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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 12, 2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected, without traverse, Invention II (Species II - Figures 1F-1I) in the reply filed on November 28, 2025.
Claims 1-9, 13, 14, 20, 21, 24, and 25 are currently withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 28, 2025.
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 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (US 5,331,493) in view of Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 A1).
As per clam 10 and claim 17, Schwarz (US 5,331,493) discloses a tape head (.e.g., 30, 120, - see Figs. 3, 7) comprising: a write chip (e.g., 54, 67, 94, 104, 124), the write chip comprising an array of write transducers (e.g., 67, 94) and writer bond pads (e.g., 63), and a read chip (e.g., 34, 57, 92, 122, 102), the read chip comprising an array of read transducers (e.g., 57, 94) and reader bond pads (e.g., 59), wherein the read chip (e.g., 34, 57, 92, 122, 102) and the write chip (e.g., 54, 67, 94, 104, 124) are secured together (e.g., see Figs. 3, 7); a mini closure (e.g. 48 and/or 68, which corresponds to 112, 114 of the array assembly of Fig. 7) secured to at least one of a surface of the write chip (e.g., 54, 67, 94, 104, 124) or a surface of the read chip (e.g., 34, 57, 92, 122, 102), wherein: the mini closure (e.g., 48 and/or 68, which corresponds to 112, 114 of the array assembly of Fig. 7) is configured to create a distance between the array of write transducers and the array of read transducers that is less than 100 microns (e.g. see, inter alia, col. 6, ll. 10-15; which includes a lower range of 2 mils), the mini closure (e.g. 48 and/or 68, which corresponds to 112, 114 of the array assembly of Fig. 7) comprises a ceramic material (e.g., see, inter alia, col 4, ll. 59-62 and/or col. 5, ll. 52-54), and the reader bond pads (e.g., 59) and the writer bond pads (e.g., 63) remain exposed with respect to the mini closure - see Fig. 3.
Additionally, as per claim 17, a tape drive (e.g. see, inter alia, see col. 1, ll. 10 and 25, "magnetic tape recorders" and "tape recording systems" in which the tape head assembly of Schwarz (US 5,331,493) is disposed) is provided comprising: a tape drive electronics (e.g., the tape drive necessarily includes electronics to send signals to/from the pad bonds, for reading/writing information to the magnetic tape) and mechanics module (structure that supports chips in the disclosed tape drive); the write chip (e.g., 54, 67, 94, 104, 124) coupled to the tape drive electronics (via pads 63)) and mechanics module, the read chip (e.g., 34, 57, 92, 122, 102) coupled to the tape drive electronics (via pads 59) and mechanics module.
As per claims 10 and 17, Schwarz (US 5,331,493) remains silent with regard to wherein the read chip is secured to the write chip, such that an orientation of a write notch exposes the reader bond pads, and an orientation of the read notch exposes the writer bond pads.
Such structural orientations, as set forth in claims 10 and 17 are known in the art.
As just one example, Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 A1) discloses an analogous tape head (e.g., 60 - see Figs. 4A, 4B, 5) in the same field of endeavor as Schwarz (US 5,331,493), wherein, as per claims 10 and 17, a corresponding read chip (inclusive of read transducers) is secured to a corresponding write chip (inclusive of write transducers), such that an orientation of a write notch exposes the reader bond pads (e.g. 68), and an orientation of the read notch exposes the writer bond pads (e.g., 68) - see Figs. 4A, 4B).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 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 structural orientations/notches as set forth in claims 10 and 17, as taught by Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 A1) to the analogous tape head of Schwarz (US 5,331,493), in order to advantageously allow close attachment of respective and opposing modules/chips, while providing for exposed, respective notches to allow for electrical connections of the bonding pads of each chip/module (e.g., see Figs. 4A, 4B and paragraph [0018] of Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 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.
Claims 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (US 5,331,493) in view of Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 A1), as applied to claims 10 and 17, above, and further in view of McKinstry (US 6,570,738 B1).
See the description of Schwarz (US 5,331,493) in view of Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 A1), supra.
As per claims 11, 12, 18 and 19, Schwarz (US 5,331,493) in view of Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 A1) do not expressly disclose the plurality/array of signal wires as set forth therein.
Such features as set forth in claims 11, 12, 18 and 19 are known/obvious in the art.
As just one example, McKinstry (US 6,570,738 B1) discloses an analogous tape head in the same field of endeavor as Schwarz (US 5,331,493)/Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 A1).
That is, McKinstry (US 6,570,738 B1) discloses a tape head comprising: a write chip (e.g., 11; see, inter alia, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 5, col. 4, ll. 11-19), the write chip (11) comprising an array of write transducers (e.g., 18) and writer bond pads (e.g., 30), and comprising a write notch (e.g., window (42)); and a read chip (e.g., 12; see, inter alia, Figs. 1, 2, 4, 6, col. 4, ll. 11-19), the read chip (12) comprising an array of read transducers (e.g., 20) and reader bond pads (e.g., 32), and comprising a read notch (e.g., window (44)); wherein the read chip (12) and the write chip (11) are secured together (e.g., see col. 3, ll. 42-49) such that: a distance between the write transducer array (18) and the read transducer (20) array is to provide a reduced gap-to-gap spacing; an orientation of the write notch (42) exposes the reader bond pads(32), and an orientation of the read notch (44) exposes the writer bond pads (30) - see Figs. 3, 4, 7; col. 4, ll. 36-47.
Additionally, a tape drive (e.g. see, inter alia, ll. 18-28) is provided comprising: a tape drive electronics (e.g., the tape drive necessarily includes electronics to send signals to/from the module pad bonds, for reading/writing information to the magnetic tape) and mechanics module (structure that supports chips (11/12) in the disclosed tape drive); the write chip (11) coupled to the tape drive electronics (via pads 30)) and mechanics module, the read chip (12) coupled to the tape drive electronics (via pads 32) and mechanics module.
As per claims 11 and 18, McKinstry (US 6,570,738 B1) further discloses a plurality of signal wires (e.g., 38 - Fig. 5) from the array of write transducers (18) to the writer bond pads (30) toward one end (e.g., 34) of the write chip (11).
As per claims 12 and 19, McKinstry (US 6,570,738 B1) further discloses a plurality of signal wires (e.g., 40) from the array of read transducers (20) to the reader bond pads (32) toward one end (36) of the read chip (12).
Although, pertaining to claims 11, 12, 18, and 19, with regard to McKinstry (US 6,570,738 B1), it can be argued that the signal lines (38 and/or 40) are not expressly "fanning out," merely repositioning the electrical pads (30) on a section of the chip, such that the signal lines fan out, is seen to be within the level of the skilled artisan, since such fanning out design does not change the manner in which the device operates, its function (to deliver electrical information from active elements to a flex cable), nor does the manner of providing such fanned out electrical signal lines between the active elements and the bond pads change the result of such operation.
Given the overall express teachings and motivations, as espoused by McKinstry (US 6,570,738 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 the signal lines as fanning out, as set forth in claims 11, 12 and/or 12, 19, to the tape head of Schwarz (US 5,331,493) in view of Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 A1), in order to simply locate the active elements and/or bonds pads in a manner which best suits the design of each module for individual applications and/or footprint/space constraints, while still enjoying the advantages of reducing the gap-to-gap spacing of the writer and reader modules.
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 16 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (US 5,331,493) in view of Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 A1), as applied to claims 10 and 17, above, and further in view of Biskeborn (US 2007/0047142 A1).
See the description of Schwarz (US 5,331,493) in view of Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 A1), supra.
As per claim 16 and 23, Schwarz (US 5,331,493)/ Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 A1) remains silent regarding further comprising one or more servo transducers configured to determine an alignment of the tape head with a tape.
Such servo transducers, however, are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Biskeborn (US 2007/0047142 A1) discloses an analogous tape head, in a tape drive, in the same field of endeavor as Schwarz (US 5,331,493)/ Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 A1), wherein, as per claims 16 and 23, the tape head includes one or more servo transducers (e.g., 806) configured to determine an alignment of the tape head with a tape - see, inter alia, paragraph [0044] of Biskeborn (US 2007/0047142 A1).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Biskeborn (US 2007/0047142 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 tape head of Schwarz (US 5,331,493)/ Molstad et al. (US 2003/0151855 A1) with the servo transducers (as per claims 16 and 23), as taught by Biskeborn (US 2007/0047142 A1), in order to advantageously allow for "servo following" of the tape head relative to the tape, during reading/writing (e.g., see paragraphs [0044, 0081], etc. of Biskeborn (US 2007/0047142 A1)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending, examined claims have been considered but are moot based upon the new grounds of rejection, as articulated, supra.
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
Prosecution Insights