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 .
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1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 09/14/2601/13/25 has been entered.
Claims 6-10 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b)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 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 H. Kasai et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2011/0256425, here after Kasai), further in view of a), further in view of Seiya Mori et al (Korean Patent: 20220009347, here after Mori).
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected. Kasai teaches a method for manufacturing a
magnetic recording medium, comprising:
successively laminating at least, a magnetic layer (2), a protective film (3), and a lubricant layer (4) on a nonmagnetic substrate (1, it is known in the art that the substrate is nonmagnetic such as glass) [fig. 4, 0065]; and
performing a treatment solely by ultraviolet irradiation (UV curing) on a surface of the lubricant layer (perfluoropolyether based lubricant) by irradiation of UV light [abstract, 0004, 0013], wherein the UV irradiation increasing a bond strength between the protective film and the lubricant layer [0019, 0059]. Kasai 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 Kasai 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 which in fact varies molecular structure of lubricant molecules. 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 Kasai and Mori and UV radiation causes heating the lubricant layer, because UV absorbed by lubricant generates heat. Kasai teaches UV is in ambient condition therefore heat treatment is performed under an approximately atmospheric environment [0013]. They do not teach the distance of UV light to substrate surface. However, the distance of the UV source to surface of lubricant layer is result effective and has to be optimized. Since light intensity(I) proportion to distance(d) as I α 1/d2 therefore decreasing the distance will increase the UV intensity and risk thermal damage, however very long distance decreases the UV density arrived on surface of the lubricant layer and may not result it to be effective. 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 Kasai and Mori where the distance of the UV source to surface of substrate is 50 mm, because it is a result effective variable and must be optimized.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected as Kasai teaches the UV light source has (a center) wavelength shorter than 500 nm, and the (center) wavelength is 254 nm [0018] which in fact excludes a wavelength range of 170 nm to 190 nm.
Claim 3 is rejected as Kasai teaches UV is in ambient condition therefore heat
treatment is performed under an approximately atmospheric pressure [0013].
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected as Kasai teaches the UV treatment(heat) is
Performed about 1-120 seconds [0054]. Although Kasai 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
Kasai 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 Kasai 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 absorbed by other layers).
Claim 17 is rejected. Kasai teaches a method for manufacturing a
magnetic recording medium, comprising:
successively laminating at least, a magnetic layer (2), a protective film (3), and a lubricant layer (4) on a nonmagnetic substrate (1, it is known in the art that the substrate is nonmagnetic such as glass) [fig. 4, 0065]; and
performing a treatment solely by ultraviolet irradiation (UV curing) on a surface of
the lubricant layer (perfluoropolyether based lubricant) by irradiation of UV light [abstract, 0004, 0013], wherein the UV irradiation increasing a bond strength between the protective film and the lubricant layer [0019, 0059]. Kasai 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
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a method of
Kasai 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, 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 simultaneously which in fact varies molecular structure of lubricant molecules. 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 Kasai and Mori and UV radiation causes heating the lubricant layer, because UV absorbed by lubricant generates heat. Kasai teaches UV is in ambient condition therefore heat treatment is performed under an approximately atmospheric environment [0013]. They do not teach the distance of UV light to substrate surface. However, the distance of the UV source to surface of lubricant layer is result effective and has to be optimized. Since light intensity(I) proportion to distance(d) as I α 1/d2 therefore decreasing the distance will increase the UV intensity and risk thermal damage, however very long distance decreases the UV density arrived on surface of the lubricant layer and may not result it to be effective. 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 Kasai and Mori where the distance of the UV source to surface of substrate is 50 mm, because it is a result effective variable and must be optimized. Kasai teaches immediately after laminating the lubricant layer on the substrate UV treatment preformed [0054].
Claim 18 is rejected as Kasai teaches the UV light source has (a center)
wavelength shorter than 500 nm, and the (center) wavelength is 254 nm [0018] which in fact excludes a wavelength range of 170 nm to 190 nm.
Claim 19 is rejected. Kasai teaches UV is in ambient condition therefore
Heat treatment is performed under an approximately atmospheric environment [0013].
Claim 20 is rejected as Kasai teaches UV is in ambient condition therefore heat
treatment is performed under an approximately atmospheric pressure [0013].
Claim 21 is rejected as Kasai 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 absorbed by other layers).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
H. Kasai et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2011/0256425, here after Kasai), Seiya Mori et al (Korean Patent: 20220009347, here after Mori), further in view of Hiroshi Tani et al (U. S. Patent Application: 2020/0395045, here after Tani).
Claim 11 is rejected. Kasai does not teach the laminated layers are in both sides
of the substrate. Tani teaches a method for manufacturing 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]. 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 Kasi and Mori on Tani’s disk, where the UV lights is from LED light sources, because it is suitable UV source for generate UV light for per perfluoropolyether based layers. Kasai (look at claims rejected above), and Tani both teach UV is in ambient condition therefore heat treatment is performed under an atmospheric environment.
Claim 12 is rejected as Kasai (look at the previous claim rejections), and Tani
both 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, see Remarks, filed 05/15/26, with respect to claim
objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 13-
14, and 16 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, filed 05/15/26, with respect to 35 U.S.C
112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112(a) rejection
of claims 11-12 has been withdrawn as the claims are amended.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 09/14/26, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 13, under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kasai. In fact Kasai teaches curing the lubricant layer only by UV light (see claim rejection above).
The applicant further argues regarding new limitation of clams such as distance of less than 50 mm between the substrate and light source, however this parameter is a result effective variable and must be optimized (see claim rejection above).
Same above statement is valid for applicant argument regrading rejection of claim 17.
Although Tani and Mori teach the limitation of claim 1, however claims 11-12 are written again to address applicant argument.
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