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 .
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/09/25 is
acknowledged.
Claims 6-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b)
as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking
claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/09/25.
Claim Objections
Claims 13, 14, and 16 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1, 2, and 5. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is no support in disclosure indicating successively laminating magnetic layer, protective layer and lubricant layer on both surfaces of a nonmagnetic substrate.
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 1-3, 5, 13-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akiyoshi Tanaka (Japanese Patent: H1125452, here after Tanaka), further in view of Seiya Mori et al (Korean Patent: 20220009347, here after Mori).
Claims 1, and 13 are rejected. Tanaka teaches a method for manufacturing a magnetic recording medium, comprising: successively laminating at least a magnetic layer, a protective film, and a lubricant layer on a nonmagnetic substrate[abstract]; and
performing a treatment (UV curing) on a surface of the lubricant layer (perfluoropolyether based lubricant) by irradiation of UV light [abstract]. Tanaka does not teach irradiation of UV light by LED light source. Mori teaches curing perfluoropolyether based layer with UV light, where the UV light is from a LED light source [page 16 paragraph 2] in making magneto-optical disks [page 17 paragraph 3]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Tanaka where the UV light is from LED light source, because it is suitable UV source for generate UV light for per perfluoropolyether based layers. The examiner takes official notice that although UV treatment does not directly cause heating, however it causes breaking chemical bonds, which can cause a molecule to vibrate and increase its temperature, and UV absorbed by a substance and converted into heat energy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Tanaka and Mori and UV radiation causes heating the lubricant layer, because UV absorbed by lubricant generates heat. Tanaka teaches UV is in ambient condition therefore heat treatment is performed under an approximately atmospheric environment.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected as Tanaka teaches the light emitted from the LED light source has (a center) wavelength shorter than 500 nm, and the (center) wavelength is 260 nm [page 4 lines 15-20] which in fact excludes a wavelength range of 170 nm to 190 nm.
Claim 3 is rejected as Tanaka teaches UV is in ambient condition therefore heat
treatment is performed under an approximately atmospheric pressure.
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected as Tanaka teaches the UV treatment(heat) is
Performed about 0.1-30 minutes [page 4 lines 15-18]. Although Tanaka does not teach UV (heat) treatment within 60 seconds. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of
obviousness. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have
selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re
Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of
Tanaka and Mori where the treatment is within 60 seconds, because it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of overlapping range that corresponds to the claimed range.
Claim 15 is rejected as Tanaka teaches UV light is directly irradiated on the lubricant layer (UV is to cure the lub Layer and should irradiate directly on lub layer otherwise will be absorb by other layers) [abstract, 0005].
Claim 17 is rejected. Tanaka teaches a method for manufacturing a magnetic recording medium, comprising: successively laminating at least a magnetic layer, a protective film, and a lubricant layer on a nonmagnetic substrate[abstract]; and
performing a treatment (heat and UV curing) on a surface of the lubricant layer (perfluoropolyether based lubricant) [abstract]. Tanaka does not teach irradiation of UV light by LED light source. Mori teaches curing perfluoropolyether based layer with UV light, where the UV light is from a LED light source [page 16 paragraph 2] in making magneto-optical disks [page 17 paragraph 3]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Tanaka where the UV light is from LED light source, because it is suitable UV source for generate UV light for per perfluoropolyether based layers. The examiner takes official notice that although UV treatment does not directly cause heating, however it causes breaking chemical bonds, which can cause a molecule to vibrate and increase its temperature, and UV absorbed by a substance and converted into heat energy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Tanaka and Mori and UV radiation causes heating the lubricant layer, because UV absorbed by lubricant generates heat. Tanaka teaches immediately after laminating the lubricant layer on the nonmagnetic substrate heat treatment preformed (heat and UV curing leads to heat) [abstract].
Claim 18 is rejected as Tanaka teaches the light emitted from the LED light source has (a center) wavelength shorter than 500 nm, and the (center) wavelength is 260 nm [page 4 lines 15-20] which in fact excludes a wavelength range of 170 nm to 190 nm.
Claim 19 is rejected. Tanaka teaches UV is in ambient condition therefore heat treatment is performed under an approximately atmospheric environment.
Claim 20 is rejected as Tanaka teaches UV is in ambient condition therefore heat
treatment is performed under an approximately atmospheric pressure.
Claim 21 is rejected as Tanaka teaches UV light is directly irradiated on the lubricant layer (UV is to cure the lub Layer and should irradiate directly on lub layer otherwise will be absorb by other layers) [abstract, 0005].
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi Tani et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0395045, here after Tani), further in view of Seiya Mori et al (Korean Patent: 20220009347, here after Mori).
Claim 11 is rejected. Tani teaches a method for manufacturing a magnetic recording medium, comprising: successively laminating magnetic layers, protective films, and lubricant layers on first and second surfaces (both surfaces) of a nonmagnetic substrate(glass) opposite to each other [abstract, 0110, fig. 2], and performing a treatment (UV curing) on both surfaces of the lubricant layers (perfluoropolyether based lubricant) by irradiation of UV light(on first and second opposing the first and second surfaces of the substrate) [abstract, 0012, 0013, fig. 1 ]. Tani does not teach irradiation of UV light by LED light source. Mori teaches curing perfluoropolyether based layer with UV light, where the UV light is from a LED light source [page 16 paragraph 2] in making magneto-optical disks [page 17 paragraph 3]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Tani where the UV lights is from LED light sources, because it is suitable UV source for generate UV light for per perfluoropolyether based layers. The examiner takes official notice that although UV treatment does not directly cause heating, however it causes breaking chemical bonds, which can cause a molecule to vibrate and increase its temperature, and UV absorbed by a substance and converted into heat energy. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of Tani and Mori and UV radiation causes heating the lubricant layer, because UV absorbed by lubricant generates heat. Tani teaches UV is in ambient condition therefore heat treatment is performed under an approximately atmospheric environment.
Claim 12 is rejected as Tani teaches UV light is directly irradiated on the lubricant layer (UV is to cure the lub Layer and should irradiate directly on lub layer otherwise will be absorb by other layers) [also see fig, 1].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues Tanaka does not teach heat treatment with UV, however as discussed in claim rejection UV curing it causes breaking chemical bonds, which can cause a molecule to vibrate and increase its temperature, and UV absorbed by a substance and converted into heat energy.
The applicant argues Tanaka teaches UV curing under nitrogen environment and not atmospheric environment. The examiner disagrees; performing UV treatment in nitrogen, argon or vacuum atmosphere is preferred embodiment of Tanaka, and it is when large amount of activated ozone is produce, therefore in other embodiment rather than preferred embodiment or when lubricate layer is not very thick to produce large amount of ozone UV exposure can be at ambient embodiment similar to heating at oxidation atmosphere(0015).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights