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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/JP2022/008221, filed on February 28th, 2022.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “recording/reproduction apparatus” (Claim 16, Pg. 97, Ln. 19) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “71a” (Pg. 29, Ln. 15). The specification describes “71a” as “a hemispherical abutting portion” (Pg. 29, Ln. 15) which appears to correspond to the component currently labeled as “710” in Figure 13. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “710”. Reference sign “710” appears to refer to “a hemispherical abutting portion” (Pg. 29, Ln. 15).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Objections
Claims 1-2, 8, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Pg. 94, Ln. 16-17, “the other end portion” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. To correct lack of antecedent basis, Examiner suggests “the other end portion” should read --an opposite end portion--
Claim 2, Pg. 94, Ln. 24, “dimeter” should read --diameter--
Claim 8, Pg. 96, Ln. 5, “a slit portion” is already used to describe a component in the second flange (Pg. 94, Ln. 17-18) prior to using “a slit portion” to describe a component in the first flange (Pg. 96, Ln. 5). For clarity, Examiner suggests “a slit portion” (Pg. 96, Ln. 5) should read --a second slit portion--
Claim 8, Pg. 96, Ln. 8, it is unclear whether “the slit portion” refers to “a slit portion” (Pg. 94, Ln. 17-18) or “a slit portion” (Pg. 96, Ln. 5). For clarity, Examiner suggests at least one instance of “a slit portion” should be modified to distinguish the two instances and “the slit portion” should be modified to match its corresponding antecedent term.
Claim 20, Pg. 99, Ln. 5-6, “the other end portion” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. To correct lack of antecedent basis, Examiner suggests “the other end portion” should read --an opposite end portion--
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hiraguchi (US 2003/0094531).
PNG
media_image1.png
713
825
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Annotated Figure 12 from Hiraguchi
Regarding Claim 19, Hiraguchi, Figure 12 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a method of producing a tape cartridge (tape cartridge; See Hiraguchi, Para. 0004, Ln. 1), comprising:
winding a magnetic tape 111 around a first tape reel 1 (See Hiraguchi, Para. 0004, Ln. 1-2);
disposing the magnetic tape 111 between a first flange portion 4a and a second flange portion 4b of a second tape reel 2 through a slit portion 8 formed in the first flange portion 4a (See Figure 1);
housing a leader pin 110 in a housing unit 5 formed on an outer peripheral surface 3b of a reel hub 3 of the second tape reel 2 (See Figure 1), the leader pin 110 being attached to an end portion of the magnetic tape 111 (See Hiraguchi, Para. 0004, Ln. 5-7); and
winding the magnetic tape 111 around the reel hub 3 of the second tape reel 2 (See Hiraguchi, Para. 0004, Ln. 10-11).
Regarding Claim 20, Hiraguchi, Figure 12 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a tape reel 2, comprising:
a cylindrical reel hub 3 that has an inner peripheral surface 3a and an outer peripheral surface 3b, a housing unit 5 capable of housing a leader pin 110 being provided on the outer peripheral surface 3b, the leader pin 110 being attached to an end portion of a magnetic tape 111;
a first flange 4a that is provided to one end portion of the reel hub 3; and
a second flange 4b that is provided to the other end portion of the reel hub 3 and includes a slit portion 6, 8 through which the magnetic tape 111 is capable of passing.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraguchi (US 2003/0094531) in view of Aoike (JP H08129849 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Hiraguchi, Figure 12 and annotated Figure 1 above, teaches a tape cartridge (tape cartridge; See Hiraguchi, Para. 0008, Ln. 1), comprising:
a first tape reel 1;
a magnetic tape 111 that is wound around the first tape reel 1;
a leader pin 110 that is attached to an end portion of the magnetic tape 111 and includes a shaft portion 110a parallel to a tape width direction; and
a second tape reel 2 that includes a cylindrical reel hub 3, a first flange 4a, and a second flange 4b, the cylindrical reel hub 3 having an inner peripheral surface 3a and an outer peripheral surface 3b, a housing unit 5 capable of housing the leader pin 110 being provided on the inner peripheral surface 3a or the outer peripheral surface 3b, the first flange being provided to one end portion of the reel hub 3, the second flange 4b being provided to the other end portion of the reel hub 3 and including a slit portion 6 through which the magnetic tape 111 is capable of passing.
Hiraguchi teaches all the elements of the tape cartridge except for the second tape reel being included in a tape cartridge.
However, Aoike, Figures 1-5, teaches the second tape reel 1 being provided in a tape cartridge (tape cassette; See Aoike, Para. 0020, Ln. 1-11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hiraguchi with a tape cartridge which houses the second tape reel, as taught by Aoike, for the purpose of preventing the end of the tape inside the tape cartridge from easily coming off the second tape reel (See Aoike, Para. 0019, Ln. 2-3).
Regarding Claim 2, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
Hiraguchi further teaches wherein the leader pin 110 further includes enlarged diameter portions 110b that are provided at both end portions of the shaft portion 110a and have an outer diameter larger than a diameter of the shaft portion 110a (See Figure 1), and
the housing unit 5 includes a recessed groove portion 5a capable of housing the leader pin 110.
Although Hiraguchi does not explicitly teach the housing unit including engaging portions capable of engaging with the enlarged diameter portions in an axial direction of the reel hub, in one embodiment shown (See Hiraguchi, Fig. 1) Hiraguchi discloses “the leader pin 22 is caught up (engaged) by drawing-out means of the drive device, and subjected to a drawing-out operation. At each of two end portions of the leader pin 22, which protrude beyond width direction end portions of the magnetic tape T, an annular groove 22A is formed. These annular grooves 22A are caught on to by hooks or the like of the drawing-out means,” (See Hiraguchi; Para. 0038, Ln. 3-9). The drawing out means includes the first tape reel and it is implied that the hooks engaging with grooves in the leader pin could be located on the reel hub of the first tape reel due to an alternate embodiment (See Hiraguchi, Fig. 14) in which a “leader block 130 fits into a drive device side reel hub 136,” (See Hiraguchi; Para. 0010, Ln. 9-10). 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 Hiraguchi by including engaging portions in the housing unit for the purpose of preventing damage to the magnetic tape while it is being drawn out (See Hiraguchi; Para. 0038, Ln. 9-11).
Regarding Claim 3, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
PNG
media_image2.png
222
249
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Annotated Figure 4 from Aoike
Aoike, Figures 1-5 and annotated Figure 2 above, teaches wherein the housing unit 3 is provided on the inner peripheral surface 22’ (“the groove portion 12 for inserting the tape fastening member is formed by … and the inner periphery of the outer hub 22”; See Aoike, Para. 0043, Ln. 1-3) and
the housing unit 3 further includes a passage portion 11 that communicates between the recessed groove portion 12 and the outer peripheral surface 22’’ (See Aoike, Para. 0029, Ln. 1-4), the magnetic tape 5 being capable of passing through the passage portion 11 (See Aoike, Para. 0051, Ln. 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hiraguchi with a housing unit provided on the inner peripheral surface and a passage portion between the recessed groove portion and the outer peripheral surface of the hub, as taught by Aoike, for the purpose of securely attaching the magnetic tape to the hub while suppressing signal loss in the magnetic tape due to side pressure (See Aoike, Para. 0015, Ln. 1-4, Para. 0018, Ln. 1-5).
Regarding Claim 4, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
Hiraguchi further teaches wherein the second flange 4b further includes a central hole 7 concentric with the reel hub 3 (See Figure 1), and
the slit portion 6 is linearly formed in a radial direction from the central hole 7 to an outer peripheral edge portion of the second flange 4b (See Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
Aoike further teaches wherein the reel hub 22 further includes a curved surface portion 11a formed at a boundary between the passage portion 11 and the outer peripheral surface 22’’ (See Figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hiraguchi with a curved surface portion, as taught by Aoike, for the purpose of preventing the edge of the passage portion from causing damage to the magnetic tape as the tape is wound around the hub (See Aoike, Para. 0040, Ln. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 6, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
Although Aoike does not explicitly teach wherein a radius of curvature of a circular arc forming the curved surface portion is 0.1 mm or more, Aoike specifically discloses “the tape insertion groove 11 is rounded … so as not to damage the leader tape 5” (See Aoike, Para. 0040, Ln. 1-2) which implies that the radius of curvature of the curved surface portion affects the likelihood of damaging the tape and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiraguchi by selecting a radius large enough to smooth the sharpness of this edge portion for the purpose of preventing the edge portion from causing damage to the magnetic tape as the tape is wound around the hub. Additionally, the minimum numerical value for the radius of curvature to prevent damage can be determined through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 7, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
Hiraguchi further teaches wherein the housing unit 5 is provided on the outer peripheral surface 3b (See Figure 1), and
the slit portion 6 is linearly formed in a radial direction of the second flange 4b to have a width that allows the leader pin 110 to pass through the slit portion 6 (See Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 8, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
Hiraguchi further teaches wherein the first flange 4a further includes a slit portion 8 that is linearly formed in the radial direction of the second flange 4b to have a width that allows the leader pin 110 to pass through the slit portion 8 (See Figure 1), and
the slit portion 8 of the first flange 4a and the slit portion 6 of the second flange 4b are disposed to face each other in the axial direction (See Figure 1).
Regarding Claim 9, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
PNG
media_image3.png
216
374
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3. Annotated Figure 8 from Aoike
Aoike, Figures 6-10 and annotated Figure 3 above, teaches wherein the reel hub 102 further includes a curved surface portion 111 formed at a boundary between the housing unit 112 and the outer peripheral surface 102’ (See Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hiraguchi with a curved surface portion, as taught by Aoike, for the purpose of preventing the edge of the passage portion from causing damage to the magnetic tape as the tape is wound around the hub (See Aoike, Para. 0040, Ln. 1-2). Although utilizing a curved surface to prevent damage to the tape is highlighted in reference to the edge of the tape insertion groove 11, it is implied that the radius of curvature of any edge portion coming in contact with the tape affects the likelihood of damaging the tape, thus it is an obvious modification to apply the same concept of rounding other edges in contact with the tape for the same purpose of damage prevention.
Regarding Claim 10, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
Although Aoike does not explicitly teach wherein a radius of curvature of a circular arc forming the curved surface portion is 0.1 mm or more, Aoike specifically discloses “the end edge of the tape insertion groove 11 is rounded … so as not to damage the leader tape 5” (See Aoike, Para. 0040, Ln. 1-2) which implies that the radius of curvature of any edge portion coming in contact with the tape affects the likelihood of damaging the tape and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hiraguchi by selecting a radius large enough to smooth the sharpness of this edge portion for the purpose of preventing the edge portion from causing damage to the magnetic tape as the tape is wound around the hub. Additionally, the minimum numerical value for the radius of curvature to prevent damage can be determined through routine experimentation.
Regarding Claim 11, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
Hiraguchi further teaches wherein the recessed groove portion 5a is formed to have a depth larger than a maximum outer diameter of the leader pin 110 (See Figure 1).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraguchi (US 2003/0094531) in view of Aoike (JP H08129849 A), as applied to claims 1- 11 above, and further in view of Yoshimori (JP S64013380 A) and Ohata (JP H04353683 A).
Regarding Claim 12, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
Hiraguchi in view of Aoike teach all the elements of the tape cartridge except for surface roughness characteristics of the outer peripheral surface of the hub.
However, Yoshimori, Figures 1-2, teaches wherein a surface roughness of the outer peripheral surface 2 is 12 micro-m or less in Rz (See Yoshimori, Abstract, Ln. 8-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hiraguchi with a surface roughness of the outer peripheral surface of 12 micro-m or less in Rz, as taught by Yoshimori, for the purpose of preventing the tape from scratches and slippage (See Yoshimori, Abstract, Ln. 8-9).
Ohata, Figures 1-3, teaches wherein a surface roughness of the outer peripheral surface is 2 micro-m or less in Ra (See Ohata, Abstract, Ln. 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hiraguchi with a surface roughness of the outer peripheral surface (“outer circumferential surface of a reel hub”; See Ohata, Abstract, Ln. 3) of 2 micro-m or less in Ra, as taught by Ohata, for the purpose of suppressing the generation of drop-outs in the magnetic tape (See Ohata, Abstract, Ln. 1-3).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraguchi (US 2003/0094531) in view of Aoike (JP H08129849 A), as applied to claims 1- 11 above, and further in view of Morita (US 7,152,826), hereinafter Morita ‘826.
Regarding Claim 13, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
Hiraguchi in view of Aoike teach all the elements of the tape cartridge except for the inner surfaces of the flanges being inclined at an inclination gradient of 2 micro-m/mm or more.
PNG
media_image4.png
654
1067
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figure 4. Annotated Figure 2 from Morita '826
However, Morita ‘826, Figures 1-4 and annotated Figure 4 above, teaches wherein an inner surface 13’ of the first flange 13 and an inner surface 12’ of the second flange 12 are inclined surfaces that are inclined in a direction in which a distance H between the inner surfaces 12, 13 gradually increases radially outward of the second tape reel 10 (See Morita ‘826, Col. 3, Ln. 60-64), and have inclination gradients of 2 micro-m/mm or more (inclination gradient = 2.1 micro-m/mm using example embodiment values; See Morita ‘826, Col. 2, Ln. 4-12; See Figure 4 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hiraguchi with inclined inner surfaces, as taught by Morita ‘826, for the purpose of preventing damage to the magnetic tape caused by irregular wrapping of the magnetic tape (See Morita ‘826, Col. 5, Ln. 41-45).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraguchi (US 2003/0094531) in view of Aoike (JP H08129849 A), as applied to claims 1-11 above, and further in view of Nakashio (US 2019/0143637).
Regarding Claim 14, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
Hiraguchi in view of Aoike teach all the elements of the tape cartridge except for a magnetic layer of the magnetic tape being a coating film of a sputtering film of a magnetic material.
However, Nakashio, teaches wherein a magnetic layer of the magnetic tape is a coating film of a sputtering film of a magnetic material (“development of a magnetic powder of a coating type magnetic recording layer and development of a recording layer such as a sputtered magnetic layer”; See Nakashio, Para. 0003, Ln. 7-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hiraguchi with a sputtered film of magnetic material, as taught by Nakashio, for the purpose of increasing recording density of a magnetic tape (See Nakashio, Para. 0003, Ln. 7-13).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraguchi (US 2003/0094531) in view of Aoike (JP H08129849 A), as applied to claims 1-11 above, and further in view of Kasada (US 2019/0295589).
Regarding Claim 15, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
Hiraguchi in view of Aoike teach all the elements of the tape cartridge except for the magnetic tape having an average thickness of 5.6 micro-m or less.
However, Kasada teaches wherein an average thickness of the magnetic tape is 5.6 micro-m or less (“The thickness of the non-magnetic support is preferably 3.00 to 4.50 μm. The thickness of the magnetic layer is preferably equal to or smaller than 0.15 μm and more preferably equal to or smaller than 0.10 μm … The thickness of the magnetic layer is more preferably 0.01 to 0.10 μm. … The thickness of the non-magnetic layer is, for example, 0.10 to 1.50 pin and preferably 0.10 to 1.00 μm … A thickness of the back coating layer is preferably equal to or smaller than 0.90 μm and more preferably 0.10 to 0.70 μm.” Therefore, a magnetic tape comprising a non-magnetic support, a magnetic layer, a non-magnetic layer, and a back coating layer could be as small as 3.3 micro-m using these suggested values; See Kasada, Para. 0084, Ln. 1 - Para. 0086, Ln. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hiraguchi with a magnetic tape having an average thickness of 5.6 micro-m or less, as taught by Kasada, for the purpose of increasing data capacity of the magnetic tape (i.e. increasing recording density) (See Kasada, Para. 0004, Ln. 1-7, Para. 0084, Ln. 4-6).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiraguchi (US 2003/0094531) in view of Aoike (JP H08129849 A), as applied to claims 1-11 above, and further in view of Magnusson (US 6,338,448) and Morita (US 2003/0226924), hereinafter Morita ‘924.
Regarding Claim 16, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike are advanced above.
Hiraguchi in view of Aoike teach all the elements of the tape cartridge except for the first and second tape reels being housed in the same cartridge case, a support member, and an elastic member.
However, Magnusson, Figures 1-6, teaches a cartridge case 140, 240 that houses the first tape reel 126S, 226S and the second tape reel 126T, 226T (See Magnusson, Fig. 6, Col. 3, Ln. 30-35);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hiraguchi with a cartridge case which houses the first tape reel and the second tape reel, as taught by Magnusson, for the purpose of increasing the range of formats to which the system utilizing the two tape reels can be applied (i.e. the cartridge case can enclose two reels or only one reel which then interacts with a second reel external to the case) (See Magnusson, Col. 3, Ln. 39-43).
Morita ‘924, Figures 1-6, teaches a support member 80 that is disposed inside a reel hub 56 of the first tape reel 50 and abuts on a tip portion 64 of a drive shaft 66 of a recording/reproduction apparatus 68 inserted through the reel hub 56 of the first tape reel 50 (See Morita ‘924, Para. 0036, Ln. 1-8); and
an elastic member 16 that is disposed between the support member 80 and the cartridge case 20 and presses the support member 80 toward the tip portion 64 of the drive shaft 66 (See Morita ‘924, Para. 0034, Ln. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hiraguchi with a support member and an elastic member, as taught by Morita ‘924, for the purpose of preventing inadvertent rotation of the reel (i.e. the reel is biased into a locked position using the support member and elastic member) (See Morita ‘924, Para. 0034, Ln. 4 - Para. 0035, Ln. 8).
Regarding Claim 17, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike, Magnusson, and Morita ‘924 are advanced above.
Morita ‘924 further teaches wherein the cartridge case 20 includes a guide unit 26 that supports the support member 80 so as to be movable in an axial direction of the reel hub 56 of the first tape reel 50 (See Morita ‘924, Para. 0033, Ln. 6-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hiraguchi with a guide unit, as taught by Morita ‘924, for the purpose of preventing inadvertent rotation of the reel (i.e. the guide unit allows for axial movement of the support member but impedes rotational movement of the support member which then meshes with a reel gear that locks the reel’s rotational movement) (See Morita ‘924, Para. 0034, Ln. 4 - Para. 0035, Ln. 8).
Regarding Claim 18, Hiraguchi in view of Aoike, Magnusson, and Morita ‘924 are advanced above.
Morita ‘924 further teaches wherein the support member 80 includes an abutting portion 88 capable of abutting on the tip portion 64 of the drive shaft 66 (See Morita ‘924, Para. 0036, Ln. 1-8).
Although Morita ‘924 does not explicitly disclose the abutting portion being hemispherical, it is shown as having a rounded tip (See Morita ‘924, Fig. 2-3) and modification of this surface to be exactly hemispherical is an obvious matter of design choice.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Hiraguchi with an abutting portion, as taught by Morita ‘924, for the purpose of allowing rotation of the reel when the tape cartridge is used in the device drive/recording apparatus (i.e. the abutting portion abuts the tip of the drive shaft when loaded in the drive device and a force which opposes the elastic member’s bias and moves the support member out of the locked position is created) (See Morita ‘924, Para. 0036, Ln. 1-13).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such references include tape reels and cartridges utilizing particular arrangements for retaining the end of a magnetic tape.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY DOMONIQUE JEFFERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0403. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7:30pm 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571)270-5788. 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.
/T.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3654
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619