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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 17 October 2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informality:
In line 9 of claim 1, “and the sidewalls of the probe tip spaced apart from the trailing shield” should be changed to --and the sidewalls of the probe tip are spaced apart from the trailing shield-- for better clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, “wherein the sidewalls and the trailing edge of the probe tip are equally spaced from the trailing shield,” as set forth in claims 21 and 23, was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009) in view of Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art.
Since the applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement(s) are now taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009) teach a tape storage apparatus (see paragraph [0018], for instance, i.e., “The magnetic recording medium and the magnetic recording apparatus according to the invention are not limited to magnetic disc apparatus for recording a rotating, disc-shaped substrate. The invention can be applied to any recording apparatus in which the position of the head relative to the medium is moved, including a magnetic tape apparatus”) comprising a probe head (see FIG. 13, for instance) for writing data by perpendicular recording (see FIG. 13 relative to FIG. 3, for instance, i.e., although an easy magnetization direction in recording layer is depicted at an angle, the recording flux is still directed in a perpendicular direction relative to the medium and would therefore be considered to be writing data by perpendicular recording) on a magnetic tape (includes 134 and 135, see paragraph [0018], for instance, i.e., “The invention can be applied to any recording apparatus in which the position of the head relative to the medium is moved, including a magnetic tape apparatus”) including a magnetic particle layer (134, see paragraph [0067], for instance, i.e., “magnetic particles in the recording layer”) and a soft magnetic underlayer (135), the probe head including a probe tip (131) and a trailing shield (137) adjacent to the probe tip (as shown in FIGS. 13 and 14, for instance); the probe tip (see alternative embodiment shown in FIG. 17, for instance) including a leading edge (facing away from 174), a trailing edge (facing toward 174), and sidewalls (facing each extension of 173), wherein the sidewalls are oriented at a right angle to the leading edge (as shown in FIG. 17, for instance); the trailing shield configured so that the trailing edge of the probe tip is spaced apart from the trailing shield a first distance in the range of 20 nm to 50 nm (see paragraph [0067], for instance, i.e., “the interval between the main pole 131 and the shield 137 was 40 nm,” which includes a value within the claimed range); and wherein the sidewalls of the probe tip are spaced apart from the trailing shield a second distance (as shown in FIG. 17, for instance) [as per claim 1]; wherein the trailing shield has a thickness in the range of 50 nm to 500 nm (see paragraph [0067], for instance, i.e., “the shield 137 was… 100 nm in thickness,” which includes a value within the claimed range) [as per claim 5]; wherein the trailing shield covers the sidewalls and trailing edge (as shown in FIG. 17, for instance), and wherein the trailing shield has a length in the range of 50 nm to 2000 nm (see paragraph [0067], for instance, i.e., “the shield 137 was… 2 µm in length in the direction of transportation of the medium,” which includes a value within the claimed range) [as per claim 6]; and wherein the probe tip includes an end surface that is rectangular in shape (as shown in FIG. 14, for instance) [as per claim 7].
With respect to the intended use limitation appearing in line 2 of claim 1, note that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus (i.e., “probe head”) is intended to be employed (i.e., “for writing data by perpendicular recording,” 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). The probe head of Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009) is no different structurally from that set forth in the claim(s) and would therefore have the capability of writing data by perpendicular recording.
Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009), however, remain silent as to the second distance being “in the range of 20 nm to 50 nm.”
Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art teaches that it is notoriously old and well known in the head art to modify the parameters of head components during the course of routine optimization/experimentation.
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 distance in Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009) be in the range of 20 nm to 50 nm. The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the distance in Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009) be in the range of 20 nm to 50 nm since such a range, absent any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is generally achievable through routine optimization/experimentation, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009) in view of Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214).
Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009) in view of Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art teach/suggest the tape storage apparatus as detailed in paragraph 7, supra, further wherein the trailing shield includes side portions (to the left and right of 172 in FIG. 17, for instance) extending adjacent to the sidewalls of the probe tip (172, as shown in FIG. 17, for instance) [as per claim 22].
Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009), however, further remain silent as to “wherein the sidewalls and the trailing edge of the probe tip are equally spaced from the trailing shield” as per claim 21, and “wherein a length between the sidewalls of the probe tip is greater than a length of each of the side portions of the trailing shield” as per claim 22.
Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214) teach that having sidewalls (adjacent each Gs, see FIG. 5, for instance) and a trailing edge (adjacent G) of a probe tip (27) be equally spaced from a trailing shield (includes 21, 43 and 53) is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see paragraph [0026], for instance, i.e., “side gap Gs was assumed to be equal to the write gap”).
Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214) also teach that a length between the sidewalls of the probe tip (27) being greater than a length of each side portion (43 and 53) of the trailing shield is a notoriously old and well known pole tip configuration (as shown in FIG. 5, for instance).
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 sidewalls and the trailing edge of the probe tip of Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009) be equally spaced from the trailing shield as taught/suggested by Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214); and to have had a length between the sidewalls of the probe tip of Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009) be greater than a length of each of the side portions of the trailing shield as taught/ suggested by Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the sidewalls and the trailing edge of the probe tip of Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009) be equally spaced from the trailing shield as taught/suggested by Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214) since such is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had have had a length between the sidewalls of the probe tip of Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009) be greater than a length of each of the side portions of the trailing shield as taught/ suggested by Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214) since such is a notoriously old and well known pole tip configuration, and selecting a known pole tip configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 8, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art.
Since the applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement(s) are now taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) teach a tape storage system see FIG. 5, for instance) comprising a head (36) for writing data by perpendicular recording on a magnetic tape (10 in FIG. 5 and 110 in FIG. 8, see paragraphs [0024] and [0143], for instance, i.e., “magnetic recording medium 10… is a vertical magnetic recording-type magnetic recording medium” and “magnetic recording medium 110 according to the second embodiment is an elongated perpendicular magnetic recording medium”); a tape transport mechanism (includes 31-34, for instance) for transporting the magnetic tape past the head; and a supply (in cartridge 10A) of the magnetic tape, the magnetic tape comprising a magnetic particle layer (115, see paragraph [0167], for instance, i.e., “recording layer 115 is preferably a granular magnetic layer containing a Co-based alloy. This granular magnetic layer includes ferromagnetic crystal particles containing a Co-based alloy and nonmagnetic particle boundaries (nonmagnetic material) that surround the ferromagnetic crystal particles”) and a soft magnetic underlayer (112) positioned on a substrate (111, as shown in FIG. 8, for instance) [as per claims 8, 12 and 14]; wherein the tape transport mechanism transports the magnetic tape in a direction of travel from the leading edge (relative to supply reel 10C in cartridge 10A, for instance) to the trailing edge (relative to take-up reel 32, for instance) of the head (as shown in FIG. 5, for instance) [as per claim 15].
Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540), however, remain silent as to the head being a “probe head including a probe tip and a trailing shield positioned in close proximity to the probe tip;… wherein the probe tip includes a leading edge, a trailing edge, and sidewalls, wherein the sidewalls are oriented at a right angle to the leading edge; wherein the trailing shield is configured so that the trailing edge of the probe tip is spaced apart from the trailing shield a distance in the range of 20 nm to 50 nm; and wherein the sidewalls of the probe tip are spaced apart from the trailing shield a distance in the range of 20 nm to 50 nm” as per claim 8, “wherein the trailing shield has a thickness in the range of 50 nm to 500 nm” as per claim 12, “wherein the probe tip includes an end surface that is rectangular in shape” as per claim 14, and “wherein the sidewalls of the probe tip are parallel to the direction of travel” as per claim 15.
Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120) teach that a head being a probe head (includes 61-63 and 67, see Figs. 7-8, for instance) including a probe tip (61, see Fig. 8, for instance) and a trailing shield (67) positioned in close proximity to the probe tip (as shown in Fig. 8, for instance), wherein the probe tip includes a leading edge (facing away from 62), a trailing edge (facing toward 62), and sidewalls (facing each extension of 67), wherein the sidewalls are oriented at a right angle to the leading edge (as shown in Fig. 8, for instance), wherein the trailing shield is configured so that the trailing edge of the probe tip is spaced apart from the trailing shield by a trailing shield distance (as shown in Fig. 8, for instance), wherein the sidewalls of the probe tip are spaced apart from the trailing shield by a side wall distance (as shown in Fig. 8, for instance), wherein the trailing shield has a trailing shield thickness (as shown in Fig. 8, for instance), wherein the probe tip includes an end surface that is rectangular in shape (as shown in Fig. 8, for instance), and wherein sidewalls of the probe tip are parallel to a direction of travel (66, as shown in Fig. 8, for instance), is a notoriously old and well known head configuration.
Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) teach a trailing shield distance (Gt) being in the range of “20 to 60 nm” (see paragraph [0008], for instance), which includes values within the claimed range, and a trailing shield thickness (Gd) being in the range of “about 50 to 250 nm” (see paragraph [0009], for instance), which includes values within the claimed range, are well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art teach that it is notoriously old and well known in the head art to modify the parameters of head components during the course of routine optimization/experimentation.
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 head of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) be a probe head including a probe tip and a trailing shield positioned in close proximity to the probe tip, wherein the probe tip includes a leading edge, a trailing edge, and sidewalls, wherein the sidewalls are oriented at a right angle to the leading edge, wherein the trailing shield is configured so that the trailing edge of the probe tip is spaced apart from the trailing shield by a trailing shield distance, wherein the sidewalls of the probe tip are spaced apart from the trailing shield by a side wall distance, wherein the trailing shield has a trailing shield thickness, wherein the probe tip includes an end surface that is rectangular in shape, and wherein the sidewalls of the probe tip are parallel to the direction of travel, as taught/suggested by Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120); to have had the side wall distance of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120) be in the range of 20 nm to 50 nm; and to have had the trailing shield distance of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120) be in the range of 20 nm to 50 nm and the trailing shield thickness of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120) be in the range of 50 nm to 250 nm, as taught/suggested by Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had he head of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) be a probe head including a probe tip and a trailing shield positioned in close proximity to the probe tip, wherein the probe tip includes a leading edge, a trailing edge, and sidewalls, wherein the sidewalls are oriented at a right angle to the leading edge, wherein the trailing shield is configured so that the trailing edge of the probe tip is spaced apart from the trailing shield by a trailing shield distance, wherein the sidewalls of the probe tip are spaced apart from the trailing shield by a side wall distance, wherein the trailing shield has a trailing shield thickness, wherein the probe tip includes an end surface that is rectangular in shape, and wherein the sidewalls of the probe tip are parallel to the direction of travel, as taught/suggested by Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120) since such is a notoriously old and well known head configuration, and selecting a known head configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the side wall distance of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120) be in the range of 20 nm to 50 nm since such a range, absent any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is generally achievable through routine optimization/experimentation, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the trailing shield distance of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120) be in the range of 20 nm to 50 nm and the trailing shield thickness of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120) be in the range of 50 nm to 250 nm, as taught/suggested by Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137), since such is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137).
Claims 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009).
Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art teach/suggest the tape storage system as detailed in paragraph 10, supra, further wherein the trailing shield covers the trailing edge and the sidewalls of the probe tip (as shown in Fig. 8 of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), for instance), and wherein the trailing shield has a trailing shield length (as shown in Fig. 8 of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), for instance) [as per claim 13]; and wherein the probe tip operates to provide shingled tracks on the tape having a track width (corresponding to probe tip width, as shown in Fig. 8 of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), for instance) [as per claims 16 and 17].
Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art, however, remain silent as to the trailing shield length being “in the range of 50 nm to 2000 nm” as per claim 13, the track width being “no greater than 500 nm” as per claims 16, and the track width being “no greater than 250 nm” as per claims 17.
Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009) teach a trailing shield length being 2000 nm (see paragraph [0067], for instance, i.e., “the shield 137 was… 2 µm in length in the direction of transportation of the medium”), which includes a value within the claimed range, and a track width being no greater than 500 nm and no greater than 250 nm (see paragraph [0067], for instance, i.e., “main pole width 160 nm”), which includes a value within the claimed range, are well within the level of ordinary skill in the art. 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 trailing shield length of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art be 2000 nm, and the track width of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art be no greater than 500 nm and no greater than 250 nm, as taught/suggested by Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the trailing shield length of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art be 2000 nm, and the track width of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art be no greater than 500 nm and no greater than 250 nm, as taught/suggested by Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009), since each is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214).
Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art teach/suggest the tape storage system as detailed in paragraph 10, supra, further wherein the trailing shield includes side portions (to the left and right of 172 in FIG. 17, for instance) extending adjacent to the sidewalls of the probe tip (172, as shown in FIG. 17, for instance) [as per claim 24].
Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art, however, further remain silent as to “wherein the sidewalls and the trailing edge of the probe tip are equally spaced from the trailing shield” as per claim 23, and “wherein a length between the sidewalls of the probe tip is greater than a length of each of the side portions of the trailing shield” as per claim 24.
Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214) teach that having sidewalls (adjacent each Gs, see FIG. 5, for instance) and a trailing edge (adjacent G) of a probe tip (27) be equally spaced from a trailing shield (includes 21, 43 and 53) is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see paragraph [0026], for instance, i.e., “side gap Gs was assumed to be equal to the write gap”).
Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214) also teach that a length between the sidewalls of the probe tip (27) being greater than a length of each side portion (43 and 53) of the trailing shield is a notoriously old and well known pole tip configuration (as shown in FIG. 5, for instance).
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 sidewalls and the trailing edge of the probe tip of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art be equally spaced from the trailing shield as taught/suggested by Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214); and to have had a length between the sidewalls of the probe tip of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art be greater than a length of each of the side portions of the trailing shield as taught/suggested by Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the sidewalls and the trailing edge of the probe tip of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art be equally spaced from the trailing shield as taught/suggested by Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214) since such is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had have had a length between the sidewalls of the probe tip of Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) in view of Ichihara et al. (US 2005/0227120), Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) and Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art be greater than a length of each of the side portions of the trailing shield as taught/suggested by Shukh et al. (US 2002/0176214) since such is a notoriously old and well known pole tip configuration, and selecting a known pole tip configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes Mallory (US 4,656,546), which teaches a data storage apparatus with one or more head shielding configurations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 relying on Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009) set forth in paragraph 7, supra, the applicant argues that the “first sentence MPEP section 2144 recites that ‘[w]hen considering obviousness, Office personnel are cautioned against treating any line of reasoning as a per se rule.’ In addition, the heading in section 2144 subsection III recites that ‘legal precedent can provide the rationale supporting obviousness only if the facts in the case are sufficiently similar to those in the application.’ Here they are not. In re Aller related to concentration and temperature parameters in a chemical reaction. Such chemical parameters differ substantially from the spacing of components in a probe head as recited herein… In addition, MPEP section 2144.03 subsection A further states that ‘[i]t is never appropriate to rely solely on ‘common knowledge’ in the art without evidentiary support in the record, as the principal evidence upon which a rejection was based. Zurko, 258 F.3d at 1385, 59 USPQ2d at 1697 (‘[T]he Board cannot simply reach conclusions based on its own understanding or experience-or on its assessment of what would be basic knowledge or common sense. Rather, the Board must point to some concrete evidence in the record in support of these findings.’).’ Here there is no proper evidentiary support from which to make the proposed modification to the cited art. According to the Supreme Court, ‘rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained with mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’ KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-18 (2007).”
This argument, however, is not found to be persuasive as the legal precedents applied by examiner are discovering the optimum or workable ranges, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involving only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955), and, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Although In re Aller concerns concentration and temperature parameters, it is applicable to the present claim(s) as distance is a parameter nonetheless. In re Aller requires that the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art. In the present situation, the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, in that, the sidewalls of the probe tip (172) are spaced apart from the trailing shield (173) a distance (as shown in FIG. 17 of Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009)). Moreover, the claimed range appears to be no more than obvious optimization/experimentation as Applicant has provided no evidence that the claimed range has any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)). See MPEP 2144.05 III A, i.e., “Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 relying on Sekiguchi et al. (US 2019/0378540) set forth in paragraph 9, supra, the applicant argues “it appears that Okada paragraph [0008] teaches that it is necessary that the distance between the lateral side of the pole and the shield be greater than the distance between the trailing side of the pole and the shield. Okada paragraph [0008] describes a distance Gt between the trailing side of the pole and the shield of 20 nm to 60 nm, and a distance Gs between the lateral side of the pole and the shield of about 70 nm to 100 nm. Applicant respectfully submits that Okada as cited teaches a different range for the distance between the sidewalls of the probe and the shield than that recited in claim 8, as amended. In addition, Okada at paragraph [0008] further teaches that the distance between the sidewalls of the probe and the shield is necessarily different than the distance between the trailing edge of the pole and the shield, whereas the same range for each is recited in claim 8.”
This argument, however, is not found to be persuasive as the ranges given in paragraph [0008] are merely suggested ranges as evidenced by Figs. 7 and 8 of Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137), which show expanded overlapping gap distance ranges, which appear to also overlap applicant’s claimed ranges. The main concern in Okada et al. (US 2005/0141137) is gap Gs being greater than gap Gt. Gap Gs can be greater than gap Gt and still fall within the claimed range(s) set forth in applicant’s claim 8. Moreover, the claimed range appears to be no more than obvious optimization/ experimentation as Applicant has provided no evidence that the claimed range has any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)). See MPEP 2144.05 III A, i.e., “Applicants can rebut a prima facie case of obviousness by showing the criticality of the range. “The law is replete with cases in which the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other variable within the claims. . . . In such a situation, the applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
The applicant further contends that “it appears that the cited art to Sekiguchi relates to tape systems, and the cited art to Ichihara, Okada, and Nakamura relates to hard disk drive systems. It is not clear to applicant that one of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine such systems as suggested in the OA.”
This argument, however, is not found to be persuasive as tape and disk systems are analogous arts and heads are often disclosed as being usable in either tape or disk systems. See paragraph [0018] in Nakamura et al. (US 2004/0106009), for instance, i.e., “The magnetic recording medium and the magnetic recording apparatus according to the invention are not limited to magnetic disc apparatus for recording a rotating, disc-shaped substrate. The invention can be applied to any recording apparatus in which the position of the head relative to the medium is moved, including a magnetic tape apparatus.”
The applicant lastly “notes that the cited art does not appear to describe ‘shingled tracks’ as recited in claims 16-17.”
This argument, however, is not found to be persuasive as the pole tip would provide shingled tracks since it’s structurally no different than that set forth in the claims. See paragraph 10, supra.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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