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
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to one or more non-elected inventions/species, there being no allowable generic or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. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 September 2025.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 13 March 2024. These drawings are accepted.
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, 3, 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 perpendicularly 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 (includes part 1b of base 1, for instance, 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”), 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), wherein a lower surface of the die-cast part (1b) is bonded to an upper surface of the bottom plate part (13, as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) [as per claim 1]; 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, 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 perpendicularly 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), wherein the bottom plate part has a cylindrical part disposed on the rotation axis, penetrates axially, and protrudes axially upward (as shown in annotated FIG. 1 below, for instance),
PNG
media_image1.png
1032
1348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a lower surface of the die-cast part is bonded to an upper surface of the bottom plate part (as shown in FIG. 3, for instance) [as per claim 1]; 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.
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 6, 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 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 11-13 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 6, 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; 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). 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). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated 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) since such improves airtightness.
Claim 14 is 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) as applied to claims 11-12 above, and further in view of Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art.
Since the applicant did not traverse the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement(s) were taken to be admitted prior art. See MPEP 2144.03.
Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) in view of Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234) teach/suggest the base plate as detailed in paragraph 9, supra. Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) in view of Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234), however, remain silent as to “wherein the impregnating agent is an acrylic-based resin.”
Applicant's Admitted (Examiner Officially Noticed) Prior Art teaches 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 impregnating agent of Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) in view of Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234) be an acrylic-based resin.
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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 9 and 15 are 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 30 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues that Hagiwara et al. (US 4,814,914) do not teach that “the bottom plate part has a cylindrical part disposed on the rotation axis, penetrates axially, and protrudes axially upward” and “a lower surface of the die-cast part is bonded to an upper surface of the bottom plate part.”
This argument, however, is not found to be persuasive as Hagiwara et al. (US 4,814,914) do teach that the bottom plate part (13) has a cylindrical part disposed on the rotation axis (corresponding to shaft 5), penetrates axially, and protrudes axially upward (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance) and a lower surface of the die-cast part (1b) is bonded to an upper surface of the bottom plate part (13, as shown in FIG. 2, for instance).
The applicant argues that Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) do not teach that “the bottom plate part has a cylindrical part disposed on the rotation axis, penetrates axially, and protrudes axially upward” and “a lower surface of the die-cast part is bonded to an upper surface of the bottom plate part.”
This argument, however, is not found to be persuasive as Cheong et al. (US 2014/0218822) do teach that the bottom plate part (120) has a cylindrical part disposed on the rotation axis, penetrates axially, and protrudes axially upward (as shown in annotated FIG. 1 below, for instance),
PNG
media_image1.png
1032
1348
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a lower surface of the die-cast part (140) is bonded to an upper surface of the bottom plate part (120, as shown in FIG. 3, for instance).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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