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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/09/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restriction requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1 (claims 1-11) in the reply filed on 8/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the terms “suspension” and “slider” in line 2. It is unclear the relationship between the “suspension”, “slider” and “multiple components” previously recited in claim 1. Stated another way, it is not sure if the terms “suspension” and “slider” correspond to the term “multiple components”. For examination purposes, the terms “suspension” and “slider” (line 2) are construed as the “multiple components” (line 1).
Claim 1 recites the term “it” in line 7. It is unclear whether “it” refers to energy, solder material or something else. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear because one of the ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the reasonable certainty which element is required to perform the recited function.
Claim 2 recites the term “the solder” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear if “the solder” refers to the “solder joint” or “solder material” previously recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, the term “the solder” can be either the “solder joint” or solder material”.
Claim 2 recites the term “its” in line 2 and it is unclear whether “its” refers to the “additional energy’s”, the solder joint’s, solder material’s or something else.
Claim 2 recites the term “a solder joint” in line 2. It is unclear if the term “a solder joint” corresponds to the “solder joint” previously recited in claim 1. As shown in fig.6 of the current application, there is only one solder joint between the suspension 304 and the slider 304. Therefore, for examination purposes, the term “a solder joint” (claim 2) is construed as the one previously recited in claim 1.
Claims 3-11 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7 and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Ainslie US 4761699 A
Regarding claim 1, Ainslie discloses
A method of interconnecting multiple components of an electrical assembly with a solder joint (see abstract), comprising the steps of:
positioning a suspension (40, see fig.4) adjacent to a slider (16, see fig.4) to provide a connection area (60, see fig.4) between the suspension (40, see fig.4) and the slider (16, see fig.4), wherein the suspension (40, see fig.4) comprises a pre-deposited quantity of solder material (80/82, see fig.5) with a height that provides for a predefined gap (see predefined gap in annotated fig.5 below) between a lower surface of the slider (lower surface of the combo 16 and 70, see fig.5) and an upper surface of the solder material (upper surface of 80, see fig.5); and
applying energy to the solder material (80) to melt the solder material (see col. 2 lines 58-60: “ The solder balls are then heated to reflow, thereby forming a mechanical connection with precise alignment between the slider and the suspension” and fig.5-7) and allow it to move toward and contact the lower surface of the slider (lower surface of the combo 16 and 70, see fig.6-7) .
PNG
media_image1.png
388
852
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Ainslie further discloses a step of providing additional energy (energy provided to heat another ball 80, see fig.5-7) to the solder (see fig.5-7) during its contact with the lower surface of the slider (lower surface of the combo 16 and 70, see fig.6-7) to create a solder joint between the suspension and the slider (solder joint between items 40 and combo 16,70, see fig.5-7 and abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Ainslie further discloses the lower surface of the slider (lower surface of the combo 16 and 70, see fig.6-7) comprises a slider bond pad (70, see fig.6-7) such that the solder joint is formed between the suspension (40) and the slider bond pad (70, see fig.6-7 and col. 7 lines 32-35: “ the slider 16 is mechanically attached to the conductive layer 44 by the electrically conductive solder balls 80, an electrical path is provided for static discharge from the slider 16”).
Regarding claim 4, Ainslie further discloses the lower surface of the slider (lower surface of the combo 16 and 70) and an upper surface of the suspension (upper surface of 40) are generally parallel (See figs.5-7).
Regarding claim 7, Ainslie further discloses the pre-deposited quantity of solder material (80, see figs.5-7) is positioned on an upper surface of the suspension (upper surface of 40, see fig.5-7).
Regarding claim 9, Ainslie further discloses the upper surface of the suspension (40) further comprises a non-wettable portion (see annotated fig.5 below) positioned at least one of under and adjacent to the slider (under the slider 16, see fig.5).
PNG
media_image2.png
398
729
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.5 of Ainslie
Regarding claim 10, Ainslie further discloses a front surface (26, see fig.5) of the slider (combo 16 and 70, see fig.5) that is generally perpendicular to the lower surface of the slider (lower surface of the combo 16 and 70) comprises a slider bond pad (84, see fig.5) such that the solder joint is formed between the suspension (40) and the slider bond pad (84, see fig.5).
Regarding claim 11, Ainslie further discloses the lower surface of the slider (combo 16 and 70, see fig.5) comprises a pre- deposited quantity of slider solder material (76, see fig.5), and wherein the method further comprises a step of applying energy to the slider solder material (76) to melt the slider solder material (76) and allow it to move toward and contact the solder material (80) of the suspension (See fig.4-7).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ainslie in view of Stephan (US 20150170689 A1)
Regarding claim 5, Ainslie discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the predefined gap is provided by stand-offs at the interface between the slider and the suspension.
Stephan discloses a disk drive suspension having a slider configured for being bonded together, comprising:
the predefined gap is provided by stand-offs (28, see fig.2B-2C) at the interface between the slider (16) and the suspension (18, see fig.2A-2C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the predefined gap of Ainslie to be provided by stand-offs as taught by Stephan in order to isolate solder joints, reduce stress, and maintain proper solder thickness.
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ainslie in view of Wei US 20090127235 A1
Regarding claim 6, Ainslie discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the step of applying energy comprises applying laser radiation to the solder material.
Wei discloses a method for bonding with multi-beam laser, comprising:
the step of applying energy comprises applying laser radiation (62, see fig.3) to the solder material (63, see fig.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the step of applying energy of Ainslie to comprise applying laser radiation of Wei. Doing so allows to achieve the precision, low thermal load, and high-quality joints needed for reliable slider–suspension connections.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ainslie in view of Yao US 20100214697 A1
Regarding claim 8, Ainslie discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the upper surface of the suspension comprises a trace material.
Yao discloses a system and method for improving the reliability performance of hard disk drives, comprising:
the upper surface of the suspension (401, see fig.4A) comprises a trace material (405, see fig.4A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the upper surface of the suspension of Ainslie to comprise the trace material of Yao in order for improving the reliability performance of hard disk drives.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200098388 A1 discloses an apparatus includes a slider which includes a slider body with a leading edge and a trailing edge and a plurality of slider bond pads disposed at the trailing edge. The slider bond pads are configured to align opposite to suspension trace bond pads on a suspension to form a solderable gap between the slider bond pads and the suspension trace bond pads.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights