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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 13, 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 were received on September 13, 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Election/Restrictions
Rejoinder of Inventions
The Applicant’s election of the Invention of Species IV, claims 1-7, 11-15, 17, 19-20, in the Response filed on January 9, 2026, is noted.
The restriction requirement mailed November 19, 2025, has been reconsidered in view of the discovery of prior art to Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A) (see rejection, infra) which demonstrates that the Species as articulated in the Restriction Requirement, are rendered patently indistinct. Thus, while the Examiner maintains that the restriction requirement, a priori, was indeed proper at the time, a posteriori discovery of pertinent prior art has convinced the Examiner that the species (including all pending claims), are non-patentably distinct and all are rejectable under such prior art, for the reasons set forth below. All pending withdrawn claims have been rejoined, examined on the merits, in addition to matters of form, including Title 35 to the United States Code, sections 101, 102, 103 and 112.
The restriction requirement is hereby withdrawn.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
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 § 102
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 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, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A).
As per claim 1, Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A) (and as per claim 19) discloses a hard disk drive (HDD) (e.g.. "magnetic disk device," see paragraph [0001], Fig. 9; see also Figs. 1(a-d), 4(a-d), 7(a-d), 8(a-d)) and a HDD head stack assembly (HAS) as per claim 11, and a method of manufacturing a head stack assembly (as per claim 20) comprising: a disk stack comprising a plurality of disk media (e.g., 26; see also Fig. 8(a) wherein heads associated with head positioning mechanisms H1 H2 have a disk disposed therebetween, and heads associated with head positioning mechanisms H3, H4 and H5, H6 have two other disks disposed, respectively, therebetween) rotatably mounted on a spindle (e.g., see Fig. 9 - hub spindle that disk are rotatably mounted upon); a plurality of head sliders (e.g., 2) each housing a read-write transducer (e.g., 1) configured to read from and to write to a disk medium (26) of the plurality of disk media (26); a first-stage actuator (e.g., 12) configured for moving the plurality of head sliders (2) to access portions of the plurality of disk media (26); and a head stack assembly (HSA) (e.g. 5, 6, 11, 13) coupled with the actuator (12), the HSA comprising: a carriage (e.g., 13) (means for carrying a plurality of arms, as per claim 11) coupled with the actuator (12), a plurality of arms (e.g., 11) coupled to the carriage (13), the plurality of arms (11) including an outer arm (e.g., uppermost and lowermost arms (11) as depicted, in Fig. 1(a)) at each end of the disk stack and one or more inner arms (e.g. the middle arm (11) as depicted in Fig. 1(a)) between the outer arms (e.g. uppermost and lowermost arms (11) as depicted, in Fig. 1(a)), wherein each inner arm carries two suspension assemblies (e.gt. H2, H3 - see Fig. 1(a)) and each outer arm carries one suspension assembly (e.g., H1, H4 - see Fig. 1(a)), each suspension assembly comprising a corresponding fine actuator (e.g. 16, 16', 160, 160') configured for moving a corresponding head slider (1) of the plurality of head sliders (1) (see, inter alia, Fig. 1(a)) to access portions of the corresponding disk medium (26), and a counter-suspension assembly (e.g., H0, H5 - the uppermost and lowermost suspension assembly structures associated with dummy actuator (21) and dummy mass (22) as depicted, inter alia, in Fig. 1(a)) coupled to a (uppermost or lowermost) side of at least one outer arm opposing the corresponding suspension assembly (H1, H4 - see Fig. 1(a)), the counter-suspension assembly having a mass distribution and a stiffness distribution (e.g., via dummy mass (22)) configured to counter multiple structural dynamics modes of the corresponding suspension assembly (he suspension assembly coupled to the inner side of the outer arm). See, inter alia, see Figs. 3(a, b); paragraphs [0025, 0029, 0040, 0043, 0069] of enclosed English machine translation - via vibration suppressing means (32) which includes the dummy actuator and dummy mass).
As per claim 2 (and analogously, as per claim 12), wherein the counter-suspension assembly comprises a fine actuator (e.g., 16') configured for moving a corresponding counter-load beam (e.g., 22 - see Fig. 5(a)) having a mass distribution and a stiffness distribution configured to counter/mitigate the multiple structural dynamics modes of the corresponding suspension assembly (the suspension assembly coupled to the inner side of the outer arm)
- see, inter alia, See, inter alia, see Figs. 3(a, b); paragraphs [0025, 0029, 0040, 0043, 0069] of enclosed English machine translation paragraphs [0025, 0029, 0040, 0043, 0069] of enclosed English machine translation.
As per claim 3 (and as per claim 5, rejected, infra), wherein the counter-load beam (e.g., 22) comprises a cut-out from a main body of the counter-load beam - e.g., see Fig. 5(a), wherein counter-load beam (22) has truncated, corners "cut-out" from corners at its distal end, as is readily depicted in Fig. 5(a)).
As per claim 6 (and analogously, as per claim 14), wherein a control voltage of the fine actuator (16') of each counter-suspension assembly is configured to drive the counter-load beam (22) in an opposing direction from the corresponding suspension assembly (H1, H4). See, inter alia, paragraphs [0025], and in particular, paragraph [0047]).
As per claim 17, wherein the counter-suspension assembly comprises a counter-load beam (e.g., 22) having a rectangular main body and a cut-away from each lateral side of the main body - e.g., see Fig. 5(a), wherein counter-load beam (22) has is rectangular and has truncated, corners "cut-out" from corners at its distal end, as is readily depicted in Fig. 5(a)).
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 4, 5, 7-10, 13, 15, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A).
See the description of Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A), supra.
Regarding claim 5, see the rejection of claim 3, supra
As per claim 4 (and analogously, as per claim 13), Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A) remains silent with regard to wherein the counter-load beam is configured as a "flexible structure."
As per claim 7 (and analogously, as per claim 15), Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A) remains silent with regard to wherein the counter-suspension assembly comprises a counter-load beam having a rectangular main body and a cut-out through the main body.
As per claim 8 (and analogously, as per claim 16), Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A) remains silent with regard to wherein the counter-suspension assembly comprises a counter-load beam having a trapezoidal main body and a cut-out through the main body.
As per claim 9 (and analogously, as per claim 18), Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A) remains silent with regard to wherein the counter-suspension assembly comprises a counter-load beam having a non-uniform thickness.
Additionally, as per claim 10, Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A) discloses that the counter-suspension assembly (e.g., H0, H5 - the uppermost and lowermost suspension assembly structures associated with dummy actuator (21) and dummy mass (22) as depicted, inter alia, in Fig. 1(a)) further comprises a base plate (e.g. plate (21) with associated caulking hole for attaching of mass (22) - e.g., see Figs. 5(a-c)) coupled with the outer arm (e.g., uppermost and lowermost arms (11) as depicted, in Fig. 1(a)) and to which the counter-load beam (22) is coupled.
However, as per claim 10, Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A) remains silent with regard to wherein the counter-load beam comprises a first thickness at a first portion structurally interfacing with the base plate and a different second thickness at a second portion extending away from the base plate.
However, given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A) for canceling the excitation force acting on the tip of an arm holder, via a dummy mass (22) (corresponding to a counter-load beam - i.e., a load beam having no active head-transducer component, provided only to mitigate the frequency response of the actuator system having a secondary-stage, fine actuator), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, providing the counter-load beam (22) as being configured as a "flexible structure," or one of various shapes and/or thicknesses (as per claims 7-10), is seen to be one of many design choices of the dummy mass, counter-load beam that would provide ease of installation while still meeting the stated goal of Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A): That is, providing an "HGA drive reaction force acting at the actuator spring connection position at the tip of the unit holder arm is the same acceleration (HGA drive force = dummy mass drive) in the two upper and lower fine actuators (one of which is a dummy actuator) always in opposite directions. Force), they cancel each other and cancel the excitation force acting on the tip of the holder arm." See paragraph [0050] of Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A). No new or unobvious result is seen to be achieved by providing he counter-load beam as being configured to be "flexible" given that the function, manner, and way the counter-load beam (22) operates is the same regardless of the flexibility - so long as the mass is a "dummy mass," configured to provide a reactionary force cancellation of the HAS fine actuator of the system, in the manner expressly taught and suggested by Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A).
Moreover still, Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A) readily recognizes that the thickness and size/shape are of no particular concern, so long as the ultimate results of reactionary force cancellation due to the outer/inner arms are mitigated when the fine actuators on the arms with active heads, are activated, "the dummy mass 22 is designed so as to be equal to the equivalent mass of the magnetic head support mechanism, the material and shape are not particularly defined, but the size and thickness are such that the carriage mounting is not hindered." See paragraph [0046] of Motoyasu (JP 2000-260140 A).
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.
Citation of Prior or Relevant Art on enclosed PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art made of record (see the enclosed PTO-892), not applied to the rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including wherein hard dis drives include actuator arms, affixed to carriages, with varying structures, masses, thicknesses that are altered to enhance the frequency response of the actuator.
The best prior art has been applied to the claimed invention (see the rejection of the claims on the applied prior art, supra). However, if Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a manner to obviate the applied prior art, as noted in the rejection, supra, the Applicant is advised to not only carefully review the applied prior art for all it teaches and/or suggests, but also the cited prior art of record in order to obviate any potential rejections based on potential amendment(s); by doing so, compact prosecution on the merits can be enhanced.
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