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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group (I) (claims 1-16 and 20) claims in the reply filed on 04/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 20 includes “Lifting means to raise or lower one or more storage disk” (see [0034]-[0035]) “holding means” ([0018][0020]; “driving means” which are interpreted under ([0032]-[0035]).
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.
Claim(s) 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Noguchi et al. (US 9,263,079 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Noguchi et al. teach a lubricant station for applying lubricant to one or more storage disk platters (see abstract; Fig. 1 includes tank 1 with lubricant L for applying one or more lubricant to one or more storage disks 100) comprising:
a tub (1) for holding a process fluid comprising lubricant (Fig. 1, item L; see col 5 lines 5 to col 6 lines 65)); a caddy disposed in the tub (Fig 2 item 2), the caddy configured to receive the one or more storage disk platters (Fig 2 item 2 includes plurality of storage disk platters 100), the caddy comprising:
a mandrel configured to raise and lower the one or more storage disk platters into the tub (Fig 1 item 8-support pole that is raised or lowered with the one or more storage disk plates); one or more rotatable shafts configured to hold the one or more storage disk platters (Fig 1 item 10-lead screw that indirectly holds the one or more storage disk platter and rotates); and a drive mechanism for rotating the one or more rotatable shafts (Fig 1 item 11-driving motor for rotating the shaft – 10); and control circuitry configured to: lower, using the mandrel, the one or more storage disk platters onto the one or more rotatable shafts of the caddy; rotate, using the drive mechanism, the one or more rotatable shafts; and remove, using the mandrel, the one or more storage disk platters from the tub (the motor inherently includes circuity/programmed to perform the rotation, remove the mandrel, etc, see col 5 lines 45 to col 6 lines 65).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi et al. (US 9,263,079 B2) in view of Ryabova (US 2012/0301671 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 5-6, Noguchi et al. teach all the limitations to the claim invention as discussed above, however, fail to teach wherein the one or more storage disk platters are in a vertical orientation when being raised and lowered into the tub; wherein the one or more rotatable shafts rotate a first platter of the one or more storage disk platters about 180 degrees while the first platter is submerged in the process fluid; wherein the one or more rotatable shafts rotate a first platter of the one or more storage disk platters about 180 + 360*n degrees (where n is a whole number) while the first platter is submerged in the process fluid as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to process and system for coating an object, Ryabova teaches wherein the one or more storage disk platters are in a vertical orientation when being raised and lowered into the tub (Fig 12-13 disk vertically orientable; [0119]-[0125]); wherein the one or more rotatable shafts rotate a first platter of the one or more storage disk platters about 180 degrees while the first platter is submerged in the process fluid (see [0119]-[0125] which discloses positioning the disk on spindle which rotates in a tank); wherein the one or more rotatable shafts rotate a first platter of the one or more storage disk platters about 180 + 360*n degrees (where n is a whole number) while the first platter is submerged in the process fluid as claimed (see Fig 12-13; [0120] discloses FIG. 13 is an enlargement of FIG. 12. Attached to the distal end of member 18 is spindle drive assembly 20 which comprises spin motor 22 which is attached to spindle 24. The spindle is attached to first gimbal 26. When spin motor 22 is activated, it rotates spindle 24, first gimbal 26 and object 28 around the vertical axis.).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the applicant’s invention was effectively filed to modify the system of lubricating disk as taught by Noguchi et al. with vertical stacking, and rotating, as taught by Ryabova, for the benefit of efficiently coating a disk, thereby improving its surface properties/strength.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 7-10 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. The closest prior art Noguchi et al. (US 9,263,079 B2), fails to teach
wherein the one or more storage disk platters are in a vertical orientation when being raised and lowered into the tub; wherein: a first platter of the one or more storage disk platters comprises a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge; the first edge is positioned at a lowest point of the first platter in the vertical orientation; the second edge is positioned at a top point of the first platter in the vertical orientation; and the positions of the first edge and the second edge are reversed after the first platter is lowered into the tub, but before the first platter is removed from the tub; wherein: a first platter of the one or more storage disk platters comprises a first edge and a second edge opposite the first edge; the first edge enters the process fluid first, the first edge is rotated to a different position, and the first edge leaves the process fluid first; and the second edge touches the process fluid last, the second edge is rotated to a previous position of the first edge, and the second edge leaves the process fluid last; wherein the one or more rotatable shafts comprise: a first rotatable shaft with a first plurality of grooves configured to fit edges of one or more storage disk platters; and a second rotatable shaft with a second plurality of grooves configured to fit the edges of one or more storage disk platters, the second rotatable shaft spaced a distance to a side of the first rotatable shaft, the distance less than a width of a platter of the one or more storage disk platters.
Claims 11-16 and 20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: regarding independent claim 11, the closest prior art Noguchi et al. (US 6,263,079 B2) teach a lubricant station for applying lubricant to one or more storage disk platters (see abstract; Fig. 1 includes tank 1 with lubricant L for applying one or more lubricant to one or more storage disks 100) comprising:
a tub (1) for holding a process fluid comprising lubricant (Fig. 1, item L; see col 5 lines 5 to col 6 lines 65)); a caddy disposed in the tub (Fig 2 item 2), the caddy configured to receive the one or more storage disk platters (Fig 2 item 2 includes plurality of storage disk platters 100), the caddy comprising:
a mandrel configured to raise and lower the one or more storage disk platters into the tub (Fig 1 item 8-support pole that is raised or lowered with the one or more storage disk plates); one or more rotatable shafts configured to hold the one or more storage disk platters (Fig 1 item 10-lead screw that indirectly holds the one or more storage disk platter and rotates); and a drive mechanism for rotating the one or more rotatable shafts (Fig 1 item 11-driving motor for rotating the shaft – 10); and control circuitry configured to: lower, using the mandrel, the one or more storage disk platters onto the one or more rotatable shafts of the caddy; rotate, using the drive mechanism, the one or more rotatable shafts; and remove, using the mandrel, the one or more storage disk platters from the tub (the motor inherently includes circuity/programmed to perform the rotation, remove the mandrel, etc, see col 5 lines 45 to col 6 lines 65).
However, Noguchi et al. fail to teach rotate the one or more storage disk platters on the one or more rotatable shafts; and remove, using the mandrel, the one or more storage disk platters from the one or more rotatable shafts; rotate the one or more storage disk platters on the holding means; and remove using the lifting means, the one or more storage disk platters from the process fluid.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2015/0125609 A1 -pertains to spray coating vertically stacked parts, a part hanger is rotatable about vertical axis while in the wash space and the spray space.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights