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 .
Drawings
The drawing correction filed on August 8, 2025 have been approved by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 5, 11, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to claims 2, 3, 5, 11, and 12 (line 1 of each claim), the term "The cover according to claim" should be changed to the term --The recording device according to claim-- in order to remain consistent with the scope and context of claim 1.
(ii) With regard to claim 3 (line 1), the term "claim 1" should be changed to the term --claim 2-- in order to provide correct antecedence for the terms "the gas barrier property" and "the vapor barrier property".
Conversely, the Applicant could choose to maintain the same claim dependency (i.e., have claim 3 depend from claim 1), but change the terms "the gas barrier property" and "the vapor barrier property" to the terms --a gas barrier property-- and --a vapor barrier property--, respectively.
(iii) With regard to claim 6 (line 1), the term "A recording device according to claim" should be changed to the term --The recording device according to claim-- in order to remain consistent with the scope and context of claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1) in view of Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1).
As per claim 1, Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1) discloses a cover (e.g., 304) attached to a base (e.g., 302) of a recording device (e.g., HDD (300)) to close the base (302), comprising: a cover body (e.g., body of cover (304)); a gasket (e.g., 306/307) having a loop shape (e.g. the gasket as it resides within sealing step surface 303a surrounded by an outer upper edge portion 303b; see also Fig. 2 exemplifying a gasket (205) forming a complete loop) and provided to the cover body (e.g., body of cover (304)), wherein the gasket (e.g., 306/307) has an inner gasket portion (e.g., 306) and an outer gasket portion (e.g., 307) arranged adjacent to each other on an inward side and an outward side of the loop shape (see Fig. 3A - inward side is facing the interior of the HDD; outward side is the side facing outward and toward outer upper edge portion 303b), the outer gasket portion (e.g., 307) has a first property and a second property that are different properties and is superior to the inner gasket portion in the first property (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0021, 0023-0024]), and the inner gasket portion (e.g., 306) has the first property and the second property and is superior to the outer gasket portion in the second property (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0021, 0023-0024]).
As per claim 2, wherein the first property is one of a gas barrier property and a vapor barrier property, the gas barrier property being hardness of permeation of gas sealed in the recording device and the vapor barrier property being hardness of permeation of moisture, and the second property is the other of the gas barrier property and the vapor barrier property - e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0021, 0023-0024].
As per claim 3, wherein the first property is the gas barrier property, and the second property is the vapor barrier property - e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0021, 0023-0024].
As per claim 5, wherein the outer gasket portion (e.g., 307) and the inner gasket portion (e.g., 306) are provided in degrees to supplement each other inferiors of the first property and the second property - e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0021, 0023-0024]..
As per claim 6, a base (e.g. 302) to which the cover (e.g. 304) is attached to be closed (e.g., see, inter alia, Fig. 3A); and a gasket-receiving portion (e.g., 303a) provided to the base (302) to hold the gasket (e.g., 306/307) between the cover body (e.g., body of cover (304)) and the gasket-receiving portion (e.g., 303a).
As per claim 7, wherein both the outer gasket portion (e.g., 307) and the inner gasket portion (e.g., 306) of the gasket (e.g., 306/307) are held between the cover body (e.g., body of cover (304)) and the gasket-receiving portion (e.g., 303a) - see Fig. 3A.
As per claim 9, wherein both the outer gasket portion (e.g., 307) and the inner gasket portion (e.g., 306) are located in a range of an interspace between the cover body (e.g., body of cover (304)) and the gasket-receiving portion (e.g., 303a).
As per claim 12, wherein a boundary surface (the surface formed between each of the inner and outer gaskets) is formed along a thickness direction on a boundary between the outer gasket portion (307) and the inner gasket portion (306).
As per amended claim 1, assuming that Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1) cannot be said to expressly disclose wherein the outer gasket portion and the inner gasket portion are formed integrally with each other in one body so that the outer gasket portion and the inner gasket portion are individually present in said one body, such multi-stage gaskets having portions with independent properties, which are formed as "one body" are known in the art.
As just one example, Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1) disclose an analogous recording device, in the same field of endeavor as Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1), wherein, as per amended claim 1, Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1) disclose a gasket, formed of distinct portions (e.g., S1, S2), which have different/independent proprieties from each other, including properties that can be deemed superior to other properties of other gasket portions, wherein the different gasket portions (S1, S2) are formed integrally with each other in one body (e.g., see Fig. 4) so that the gasket portion (e.g., S1) and the gasket portion (e.g., S2) are individually present in said one body.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the outer gasket portion and the inner gasket portion of Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1), as being formed integrally with each other in one body so that the outer gasket portion and the inner gasket portion are individually present in said one body, as taught and suggested by Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1), in order to advantageously provide "good reworkability of a cover plate and a base plate of a hard disk device, provid[ing] sufficient adhesiveness of the gasket to a cover plate and a base plate even when used in a high humidity and temperature environment." See abstract of Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1) in view of Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Albrecht et al. (US 9,818,454 B1).
See the description of Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1) and Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1), supra.
As per claim 8, Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1) in combination with Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1), remains silent with respect to wherein only the outer gasket portion is held between the cover body and the gasket-receiving portion.
However, such features as set forth in claim 8, are known in the art.
As just one example, Albrecht et al. (US 9,818,454 B1) discloses an analogous HDD sealing gasket, in the same field of endeavor as Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1)/Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1), wherein, as per claim 8, only an outer gasket portion (e.g., outermost portion of gasket (205) that is positioned between the flat surface (201a-1) and cover (204)) is held between a cover body (e.g., body of (204)) and a gasket-receiving portion (flat surface (201a-1)). The corresponding innermost portion of the gasket that is not supported by the flat surface (201a-1) is considered an inner gasket portion, and is not in contact with the flat surface (201a-1). - see Fig. 2 of Albrecht et al. (US 9,818,454 B1).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Albrecht et al. (US 9,818,454 B1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide wherein only the outer gasket portion is held between the cover body and the gasket-receiving portion, as taught by Albrecht et al. (US 9,818,454 B1), to the gasket of Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1) in combination with Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1), in order to provide sufficient width of the gasket thus advantageously enhancing sealing (by having a wider-width gasket, without needing to increase the width-thickness of the sidewall of the base supporting the gasket).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1) in view of Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1), as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Kojima et al. (US 2006/0074170 A1).
See the description of Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1) and Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1), supra.
As per claim 10, Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1) already discloses wherein the outer gasket portion (e.g., 307) has a same height from the cover body (304) as the inner gasket portion (e.g., 306) in a state in which the outer gasket portion (307) is held between the cover body (304) and the gasket-receiving portion (303a) - see Fig. 3A.
As per claim 10, however, Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1) in view of Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the outer gasket portion is higher than the inner gasket portion in height from the cover body in a free state.
Additionally, as per claim 11, Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1) in view of Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein said one body has an approximate rectangular section with rounded corners in a free state.
Such gasket shapes (including a shape in the free state) as set forth in claims 10 and 11 are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Kojima et al. (US 2006/0074170 A1) discloses an analogous HDD sealing gasket, in the same field of endeavor as Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1)/Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1), wherein, as per claim 10, an outer gasket portion is higher than the inner gasket portion in height from the cover body in a free state - see Fig 2 (shapes A-C).
Additionally, as per claim 11, Kojima et al. (US 2006/0074170 A1) discloses wherein the gasket (one body) has an approximate rectangular section with rounded corners in a free state - see Fig 2 (shape E).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Kojima et al. (US 2006/0074170 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide wherein the outer gasket portion of Arai et al. (US 2022/0020399 A1) as being higher than the inner gasket portion in height from the cover body in a free state (as per claim 10) and/or to further provide wherein said one body has an approximate rectangular section with rounded corners in a free state, as taught by Kojima et al. (US 2006/0074170 A1), in order to advantageously provide improved sealability and simplify production. See, inter alia, paragraph [0014] of Kojima et al. (US 2006/0074170 A1)
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes the application of a new reference (i.e., Uranaka et al. (US 2011/0038077 A1) and/or Kojima et al. (US 2006/0074170 A1)), which has been applied in the rejection, as articulated in detail, supra, meeting the newly added claim limitations with a supporting rationale, which has been combined with the previously applied art of record.
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 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