in the direction away from the base plate portion (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) [as per claims 11 and 16-19]; wherein a height of the second section between the first section and the base plate portion is less than a thickness of the magnetic recording medium (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) [as per claim 12].
Chessman et al. (US 5,270,999), however, remains silent as to the hub material being a “thermoplastic polymer” as per claims 11-12 and 16-19, “wherein the stem portion comprises a material with a hardness less than that of stainless steel” as per claims 6 and 16, “wherein the material comprises an electrostatic dissipative material” as per claims 7 and 17, “wherein the electrostatic dissipative material is infused with carbon nanotubes” as per claims 8 and 18, and “wherein the material comprises a thermoplastic or poly ether ether ketone” as per claims 9 and 19.
Shibahara et al. (US 7,798,721) teach that a thermoplastic polymer with a hardness less than that of stainless steel, that is an electrostatic dissipative material, is infused with carbon nanotubes, and comprises a thermoplastic or poly ether ether ketone is a notoriously old and well known hub material in the art (see lines 48-54 in column 6 and line 64 in column 6 thru line 10 in column 7, for instance, i.e., “the housing 7 and the disk hub 3 are formed as resin molded parts. Examples of the material to be used for these components include thermoplastic resins, such as… polyetherether ketone…” “A filler consisting of reinforcement fibers, a conductive agent, etc. is blended into these base resins… and carbon nanotube, which helps to secure high conductivity in a small blending amount, is used as the electrical conductive agent”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the hub material of Chessman et al. (US 5,270,999) be a “thermoplastic polymer” as per claims 11-12 and 16-19, “wherein the stem portion comprises a material with a hardness less than that of stainless steel” as per claims 6 and 16, “wherein the material comprises an electrostatic dissipative material” as per claims 7 and 17, “wherein the electrostatic dissipative material is infused with carbon nanotubes” as per claims 8 and 18, and “wherein the material comprises a thermoplastic or poly ether ether ketone” as per claims 9 and 19, as taught/suggested by Shibahara et al. (US 7,798,721). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the hub material of Chessman et al. (US 5,270,999) be a “thermoplastic polymer” as per claims 11-12 and 16-19, “wherein the stem portion comprises a material with a hardness less than that of stainless steel” as per claims 6 and 16, “wherein the material comprises an electrostatic dissipative material” as per claims 7 and 17, “wherein the electrostatic dissipative material is infused with carbon nanotubes” as per claims 8 and 18, and “wherein the material comprises a thermoplastic or poly ether ether ketone” as per claims 9 and 19, as taught/suggested by Shibahara et al. (US 7,798,721), since such is a notoriously old and well known hub material in the art, and selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes Dunfield et al. (US 5,485,331), Okumura et al. (US 5,969,902), and Komura et al. (US 6,686,673), which each individually teaches a disk hub comprising an electrostatic dissipative material; and Shiraishi et al. (US 8,737,018) and Li et al. (US 11,651,793), which each individually teaches a disk hub with a stem portion comprising a first section with a frustoconical shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 13-15 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Craig A. Renner whose telephone number is (571) 272-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 7:30 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, Steven Lim can be reached at (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.
/CRAIG A. RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights