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.
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06 September 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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following informalities:
a. The drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include one or more reference characters not mentioned in the description. Note, for instance, 19 (shown in FIG. 1), θ (shown in FIGS. 4 and 11), A’1 (shown in FIG. 6), A’2 (shown in FIG. 6), A’3 (shown in FIG. 6), A’4 (shown in FIG. 6), A’5 (shown in FIG. 6), PES (shown in FIG. 6), PW (shown in FIG. 6), X (shown in FIG. 6), and Y (shown in FIG. 6).
b. The drawings fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “DB”, for instance, has been used to designate both a “data band” (as shown in FIGS. 4 and 5) and a “plate diameter” (as shown in FIGS. 7, 8 and 9).
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. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not “limited to a single paragraph.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
c. In lines 2 and 8 of paragraph [0042], each instance of “toral” should be spelled --total--.
d. In line 1 of paragraph [0043], “toral” should be spelled --total--.
e. In line 4 of claim 11, “the average thickness of the underlayer” should be changed to --an average thickness of the underlayer-- in order to provide clearer antecedence.
f. In line 3 of claim 12, “the average thickness of the magnetic layer” should be changed to --an average thickness of the magnetic layer-- in order to provide clearer antecedence.
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(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In lines 1-6 of claim 15, “wherein the average number of conductive particles, the average conductive particle area, and the average conductive particle area ratio are obtained from a measurement result by a C-AFM (Conductive Atomic Force Microscope)” fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends because a mere “measurement result” would not affect the structure of the “magnetic recording medium,” per se.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1, 3-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) in view of Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918).
With respect to claims 1, 3-7 and 15, Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) disclose a magnetic recording medium being tape-shaped (see paragraph [0110], for instance, i.e., “magnetic recording medium of an aspect of the present invention is desirably a magnetic tape”) and comprising a base (see abstract, for instance, i.e., “nonmagnetic support”) and a magnetic layer (see abstract, for instance), wherein the magnetic layer comprises carbon black (see abstract, for instance), and wherein 1000 μm2 of the surface of the magnetic layer includes 45 carbon black particles having a particle size of 140 nm or larger, 4 carbon black particles having a particle size of 220 nm or larger, 400 carbon black particles having a particle size of 100 nm or larger, and 0 carbon black particles having a particle size of 300 nm or larger (see example 1 in TABLE 5 on pages 11-12, for instance). Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) indicate that the average primary particle size of carbon black particles for forming the magnetic layer is 80 nm (see example 1 in TABLE 5 on page 11, for instance). Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) indicate that running stability is superior due to the number and size of the particles of carbon black on the magnetic layer surface in example 1 (see paragraph [0145], for instance). It was common technical knowledge at the time of filing that carbon black particles are conductive particles as per claim 6, and it is thus clear that the carbon black particles observed on the magnetic layer surface are present in the form of plurality of protrusions on the magnetic layer surface as per claim 7. Converted to a value per 400 μm2 of claim 1, the carbon black particle count per 1000 μm2 in example 1 of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) include 160 particles having a particle size from 100 nm to less than 140 nm, 18 particles having a particle size from 140 nm to less than 220 nm, 2 particles having a particle size from 220 nm to less than 300 nm, and 0 particles having a particle size of 300 nm or larger (corresponding to the feature of claim 1 wherein “an average number of conductive particles per 400 μm2 of a surface of the magnetic layer is 50 or more,” and to the feature of claim 3 “wherein the average number of conductive particles per 400 μm2 of the surface of the magnetic layer is 113 or more”). A calculation of the average particle area of the carbon black particles having a particle size of 100 nm or larger in example 1 of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) yields a value of 17,910 nm2, for spherical particles and taking a maximum value in the particle size range of each measurement (1600 particles having a particle size of 139 nm, 180 particles having a particle size of 219 nm and 16 particles having a particle size of 299 nm). Example 1 of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) also includes carbon black particles having a particle size of 100 nm or smaller, and hence it is clear that the average particle area of particles of carbon black on the magnetic layer surface in example 1 of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) is smaller than 17,910 nm2, and thus example 1 of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) satisfies the feature of claim 1 that “an average conductive particle area of the surface of the magnetic layer is 35000 nm2 or smaller,” and the feature of claim 4 “wherein the average conductive particle area of the surface of the magnetic layer is 26720 nm2 or less.” A calculation of an area ratio for a particle size of 100 nm or larger, in example 1 of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037), yields a surface area of carbon black particles, per 400 μm2, of 1,7910 nm2. Therefore, even if the carbon black includes particles having a particle area ratio of 0.8% and a particle size of 100 nm or smaller, example 1 of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) satisfies the requirements of claim 1 that “an average conductive particle area ratio of the surface of the magnetic layer is less than 2.00%,” and of claim 5 “wherein the average conductive particle area ratio on the surface of the magnetic layer is 1.50% or lower.” With respect to claim 15, note that this claim fails to further limit the magnetic recording medium as detailed in paragraph 8, supra.
Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037), however, remain silent as to “an average thickness of the magnetic recording medium is 5.3 µm or less.”
Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) disclose that a magnetic recording medium using carbon black in a recording layer (see paragraph [0095], for instance) and having an average thickness of 5.3 µm or less (see paragraphs [0110] and [0227], for instance) is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) also disclose that a magnetic tape using carbon black in a recording layer (see paragraph [0274], for instance) in which the average thickness of a magnetic recording tape is 5.3 µm or less (see paragraph [0336], for instance) is well within the level of ordinary skill in the 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 an average thickness of the magnetic recording medium of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) be 5.3 µm or less as taught/suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had have had an average thickness of the magnetic recording medium of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) be 5.3 µm or less as taught/suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) since such is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as shown by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918).
With respect to claim 10, Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037), however, remain silent as to “wherein the magnetic layer is configured to be capable of recording a signal with a data track width of 800 nm or less and a bit length of 46 nm or less.”
Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) (see paragraph [0227], table 2) describe a minimum value L (corresponding to the “bit length”) of magnetization reversal distance, and a data track width W (corresponding to the “data track width”) (see paragraphs [0196]-[0198]). Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) indicate that W=0.51 (µm) and L=0.039 nm for medium composition 4, and W=0.63 (µm) and L=0.038 nm for medium composition 6, in table 2.
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 magnetic layer of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) be configured to be capable of recording a signal with a data track width of 800 nm or less and a bit length of 46 nm or less as taught/suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the magnetic layer of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) be configured to be capable of recording a signal with a data track width of 800 nm or less and a bit length of 46 nm or less as taught/suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) since such is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as shown by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080).
With respect to claims 11 and 13, Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037), however, remain silent as to “an underlayer, the average thickness of the underlayer being 900 nm or less” and “an average thickness of the base is 4.4 µm or less.”
Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) (paragraph [0331], table 1) describe instances (examples 1-25) in which the thickness tbs of a base is 3.2 μm-3.8 µm, and the thickness tn of an underlayer is 0.03 μm-0.9 µm.
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 an underlayer, an average thickness of the underlayer be 900 nm or less and an average thickness of the base be 4.4 µm or less in Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) as taught/suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had an underlayer, an average thickness of the underlayer be 900 nm or less and an average thickness of the base be 4.4 µm or less in Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) as taught/suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) since such is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as shown by Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918).
With respect to claim 12, Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037), however, remain silent as to “wherein the average thickness of the magnetic layer is 80 nm or less.”
Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) (paragraph [0226], table 1) describe examples in which the average thickness of a magnetic layer is 60 nm or 80 nm.
Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) (paragraph [0331], table 1) describe example 12 in which the average thickness tm of a magnetic layer is 40 nm, and example 13 in which the value is 9 nm.
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 average thickness of the magnetic layer of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) be 80 nm or less as taught/ suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the average thickness of the magnetic layer of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) be 80 nm or less as taught/suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) since such is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as shown by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918).
With respect to claim 14, Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037), however, remain silent as to “wherein the magnetic layer includes a magnetic particle, and the magnetic particle contains hexagonal ferrite, ε-iron oxide, or Co-containing spinel ferrite.”
Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) describe hexagonal ferrite, epsilon-type iron oxide (ε-iron oxide), and Co-containing spinel ferrite, as magnetic particles that constitute a magnetic powder contained in a magnetic layer (see paragraph [0049], for instance).
Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) describe epsilon-type iron oxide (ε-iron oxide) and hexagonal ferrite as magnetic particles that constitute a magnetic powder contained in a magnetic layer (see paragraph [0042], 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 magnetic layer of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) include a magnetic particle, and the magnetic particle contain hexagonal ferrite, ε-iron oxide, or Co-containing spinel ferrite as taught/suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the magnetic layer of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) include a magnetic particle, and the magnetic particle contain hexagonal ferrite, ε-iron oxide, or Co-containing spinel ferrite as taught/suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) since such is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as shown by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918).
With respect to claim 16, Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037), however, remain silent as to the magnetic recording medium being included in a “cartridge.”
Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) describes reproduction of a magnetic tape in an LTO drive (see paragraph [0130]).
Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) indicate that a magnetic tape conforms to the LTO8 standard, and may be accommodated in a cartridge (see paragraphs [0019] and [0020], for instance).
Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) disclose a magnetic tape conforming to an LTO8 or later standard, the magnetic tape being accommodated in a cartridge (see claim 33 and paragraph [0022], 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 magnetic recording medium of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) be included in a cartridge as taught/suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the magnetic recording medium of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) be included in a cartridge as taught/suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) since such is a common accommodation for an LTO standard tape as shown by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) in view of Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakao (US 2005/0254163).
Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) in view of Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) teach/suggest the magnetic recording medium as detailed in paragraph 11, supra.
Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037), however, remain silent as to “wherein the magnetic layer has a servo pattern, the servo pattern has a plurality of first magnetized regions and a plurality of second magnetized regions, and the plurality of first magnetized regions and the plurality of second magnetized regions are asymmetric with respect to an axis parallel to a width direction of the magnetic recording medium” and “wherein an inclination angle of the first magnetized region with respect to the axis and an inclination angle of the second magnetized region with respect to the axis are different from each other, and of the inclination angle of the first magnetized region and the inclination angle of the second magnetized region, the larger inclination angle is 18° or more and 28° or less.”
Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) describe reproduction of a magnetic tape in an LTO drive (see paragraph [0130], for instance).
Recording of a servo band in a recording layer was common technical knowledge, at the time of filing, in LTO standards (as shown by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) (see paragraphs [0033]-[0039], for instance) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) (see paragraph [0022], for instance)).
Nakao (US 2005/0254163) indicates that the inclinations of a first magnetization region and a second magnetization region that form a servo pattern of a servo band differ from each other in the width direction of the servo band, with an inclination angle θ of the first magnetization region ranging from 8 to 20 degrees (see paragraph [0081], FIG. 7A), a range that overlaps the range from 18° to 28° of claim 9.
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 magnetic layer of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) have a servo pattern, the servo pattern having a plurality of first magnetized regions and a plurality of second magnetized regions, and the plurality of first magnetized regions and the plurality of second magnetized regions being asymmetric with respect to an axis parallel to a width direction of the magnetic recording medium, wherein an inclination angle of the first magnetized region with respect to the axis and an inclination angle of the second magnetized region with respect to the axis are different from each other, and of the inclination angle of the first magnetized region and the inclination angle of the second magnetized region, the larger inclination angle is 18° or more and 28° or less, as taught suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080), Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) and Nakao (US 2005/0254163) in combination. The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the magnetic layer of Tamada et al. (US 2015/0380037) have a servo pattern, the servo pattern having a plurality of first magnetized regions and a plurality of second magnetized regions, and the plurality of first magnetized regions and the plurality of second magnetized regions being asymmetric with respect to an axis parallel to a width direction of the magnetic recording medium, wherein an inclination angle of the first magnetized region with respect to the axis and an inclination angle of the second magnetized region with respect to the axis are different from each other, and of the inclination angle of the first magnetized region and the inclination angle of the second magnetized region, the larger inclination angle is 18° or more and 28° or less, as taught suggested by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080), Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918) and Nakao (US 2005/0254163) in combination since recording of a servo band in a recording layer was common technical knowledge, at the time of filing, in LTO standards as shown by Terakawa et al. (JP 2021-061080) and Terakawa et al. (JP 2020-166918), and the specified magnetized region configuration is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as shown by Nakao (US 2005/0254163).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
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