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) entered on 09/26/2024 is being considered by the examiner. A signed IDS is hereby attached.
Specification
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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thaveeprungsriporn et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US20050005425A1 (hereinafter Thaveeprungsriporn ) in view of Bennin et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number US 20180137884 A1(hereinafter Bennin) and further in view of Kidachi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US20020060882A1 (hereinafter Kidachi).
Regarding Claim 1: Thaveeprungsriporn discloses a disk drive suspension comprising: a load beam (See annotated FIGURE 8 below, load beam; paragraph [0003] i.e., load beam) ; a flexure disposed along the load beam (See annotated FIGURE 8 below; paragraph [0003] i.e., The flexure is mounted at the distal end of the load beam) and including a slider mounting portion on which a slider is mounted (See annotated FIGURE 8 below; paragraph [0003] i.e., a flexure (gimbal) to which a slider is to be mounted.); a dimple portion formed on the load beam (See annotated FIGURE 8 below; paragraph [0006] i.e., dimple) and including a convex surface in contact with the slider mounting portion (See annotated FIGURE 8 below; paragraph [0028] i.e., gimbal-dimple contact surfaces); and a gimbal component member which supports the slider mounting portion in contact with the convex surface so as to be swingable in at least a pitching direction (paragraph [0003] i.e., The flexure is mounted at the distal end of the load beam and support the slider allowing this one to have pitch and roll movement in order to follow the irregularities of the disk surface.) but fails to explicitly disclose the convex surface has a radius of curvature of less than 0.15 mm and 0.04 mm or greater in a side view of the suspension, and a phase delay of the slider mounting portion in the pitching direction with respect to an undulation generated on a surface of a disk in the side view of the suspension during rotation of the disk is 20° or less.
In an analogous art, Bennin teaches the convex surface has a radius of curvature of less than 0.15 mm and 0.04 mm or greater in a side view of the suspension (para. [0048] i.e., The radius of curvature … 0.200 mm. The radius of curvature… 0.012 mm. … However, larger and smaller dimensional values than those listed are also contemplated.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the radius of curvature disclosed in Bennin to a disk drive suspension to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Bennin, the motivation for the combination would be to allows the flexure and other to pitch and roll relative to the load beam and accommodate surface variations in the disk (para. 45 and 41).
However, Thaveeprungsriporn as modified by Bennin fails to explicitly disclose a phase delay of the slider mounting portion in the pitching direction with respect to an undulation generated on a surface of a disk in the side view of the suspension during rotation of the disk is 20° or less.
In an analogous art, Kidachi teaches a phase delay (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., i.e., rotated to some extent) of the slider mounting portion in the pitching direction with respect to an undulation of generated on a surface of a disk in the side view of the suspension during rotation of the disk is (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., The slider 56 can be thereby rotated) 20° or less (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., the axes 200X and 200Y, and can be tilted to a predetermined degree in all directions.).
It teaches the slider 56 is attached to the flexure tongue 54 f such that its center is generally superimposed over the point where the flexure tongue 54 f keeps in contact with the gimbal pivot 53 i, as indicated by the broken line in FIG. 28. The slider 56 can be thereby rotated to some extent with respect to the axes 200X and 200Y, and can be tilted to a predetermined degree in all directions in paragraph 17.
A person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of reduced phase lag in a disk drive suspension. Furthermore, Kidachi teaches the slider can be rotated to some extent with respect to the axes and can be tilted to a predetermined degree in all directions (paragraph [0017]). That would reasonably have been expected to apply the practical target.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and test the claimed range of “a phase delay of the slider mounting portion in the pitching direction with respect to an undulation of a rotating disk is 20° or less” to determine an optimal condition. A person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the option, as identifying optimized the phase delay angle within his or her technical grasp. In turn because the phase delay angle as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to employ the phase delay angle of 20° or less.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Thaveeprungsriporn as modified by Bennin and Kidachi discloses the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above. Bennin further discloses wherein the radius of curvature of the convex surface is less than 0.10 mm (para. [0048] i.e., The radius of curvature … 0.200 mm. The radius of curvature… 0.012 mm. … However, larger and smaller dimensional values than those listed are also contemplated.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the radius of curvature disclosed in Bennin to a disk drive suspension to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Bennin, the motivation for the combination would be to allows the flexure and other to pitch and roll relative to the load beam and accommodate surface variations in the disk (para. 45 and 41).
However, Bennin fails to explicitly disclose the phase delay of the slider mounting portion
is 15° or less.
In an analogous art, Kidachi teaches the phase delay (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., rotated to some extent) of the slider mounting portion is 15° or less (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., the axes 200X and 200Y, and can be tilted to a predetermined degree in all directions.). A person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of reduced phase lag in a disk drive suspension. Furthermore, Kidachi teaches the slider can be rotated to some extent with respect to the axes and can be tilted to a predetermined degree in all directions (paragraph [0017]). That would reasonably have been expected to apply the practical target.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and test the claimed range of “the phase delay of the slider mounting portion is 15° or less” to determine an optimal condition. A person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the option, as identifying optimized the phase delay angle within his or her technical grasp. In turn because the phase delay angle as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to employ the phase delay angle of 15° or less.
Claim 3: Thaveeprungsriporn as modified by Bennin and Kidachi discloses the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above. Bennin further discloses wherein the radius of curvature of the convex surface is less than 0.085 mm (para. [0048] i.e., The radius of curvature … 0.200 mm. The radius of curvature… 0.012 mm. … However, larger and smaller dimensional values than those listed are also contemplated.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the radius of curvature disclosed in Bennin to a disk drive suspension to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Bennin, the motivation for the combination would be to allows the flexure and other to pitch and roll relative to the load beam and accommodate surface variations in the disk (para. 45 and 41).
However, Thaveeprungsriporn as modified by Bennin and Kidachi fails to explicitly disclose the phase delay of the slider mounting portion is 15° or less.
Kidachi further teaches the phase delay (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., rotated to some extent) of the slider mounting portion is 15° or less (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., the axes 200X and 200Y, and can be tilted to a predetermined degree in all directions.). A person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of reduced phase lag in a disk drive suspension. Furthermore, Kidachi teaches the slider can be rotated to some extent with respect to the axes and can be tilted to a predetermined degree in all directions (paragraph [0017]). That would reasonably have been expected to apply the practical target.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and test the claimed range of “the phase delay of the slider mounting portion is 15° or less” to determine an optimal condition. A person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the option, as identifying optimized the phase delay angle within his or her technical grasp. In turn because the phase delay angle as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to employ the phase delay angle of 15° or less.
Claim 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thaveeprungsriporn in view of Kidachi.
Claim 4: Thaveeprungsriporn discloses a disk drive suspension comprising: a load beam (See annotated FIGURE 8 below, load beam; paragraph [0003] i.e., load beam); a flexure disposed along the load beam (See annotated FIGURE 8 below; paragraph [0003] i.e., The flexure is mounted at the distal end of the load beam) and including a slider mounting portion on which a slider is mounted (See annotated FIGURE 8 below; paragraph [0003] i.e., a flexure (gimbal) to which a slider is to be mounted.); a dimple portion formed on the load beam (See annotated FIGURE 8 below; paragraph [0006] i.e., dimple) and including a convex surface in contact with the slider mounting portion (See annotated FIGURE 8 below; paragraph [0028] i.e., gimbal-dimple contact surfaces); and a gimbal component member which supports the slider mounting portion in contact with the convex surface so as to be swingable in at least a pitching direction (paragraph [0003] i.e., The flexure is mounted at the distal end of the load beam and support the slider allowing this one to have pitch and roll movement in order to follow the irregularities of the disk surface.), wherein a flexure pitching resistance acting on a contact portion between the slider mounting portion and the convex surface (paragraph [0042] i.e., ...approaches the dimple..., the reaction force detected ... should approach to the actual gimbal-dimple contact force ; paragraph [0043] i.e., dimple center the contact force) when the slider mounting portion moves in the pitching direction is 0.005 N or less (paragraph [0042] i.e., ...approaches the dimple..., the reaction force detected ... should approach to the actual gimbal-dimple contact force; paragraph [0043] i.e., 1.08 mN; 1.08mN is 0.00108N) but fails to explicitly disclose a phase delay of the slider mounting portion in the pitching direction relative to an undulation generated on a surface of a disk in a side view of the suspension during rotation of the disk is 20° or less.
In an analogous art, Kidachi teaches a phase delay (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., rotated to some extent) of the slider mounting portion in the pitching direction relative to an undulation of a rotating disk is (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., The slider 56 can be thereby rotated) 20° or less (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., the axes 200X and 200Y, and can be tilted to a predetermined degree in all directions.). A person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of reduced phase lag in a disk drive suspension. Furthermore, Kidachi teaches the slider can be rotated to some extent with respect to the axes and can be tilted to a predetermined degree in all directions (paragraph [0017]). That would reasonably have been expected to apply the practical target.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and test the claimed range of “a phase delay of the slider mounting portion in the pitching direction relative to an undulation of a rotating disk is 20° or less” to determine an optimal condition. A person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the option, as identifying optimized the phase delay angle within his or her technical grasp. In turn because the phase delay angle as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to employ the phase delay angle of 20° or less.
PNG
media_image1.png
588
640
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 5: Thaveeprungsriporn in view of Kidachi discloses The suspension of claim 4 as discussed above. Thaveeprungsriporn further discloses wherein the flexure pitching resistance is 0.002 N or less (paragraph [0043] i.e., 1.08 mN; 1.08mN is 0.00108N) but fails to explicitly disclose phase delay angle. In an analogous art, Kidachi teaches the phase delay (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., rotated to some extent) of the slider mounting portion is 10° or less (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., the axes 200X and 200Y, and can be tilted to a predetermined degree in all directions.). A person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of reduced phase lag in a disk drive suspension. Furthermore, Kidachi teaches the slider can be rotated to some extent with respect to the axes and can be tilted to a predetermined degree in all directions (paragraph [0017]). That would reasonably have been expected to apply the practical target.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and test the claimed range of “the phase delay of the slider mounting portion is 10° or less” to determine an optimal condition. A person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the option, as identifying optimized the phase delay angle within his or her technical grasp. In turn because the phase delay angle as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to employ the phase delay angle of 10° or less.
Claim 6: Thaveeprungsriporn in view of Kidachi discloses The suspension of claim 4 as discussed above. Thaveeprungsriporn in view of Kidachi fails to explicitly disclose the claimed value of the flexure pitching resistance but Thaveeprungsriporn teaches wherein the flexure pitching resistance is 0.001 N or less (paragraph [0043] i.e., 1.08 mN; 1.08mN is 0.00108N). A person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of a reduced flexure pitching resistance at the dimple contact in a disk drive suspension. Furthermore, Thaveeprungsriporn teaches that it is evident, the empirical data from the indenter extrapolates the gimbal-dimple separation (contact) force is in a close agreement with a finite element simulation (paragraph [0028]). That would reasonably have been expected to apply the forces including 0.001 N or less.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and test the claimed range of flexure pitching resistance at the dimple contact in a disk drive suspension to determine an optimal condition. A person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the option, as identifying optimized flexure pitching resistance within his or her technical grasp. In turn because the flexure pitching resistance value as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to employ smaller forces including 0.001 N or less. In an analogous art, Kidachi further teaches the phase delay (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., rotated to some extent) of the slider mounting portion is 5° or less (FIG. 28; paragraph [0017] i.e., the axes 200X and 200Y, and can be tilted to a predetermined degree in all directions.). A person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of reduced phase lag in a disk drive suspension. Furthermore, Kidachi teaches the slider can be rotated to some extent with respect to the axes and can be tilted to a predetermined degree in all directions (paragraph [0017]). That would reasonably have been expected to apply the practical target.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to select and test the claimed range of “the phase delay of the slider mounting portion is 5° or less” to determine an optimal condition. A person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the option, as identifying optimized the phase delay angle within his or her technical grasp. In turn because the phase delay angle as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to employ the phase delay angle of 5° or less.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thaveeprungsriporn in view of Bennin and further in view of Kidachi.
Claim 7: Thaveeprungsriporn in view of Kidachi discloses The suspension of claim 4 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the radius of curvature of the convex surface in the side view of the suspension is less than 0.10 mm.
In an analogous art, Bennin teaches the radius of curvature of the convex surface in the side view of the suspension is less than 0.10 mm (para. [0048] i.e., The radius of curvature … 0.200 mm. The radius of curvature… 0.012 mm. … However, larger and smaller dimensional values than those listed are also contemplated.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the radius of curvature disclosed in Bennin to a disk drive suspension to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Bennin, the motivation for the combination would be to allows the flexure and other to pitch and roll relative to the load beam and accommodate surface variations in the disk (para. 45 and 41).
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims 1-3, and 7 have been fully considered but
but are moot because in view of the amendments to the claims, the additional reference has been applied to address the newly added limitation.
In response to paragraphs 1-5 of the Remarks on page 8 and paragraphs 1-2 of the Remarks on page 9, applicant’s argument that Kidachi et al does not relate to a "phase delay" of a slider mounting portion relative to an undulation of a surface of a rotating disk in a side view of a suspension, as recited in amended claims 1 and 4 and the "contact force" disclosed in Thaveeprungsriporn et al refers to a force acting in the direction in which the dimple pushes the gimbal, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the contact force is related to the stiffness in the pitching direction, and Kohira et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number US20010048575A1 (para. [0042] i.e., … the stiffness of the air bearing in the pitch rotational direction is small. This is also effective in reducing the contact force f1.) supports this relationship. “a phase delay of the slider mounting portion in the pitching direction relative to an undulation generated on a surface of a disk in a side view of the suspension during rotation of the disk is 20° or less” is not a separate invention. The claimed invention merely recites a numerical result derived from well-known Hertzian principles and the known requirement that the slider follow disk undulations, resulting in a specific phase delay.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MICHELLE J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-4:30/5pm.
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.
/MICHELLE J. KIM/ Examiner, Art Unit 2688
/STEVEN LIM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688