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.
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 16 June 2026 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 28 April 2026 has been entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 29 April 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent No. 12,230,297 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 22, 24, 30-32 and 35-39 are 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.
a. In lines 1-3 of claim 22, “wherein the controller changes the first determination value based on the first shift amount when the first shift amount exceeds the first threshold value” 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 (emphasis added).
b. In lines 1-4 of claim 24, “wherein a second shift amount is a shift amount of the head in the radial direction at a time of the write processing of the second track, and the first threshold value corresponds to the second shift amount” 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 (emphasis added).
c. In lines 5-7 of claim 30, “a first threshold value corresponding to a second shift amount of the head in the radial direction at a time of the write processing of a second track adjacent to the first track in the radial direction” 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 (emphasis added).
d. In lines 1-3 of claim 32, “wherein the controller changes the first determination value based on the first shift amount when the first shift amount exceeds the first threshold value” 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 (emphasis added).
e. Claims 31 and 35-39 fail to correct the deficiency with respect to independent claim 30 and stand rejected as well.
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.
Claims 20, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan et al. (US 6,178,058).
Pan et al. (US 6,178,058) teach a magnetic disk device (50, see FIG. 1, for instance) comprising a disk (14, see FIG. 4, for instance); a head (includes 19a and 19b, for instance) configured to write data to the disk and read the data from the disk (see lines 16-17 in column 6, for instance); and a controller (includes 88, for instance) configured to control write processing based on a first shift amount of the head in a radial direction of the disk at a time of the write processing of a first track of the disk (see flow chart in FIG. 6, for instance, i.e., a first shift corresponding to a Shock”“), a first threshold value (step 110, for instance) at which the first shift amount may cause a read error in a second track adjacent to the first track in the radial direction (step 115, for instance), a first determination value corresponding to the first shift amount (step 120, for instance), and a second threshold value changing the write processing (step 135, for instance, i.e., “Stop” write processing) [as per claim 20]; wherein the first determination value corresponds to the first shift amount exceeding the first threshold value (step 110, for instance) [as per claim 21]; and wherein the controller stops the write processing of the first track in a case where it is determined that the first determination value is greater than the second threshold value (step 135, for instance) [as per claim 25].
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 26, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 6,178,058) in view of Maeto et al. (US 10,650,860).
Pan et al. (US 6,178,058) teach the magnetic disk device as detailed in paragraph 7, supra. Pan et al. (US 6,178,058), however, remain silent as to “wherein the controller changes a first DDOL corresponding to the first track to a second DDOL smaller than the first DDOL in a case where it is determined that the first determination value is greater than the second threshold value” as per claim 26; “wherein the controller manages the first shift amount every time an error correction is performed in a unit of track” as per claim 28; and “wherein the controller controls the write processing every time the error correction is performed” as per claim 29.
Maeto et al. (US 10,650,860) teach that a controller (includes 60, see FIG. 1, for instance) changing a first DDOL (via DOL management unit 64) corresponding to a first track to a second DDOL smaller than the first DDOL in a case where it is determined that a first determination value is greater than a second threshold value (see line 51 in column 8 thru line 9 in column 9, for instance), wherein the controller manages a first shift amount every time an error correction is performed in a unit of track and controls write processing every time the error correction is performed (see line 36-53 in column 6, for instance) is a notoriously old and well known controller configuration in the magnetic disk device 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 controller of Pan et al. (US 6,178,058) change a first DDOL corresponding to the first track to a second DDOL smaller than the first DDOL in a case where it is determined that the first determination value is greater than the second threshold value, wherein the controller manages the first shift amount every time an error correction is performed in a unit of track, and wherein the controller controls the write processing every time the error correction is performed, as taught/suggested by Maeto et al. (US 10,650,860). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the controller of Pan et al. (US 6,178,058) change a first DDOL corresponding to the first track to a second DDOL smaller than the first DDOL in a case where it is determined that the first determination value is greater than the second threshold value, wherein the controller manages the first shift amount every time an error correction is performed in a unit of track, and wherein the controller controls the write processing every time the error correction is performed, as taught/suggested by Maeto et al. (US 10,650,860) since such is a notoriously old and well known controller configuration in the magnetic disk device art, and selecting a known controller configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 22 and 32 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 applicant argues that “Claim 22 is amended to clarify that language and now no longer recites the term ‘every time’ but now instead recites the term
--when--, which is believed to clarify that language noted as unclear,” that “Claim 32 is similarly amended as in claim 22, to clarify the language noted as unclear therein,” and “submits those features are clear from the original disclosure. Applicant submits claim 24 is based on the descriptions in the specification at page 17, line 6 to page 18, line 7; page 23, line 7 to page 26, line 11; and Figures 3 and 7. Those disclosures correspond to disclosures in the corresponding U.S. Pub (U.S. 2024/031248) at [0048] and [0060]-[0063].”
This argument, however, is not found to be persuasive as “wherein the controller changes the first determination value based on the first shift amount when the first shift amount exceeds the first threshold value” is not described in the above cited section(s) of 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 (emphasis added).
With respect to the rejection of claim 24 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 applicant argues that “Claim 24 is amended to clarify the language therein and now recites ‘the first threshold value corresponds to the second shift amount’” and “submits those features are clear from the original disclosure. Applicant submits claim 24 is based on the descriptions in the specification at page 17, line 6 to page 18, line 7; page 23, line 7 to page 26, line 11; and Figures 3 and 7. Those disclosures correspond to disclosures in the corresponding U.S. Pub (U.S. 2024/031248) at [0048] and [0060]-[0063]” (emphasis added by applicant).
This argument, however, is not found to be persuasive as “wherein a second shift amount is a shift amount of the head in the radial direction at a time of the write processing of the second track, and the first threshold value corresponds to the second shift amount” is not described in the above cited section(s) of 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 (emphasis added).
With respect to the rejection of claim 30 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 applicant argues that “claim 30 is amended to clarify the language therein. Features recited in claim 30 as currently written are believed to also be clear from the original disclosure for the same reasons as noted above with respect to claim 24, and see again the present disclosure at page 17, line 6 to page 18, line 7; page 23, line 7 to page 26, line 11; and Figures 3 and 7.”
This argument, however, is not found to be persuasive as “a first threshold value corresponding to a second shift amount of the head in the radial direction at a time of the write processing of a second track adjacent to the first track in the radial direction” is not described in the above cited section(s) of 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 (emphasis added).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights