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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 13, 2025 has been entered.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 13-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1).
As per claim 1, Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1) discloses a data storage device (e.g., "disk drive" (80) - see, inter alia, paragraph [0003]; Fig. 9) comprising: a data storage disk (e.g. 82) having a read/write surface defining an x-y plane (e.g., flat surface of disk (82), facing slider(s) (36)); an actuator arm (e.g., 86) that is movable parallel to the x-y plane (e.g., see Fig. 9); a load beam (e.g., 12) attached to the actuator arm (86), wherein the load beam (12) supports a slider (e.g., 36) that carries a head (e.g., "slider 36, which functions as a magnetic head" - paragraph [0048]) that is configured to interact with the read/write surface, wherein the load beam (12) comprises a first dimple (e.g., 41) that has a substantially continuous annular wall (e.g., outer surfaces of (41)) of fixed height that extends toward the read/write surface and has a flat base (e.g., flat surface of (41a)); and a flexure (e.g., 13) attached, via direct rigid physical coupling (via the weld aspects of (41), welding the flexure to the load beam), to the load beam (12) at the flat base (41a)) of the first dimple (41) and attached to the slider (36), wherein the flexure (13) is substantially parallel to the x-y plane between the flat base (41a) of the first dimple (41) and the slider (36). See, inter alia, Figs. 9, 12.
As per claim 2, wherein the flat base (41a) is circular. See Figs. 8, 11.
As per claim 3, wherein the first dimple (41) has a truncated conical shape, wherein the annular wall is inclined and is connected to the flat base (41a). See, inter alia, Fig. 12.
As per claim 6, wherein the load beam (12) comprises a longitudinal centerline (e.g., the centerline in the right-to-left or left-to-right direction, as depicted in Fig. 3; see also Fig. 8, the X1 centerline), wherein the first dimple (41) is one of a plurality of dimples (41, 41), and wherein the plurality of dimples are equidistantly spaced from the centerline. See, inter alia, Fig.3.
As per claim 13, Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1) discloses an actuator arm assembly (e.g., including (84) as seen in Fig. 9) comprising: an actuator arm (e.g., 86); a load beam (e.g., 12) having a first end attached to the actuator arm (86) and an opposed second end, wherein the load beam (12) comprises a first dimple (e.g., 41) that comprises a substantially continuous annular wall (e.g., outer surfaces of (41)) of fixed height and comprises a flat base (e.g., flat surface of (41a)); and a flexure attached, via direct rigid physical coupling (via the direct, physical weld aspects of (41), welding the flexure to the load beam), to the load beam (12) at the flat base (41a) of the first dimple (41).
As per claim 14, wherein the load beam (12) comprises an aperture (e.g., oval-shaped hole along the X1 centerline as depicted in Fig. 8) therethrough, the aperture being positioned on a longitudinal centerline (e.g., X1) of the load beam (12) (Fig. 8), and wherein the first dimple (41) is positioned on one side of the aperture - see Fig. 8.
As per claim 15, wherein the first dimple (41) is one of a plurality of dimples (41, 41 - see, inter alia, Fig. 8), and wherein the plurality of dimples (41, 41) are arranged on opposed sides of the aperture. Fig. 8.
As per claim 16, wherein the flat base (41a) is circular. See Figs. 8, 11.
As per claim 17, wherein the first dimple (41) has a truncated conical shape, wherein the annular wall is inclined and is connected to the flat base (41a). See, inter alia, Fig. 12.
As per claim 21, Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1) discloses a data storage device (e.g., "disk drive" - see, inter alia, paragraph [0003]; Fig. 9) comprising: a data storage disk (e.g., 82) having a read/write surface defining an x-y plane (e.g., flat surface of disk (82), facing slider(s) (36); an actuator arm (e.g., 86) that is movable parallel to the x-y plane (e.g., see Fig. 9); a load beam (e.g., 12) attached to the actuator arm (86), wherein the load beam (12) supports a slider (e.g., 36) that carries a head (e.g., "slider 36, which functions as a magnetic head" - paragraph [0048]) that is configured to interact with the read/write surface, wherein the load beam (12) comprises a first dimple (e.g., 41) that has a substantially continuous annular wall (e.g., outer surfaces of (41)) of fixed height that extends toward the read/write surface and has a flat base (e.g., flat surface of (41a)); a flexure (e.g., 13) attached to the load beam (12) at the flat base (41a) of the first dimple (41) (e.g., via the weld aspects pf (41), welding the flexure to the load beam) and attached to the slider (36) (e.g., slider is mounted on flexure, whereby the flexure allows the slider to pitch and roll),wherein the flexure is substantially parallel to the x-y plane between the flat base (41a) of the first dimple (41) and the slider (36) (see, inter alia, Figs. 9, 12); and a base plate (e.g., 11) via which a first end of the load beam (12) is attached to the actuator arm, and wherein the first dimple (41) is located approximately mid-way between the first end of the load beam (12) and the slider (36) - see Fig. 2.
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.
Claims 4, 7-12, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1).
See the description of Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1), supra.
As per claim 4 (and analogously, as per claim 18), assuming that the first dimple (51) of Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1) cannot be considered to have a "cylindrical shape" with an annular wall disposed substantially perpendicular to the flat base (41), merely slightly altering the shape of the protrusion such that it has a "cylindrical shape" with an annular wall disposed substantially perpendicular to the flat base (41a), is seen to be well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, when given the teachings and suggestions of Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1); such a slight change in the shape of (51) (making it a little more "cylindrical" in shape as per claims 4, 18), does not alter the advantages and functionality of such a first dimple (41). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the first dimple in a "cylindrical shape" with an annular wall disposed substantially perpendicular to the flat base (41), since Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1) discloses that the particular shape is just one of a finite number of flat-based shaped structures that achieve the advantages espoused by Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1) for providing such a first dimple (41) formed of shaped nugget shapes. Furthermore, the Applicant has presented no argument which convinces the Examiner that the particular configuration or shape of the first dimple (as being "cylindrical" in lieu of "conic") is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing the first dimple (41) as taught by Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1). See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966); Graham v. Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
As per claims 7 and 19, although Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1) appears to show the conventional gimballing (second) dimple in Fig. 1, directly over the slider and located in the load beam, Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1) does not expressly designate it as such. However, second "gimbaling" dimples provided on load beams and contacting sliders to allow the slider to pitch and roll to follow the topographies of underlying, spinning magnetic disks, are well-known in the art.
That is, Official notice is taken that "gimballing" (second) slider dimples as set forth in claims 7 and 19 are notoriously old, well-known and ubiquitous in the art; such Officially noticed fact being capable of instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide a second dimple (conventionally called "gimballing" dimples) in contact with the slider and positioned between the first dimple and the second end as is known in the art, to simply allow the slider to be slightly offset from the load beam, providing the ability of the slider to pitch and roll and follow the disk surface topography as the disk spins, as is well-known, established and appreciated in the art.
Moreover, regarding claims 8 and 20, additionally providing such a conventional gimballing dimple as having a common height as the first dimple, is seen to be within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art.
That is, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant invention, in order to simply provide the first and second dimples as having a common height, thus enhancing the strength of the weld spots (41) (slightly bigger weld spots) while also providing a suitable second "gimballing" dimple height that allows for adequate slider dynamic roll characteristics as it follows the disk topography under load.
As per claim 9, Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1) remain silent regarding wherein the height of the annular wall ranges from about 30 micrometers to about 75 micrometers; as per claim 10, Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1) remain silent regarding wherein the height of the annular wall ranges from about 40 micrometers to about 65 micrometers; as per claim 11, Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1) remain silent regarding wherein the height of the annular wall ranges from about 45 micrometers to about 60 micrometers; as per claim 12, Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1) remain silent regarding wherein a surface area of the flat base is about 50,000 square micrometers to about 150,000 square micrometers.
Regarding such features of height of the annular wall and/or the surface area of the flat base (as per claims 9-12), Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1) readily appreciates that the variability of the structure of the nugget welds of (41) (first dimple) for allowing the attachment of flexure to the load beam, demonstrating that the structural parameters are affected by their location, physical relationships, and their geometric proportions, relative to the other pertinent structures (including heights) to arrive at the desired operability of the range of gimbal motion of the slider, based upon such adjusted physical/structural parameters.
As such, the Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention (effective filing date) to satisfy the claimed range(s) and/or dimension(s) as set forth in claims 9-12, particularly in light of the teachings of Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1), through routine optimization/experimentation. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Additionally, it has been held that determining the optimal value of a result effective variable would have been obvious and ordinarily within the skill of the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980).
Moreover, there is no evidence of record that shows the claimed ranges to be critical or otherwise result in nonobvious (providing "unexpected results"), when viewed in light of the teachings of Takikawa et al. (US 2023/0290373 A1).
Patent law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held 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, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending, rejected claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, 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, 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688