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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of “Group I, claims 1-18” in the reply filed on 24 September 2025 is acknowledged.
Accordingly, claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to one or more non-elected inventions/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 March 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include one or more reference characters mentioned in the description. Note, for instance, “30” (disclosed as an “access part” in line 2 of paragraph [0015]).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or an amendment to the specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
b. In line 1 of paragraph [0055], “Step 4” should be changed to --Step S4-- in order to be consistent with the remainder of the disclosure.
c. In line 1 of paragraph [0076], “die-cast part 410” should be changed to
--die-cast part 410b-- in order to be consistent with the remainder of the disclosure.
d. In line 2 of paragraph [0076], “die cast part 104b” should be changed to
--die-cast part 410b-- in order to be consistent with the remainder of the disclosure.
e. In lines 4 and 5-6 of paragraph [0086], each instance of “pedestal concave part 201b” should be changed to --pedestal concave part 2010b-- in order to be consistent with the remainder of the disclosure.
f. In line 1 of claim 11, “the die cast part” should be changed to
--the die-cast part-- in order to more clearly refer back to that set forth in line 6 of independent claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
a. In lines 3-4 of claim 1, “the bottom plate part has a plate shape and spreads vertically with respect to a rotation axis of a disk” is indefinite as it is misdescriptive of the disclosure, which shows that bottom plate part 411b has a plate shape and spreads horizontally or perpendicular with respect to a rotation axis C of a disk 50 as opposed to vertically. See FIG. 4, for instance.
b. In line 3 of claim 6, “the cylindrical part” is indefinite because it lacks clear and/or positive antecedent basis.
c. Claims 2-5 and 7-18 inherit the indefiniteness associated with independent claim 1 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 1-4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagiwara et al. (US 4,814,914).
Hagiwara et al. (US 4,814,914) teach a base plate (includes 1 and 13, for instance), configured as a portion of a housing of a disk drive device (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), wherein the base plate is formed by a metal plate (13, see lines 3-4 in column 3, for instance, i.e., “member 13 of a magnetic steel plate”), having a bottom plate part, wherein the bottom plate part has a plate shape and spreads vertically with respect to a rotation axis (corresponding to shaft 5) of a disk (9) extending in an upper-lower direction (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance); and a die-cast part (1, see lines 66-68 in column 2, for instance, i.e. “base 1 in the preferred embodiment is made of well workable materials such as aluminum”), covering at least a portion of the bottom plate part (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), wherein a metal (see lines 3-4 in column 3, for instance, i.e., “member 13 of a magnetic steel plate”) forming the bottom plate part is higher in rigidity than a metal (see lines 66-68 in column 2, for instance, i.e. “base 1 in the preferred embodiment is made of well workable materials such as aluminum”) forming the die-cast part (see also lines 15-17 in column 2 and lines 3-5 in column 3, for instance, i.e., “reinforcing member is made of materials having rigidity higher than that of the substrate and the retaining portion” and “reinforcing member 13 of a magnetic steel plate is embedded in the base 1, rigidity of the base 1 as a whole is improved”) [as per claim 1]; wherein the bottom plate part has a cylindrical part disposed on the rotation axis, penetrates axially, and protrudes axially upward (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) [as per claim 2]; wherein an inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical part is covered by the die-cast part (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) [as per claim 3]; wherein a groove part (at upper-most bearing 3, for instance) extending in a peripheral direction is formed on an inner peripheral surface of the die-cast part disposed on the inner peripheral surface of the cylindrical part (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) [as per claim 4]; and wherein the base plate is a component of a spindle motor (M, including annular stator 2 and rotor magnet 7, as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) [as per claim 17].
Claims 1, 6, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822).
Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) teach a base plate (100), configured as a portion of a housing (605) of a disk drive device (600, see FIG. 8, for instance), wherein the base plate (see FIGS. 1-3, for instance) is formed by a metal plate (120, see paragraph [0045], for instance, i.e., “member 120 may be… a lightweight alloy steel sheet formed of a metal such as stainless steel”), having a bottom plate part, wherein the bottom plate part has a plate shape and spreads vertically with respect to a rotation axis (corresponding to screw 634 in FIG. 8) of a disk (D) extending in an upper-lower direction (as shown in FIG. 1 relative to FIG. 8, for instance); and a die-cast part (140, see paragraph [0057], for instance, i.e., “member 140 may be formed by injection molding”), covering at least a portion of the bottom plate part (as shown in FIGS. 1-3, for instance), wherein a metal (see paragraph [0045], for instance, i.e., “member 120 may be… a lightweight alloy steel sheet formed of a metal such as stainless steel”) forming the bottom plate part is higher in rigidity than a metal (see paragraph [0057], for instance, i.e., “member 140 may be molded by injection-molding aluminum”) forming the die-cast part (i.e., stainless steel is higher in rigidity than aluminum) [as per claim 1]; wherein the bottom plate part has a stepped part (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), and the stepped part has an annular shape that protrudes axially upward to surround a cylindrical part (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), and the stepped part has a plurality of conductive wire through holes penetrating axially and arranged in a peripheral direction (as shown in annotated FIG. 2 below, for instance) [as per claim 6];
PNG
media_image1.png
1476
2046
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the base plate is a component of a spindle motor (630, as shown in FIG. 8, for instance) [as per claim 17]; and wherein the spindle motor (630) is a component of a disk drive device (600) comprising the spindle motor (630), the disk (D), rotating, with the rotation axis as a center, by using the spindle motor; and a head (H), swinging with a swing axis as a center (using head stack assembly 620) and performing information reading or information writing with respect to the disk (see paragraph [0102], for instance, i.e., “head stack assembly 620 may have a magnetic head mounted thereon and move the magnetic head to a predetermined position to write data to the disk D or read data written on the disk D”) [as per claim 18].
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.
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 7, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) in view of Albrecht et al. (US 6,034,841).
Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) teach the base plate as detailed in paragraph 12, supra, further wherein the metal plate further has a peripheral plate part (122, see FIG. 3, for instance), the peripheral plate part extends upward (at 122c) from an outer edge (at 122b) of the bottom plate part to surround a periphery of the bottom plate part (as shown by line A-A' in FIG. 2, for instance), and at least a portion of the peripheral plate part is covered by the die-cast part (as shown in FIG. 3, for instance) [as per claim 7]; wherein the metal plate has a concave part (between 122a and 122c in FIG. 3, for instance) into which the die-cast part is filled (as shown in FIG. 3, for instance) and in which a portion of the bottom plate part and the peripheral plate part is recessed inwardly across a boundary between the bottom plate part and the peripheral plate part (as shown in FIG. 3, for instance), and the concave part is disposed on a side opposite to a central axis by sandwiching a central line passing through a center of the bottom plate part in a longitudinal direction and extending in a transverse direction (as shown by line A-A' in FIG. 2, for instance), the bottom plate part being formed in a substantially rectangular shape when viewed from an axial direction (as shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, for instance) [as per claim 8]; and wherein the peripheral plate part has a peripheral plate groove part (between 122a and 122c in FIG. 3, for instance) on a bonding surface (on 122b, for instance) with the die-cast part (as shown in FIG. 3, for instance) [as per claim 10].
Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822), however, remain silent as to the peripheral plate part having “a peripheral plate through hole, the peripheral plate through hole penetrates radially, and the die-cast part is filled into the peripheral plate through hole.”
Albrecht et al. (US 6,034,841) teach that a peripheral plate part (28, for instance) having a peripheral plate through hole (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance), the peripheral plate through hole penetrating radially (as shown in FIG. 3A, for instance), and a molded part being filled into the peripheral plate through hole (as shown in FIG. 3A, for instance, see also lines 55-59 in column 3, for instance) is a notoriously old and well known manufacturing technique. 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 peripheral plate part of Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) have a peripheral plate through hole, the peripheral plate through hole penetrates radially, and the die-cast part is filled into the peripheral plate through hole, as taught/suggested by Albrecht et al. (US 6,034,841). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had have had the peripheral plate part of Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) have a peripheral plate through hole, the peripheral plate through hole penetrates radially, and the die-cast part is filled into the peripheral plate through hole, as taught/suggested by Albrecht et al. (US 6,034,841) since such is a notoriously old and well known manufacturing technique, and selecting a known manufacturing technique on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) in view of Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234).
Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) teach the base plate as detailed in paragraph 12, supra. Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822), however, remain silent as to “wherein the die cast part covering the peripheral plate part has a gate mark part connected with a gate when being cast, and a machined surface obtained by performing cutting machining on a surface of the die-cast part is formed to comprise at least a portion of the gate mark part” as per claim 11; “wherein at least a portion of the machined surface is impregnated with an impregnating agent” as per claim 12; “wherein the impregnating agent is an epoxy-based resin” as per claim 13; “wherein the impregnating agent is an acrylic-based resin” as per claim 14; and “wherein the die-cast part and at least a portion of a surface of the metal plate that is exposed is covered by an electro-coating film” as per claim 16.
Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234) teach a die-cast part (10, see paragraph [0050], for instance, i.e., “base body 10 is cast”) has a gate mark part (124) connected with a gate (33) when being cast (see Figs. 3 and 8, and paragraph [0045], for instance), and a machined surface (16) obtained by performing cutting machining on a surface of the die-cast part is formed to comprise at least a portion of the gate mark part (see Figs. 3 and 10, and paragraph [0047], for instance); wherein at least a portion of the machined surface is impregnated with an impregnating agent (36, see Fig.11, and paragraph [0049], for instance); wherein the impregnating agent is an epoxy-based resin (see paragraph [0049], for instance, i.e., “impregnant 36 is, for example, an epoxy resin”); and wherein the die-cast part and at least a portion of a surface that is exposed is covered by an electro-coating film (34, see Fig.9, and paragraph [0046], for instance), in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of improving airtightness (see paragraph [0034], for instance). Official notice is taken of the fact that acrylic-based resin is a notoriously old and well known impregnating agent material. 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 die cast part covering the peripheral plate part in Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) have a gate mark part connected with a gate when being cast, and a machined surface obtained by performing cutting machining on a surface of the die-cast part be formed to comprise at least a portion of the gate mark part, wherein at least a portion of the machined surface is impregnated with an impregnating agent, wherein the impregnating agent is an epoxy-based resin as taught/suggested by Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234), and the die-cast part and at least a portion of a surface of the metal plate that is exposed in Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) be covered by an electro-coating film as taught/suggested by Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234); and to have had the impregnating agent of Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) in view of Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234) be an acrylic-based resin. The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had have had the die cast part covering the peripheral plate part in Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) have a gate mark part connected with a gate when being cast, and a machined surface obtained by performing cutting machining on a surface of the die-cast part be formed to comprise at least a portion of the gate mark part, wherein at least a portion of the machined surface is impregnated with an impregnating agent, wherein the impregnating agent is an epoxy-based resin as taught/suggested by Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234), and the die-cast part and at least a portion of a surface of the metal plate that is exposed in Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) be covered by an electro-coating film as taught/suggested by Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234) since such improves airtightness.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the impregnating agent of Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) in view of Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234) be an acrylic-based resin since such is a notoriously old and well known impregnating agent material, and selecting a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes Tatsumi et al. (US 8,792,204), Hirasawa et al. (US 8,842,386), Sudo et al. (US 2013/0015995), which each individually teaches a base plate formed by a metal plate having a bottom plate part and a die-cast part covering at least a portion of the bottom plate part, wherein a metal forming the bottom plate part is higher in rigidity than a metal forming the die-cast part; and Showa et al. (US 2022/0068305), which teach a gate mark part (20) having a machined surface (14) impregnated with an impregnating agent (see paragraph [0032], for instance).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 9 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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