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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 09/28/2023.
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.
Drawings
Applicant's arguments, see the Drawings heading on page 7, filed on 12/31/2025, with respect to drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of drawings has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US20200286515A1 (hereinafter Mori) in view of Ryoke et al. U.S. Patent No. US5089331A (hereinafter Ryoke) and further in view of et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US20210174829A1 (hereinafter Mori ‘829) .
Regarding Claim 1: Mori discloses a magnetic recording medium comprising (Claim 1 i.e., A magnetic recording medium): a non-magnetic support (Claim 1 i.e., a non-magnetic support); a magnetic layer containing a ferromagnetic powder (Claim 1 i.e.,a magnetic layer including a ferromagnetic powder) ; and a non-magnetic layer containing a non-magnetic powder (Claim 1 i.e.,non-magnetic layer including a non-magnetic powder) between the non-magnetic support and the magnetic layer (Claim 1 i.e., on the non-magnetic support in this order) but fails to explicitly disclose a magnetic recording medium comprising wherein a total chlorine content of the magnetic layer and the non-magnetic layer is 28.0 mg/m2 or less as a value per unit area, and a total iron content of the magnetic layer and the non-magnetic layer is 280.0 mg/m2 or less as a value per unit area.
In an analogous art, Ryoke teaches a chlorine content of the magnetic layer is 28.0 mg/m2 or less as a value per unit area (Col. 11 lines 46-53, i.e., Cl content of not more than 300 ppm, more preferably not more than 200 ppm. Reduction of the Cl).
A person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of reducing chlorine in the magnetic layer. Furthermore, Ryoke teaches the benefit of reducing chlorine content (Col. 11 lines 46-53 and Col. 14 lines 5-23). That would reasonably have been expected to apply the practical target. Furthermore, Mori discloses ferrite powder (in Table 1, “BaFe”), chloride resin parts by mass, and thickness of non-magnetic layer etc. in Table 1. Therefore, the amounts of iron and chlorine are inherent properties that would have been readily determinable by a person having ordinary skill in the art. Mori also teaches content of the chloride in the magnetic layer forming composition (para. [0173] i.e., magnetic layer forming composition and [0178] i.e., A vinyl chloride resin) and non-magnetic layer(Table 1).
Therefore, given the teachings as a whole, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine the total amounts of iron and chlorine based on the disclosed layer thickness and composition, the amounts of iron and chlorine.
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 “28.0 mg/m2 or less as a value per unit area” to determine an optimal condition. A person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the option, as determining the optimal chlorine level within his or her technical grasp. In turn because the chlorine level as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to employ the 28.0 mg/m2 or less as a value per unit area.
However, Mori in view of Ryoke fails to explicitly teaches a magnetic recording medium comprising a total iron content of the magnetic layer and the non-magnetic layer is 280 mg/m2 or less as a value per unit area.
In an analogous art, Mori '829 teaches an iron content of the magnetic layer and the non-magnetic layer is 280.0 mg/m2 or less as a value per unit area (para. [0163] i.e., Table 1, “formula of magnetic coating film-forming composition … ferromagnetic hexagonal barium ferrite powder: 100 parts” and “(2) formula of nonmagnetic layer…red iron oxide” ).
A person of ordinary skill in the art upon reading the reference, would also have recognized the desirability of reducing the coefficient of friction during running. Furthermore, Mori '829 teaches a magnetic layer containing barium ferrite power and a nonmagnetic layer containing red iron oxide. Mori '829 teaches, based on Table 1, that ferromagnetic hexagonal barium ferrite powder and red iron oxide are among a finite number of known, useful material.
Thus, given the teachings as a whole, 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 total iron content of the magnetic layer and the non-magnetic layer is 280.0 mg/m2 or less as a value per unit area” to determine an optimal condition. A person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the option, as determining the target iron level within his or her technical grasp. In turn because the iron level as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious to employ the 280.0 mg/m2 or less as a value per unit area. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 2: Mori in view of Ryoke and further in view of Mori '829 teaches the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1 as discussed above. Mori further discloses wherein a void ratio of the non-magnetic layer is 10.0% or less in a cross section image captured by a scanning electron microscope (paragraph [6] i.e., a void volume of the non-magnetic layer in the cross section image obtained by imaging with a scanning electron microscope may be equal to or less than 10.0%.).
Regarding Claim 3: Mori in view of Ryoke and further in view of Mori '829 teaches the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1 as discussed above. Mori further discloses wherein the non-magnetic powder of the non-magnetic layer includes carbon black (paragraph [7] i.e., non-magnetic powder of the non-magnetic layer may include carbon black.).
Regarding Claim 4: Mori in view of Ryoke and further in view of Mori '829 teaches the magnetic recording medium according to claim 3 as discussed above. Mori further discloses wherein the non-magnetic layer contains 50.0% by mass or more of carbon black with respect to a total amount of the non-magnetic powder (paragraph [127] i.e., A ratio of carbon black occupying the non-magnetic powder of the non-magnetic layer is preferably equal to or greater than 30.0% by mass, ... 40.0% by mass...50.0% by mass … 60.0% by mass... 70.0% by mass...80.0% by mass... 90.0% by mass, or 100.0% by mass...with respect to a total amount of the non-magnetic powder.).
Regarding Claim 5: Mori in view of Ryoke and further in view of Mori '829 teaches the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1 as discussed above. Mori further discloses wherein a thickness of the non-magnetic layer is 1.00 μm or less (paragraph [10] i.e., a thickness of the non-magnetic layer may be equal to or less than 1.00 μm.).
Regarding Claim 6: Mori in view of Ryoke and further in view of Mori '829 teaches the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1 as discussed above. Mori further discloses further comprising:
a back coating layer containing a non-magnetic powder on a surface side of the non-magnetic support opposite to a surface side having the non-magnetic layer and the magnetic layer (Claim 10 i.e., a back coating layer including a non-magnetic powder on a surface of the non-magnetic support opposite to a surface provided with the non-magnetic layer and the magnetic layer.).
Regarding Claim 7: Mori in view of Ryoke and further in view of Mori '829 teaches the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1 as discussed above. Mori further discloses wherein the magnetic recording medium is a magnetic tape (paragraph [151] i.e., The magnetic recording medium may be ...magnetic tape).
Regarding Claim 8: Mori in view of Ryoke and further in view of Mori '829 teaches The magnetic recording medium according to claim 1 as discussed above. Mori further discloses wherein a void ratio of the non-magnetic layer is 10.0% or less in a cross section image captured by a scanning electron microscope (paragraph [6] i.e., a void volume of the non-magnetic layer in the cross section image obtained by imaging with a scanning electron microscope may be equal to or less than 10.0%.), the non-magnetic layer contains 50.0% by mass or more of carbon black with respect to a total amount of the non-magnetic powder (paragraph [127] i.e., A ratio of carbon black occupying the non-magnetic powder of the non-magnetic layer is preferably equal to or greater than 30.0% by mass, ... 40.0% by mass...50.0% by mass … 60.0% by mass... 70.0% by mass...80.0% by mass... 90.0% by mass, or 100.0% by mass...with respect to a total amount of the non-magnetic powder.), a thickness of the non-magnetic layer is 1.00 μm or less (paragraph [10] i.e., a thickness of the non-magnetic layer may be equal to or less than 1.00 μm.), the magnetic recording medium further comprises a back coating layer containing a non-magnetic powder on a surface side of the non-magnetic support opposite to a surface side having the non-magnetic layer and the magnetic layer (Claim 10 i.e., a back coating layer including a non-magnetic powder on a surface of the non-magnetic support opposite to a surface provided with the non-magnetic layer and the magnetic layer.), and the magnetic recording medium is a magnetic tape (paragraph [151] i.e., The magnetic recording medium may be ...magnetic tape).
Regarding Claim 9: Mori in view of Ryoke and further in view of Mori '829 teaches the magnetic recording medium according to claim 7 as discussed above. Mori further discloses A magnetic tape cartridge comprising: the magnetic tape according to claim 7 (paragraph [164] i.e., In the magnetic tape cartridge, the magnetic tape is generally accommodated in a cartridge main body).
Regarding Claim 10: Mori in view of Ryoke and further in view of Mori '829 teaches the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1 as discussed above. Mori further discloses A magnetic recording and reproducing device comprising: the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1 (paragraph [166] i.e., relates to a magnetic recording and reproducing device including the magnetic recording medium.).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori as modified by Ryoke, Mori ‘829, and Aritoshi et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US20100247972A1 (hereinafter Aritoshi).
Regarding Claim 11: Mori in view of Ryoke and further in view of Mori '829 teaches the magnetic recording medium in claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the magnetic recording medium wherein the non-magnetic layer comprises carbon black exhibiting a pH in a range of 7.0 to 10.0 and a polyurethane resin having an aromatic ring structure.
In an analogous art, Ryoke teaches a magnetic recording medium wherein the non-magnetic layer comprises carbon black exhibiting a pH in a range of 7.0 to 10.0 (Col. 5 lines 28-34 i.e., …carbon blacks … a pH of 3 to 11… ).
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 carbon black of reference Ryoke to a magnetic recording medium in order to reduce the friction coefficient by surface roughening (Ryoke, Col. 5 lines 40-55).
However, Ryoke fails to explicitly disclose a magnetic recording medium wherein the non-magnetic layer comprises a polyurethane resin having an aromatic ring structure.
In an analogous art, Aritoshi teaches a magnetic recording medium wherein the non-magnetic layer comprises a polyurethane resin having an aromatic ring structure (para. [0068] i.e., … aromatic rings contained in the structural components of the polyurethane…).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the polyurethane resin of reference Aritoshi in order to promote adsorption of binder to ferromagnetic powder(Aritoshi, para. 68).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on Tanaka reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Ryoke reference(page 8, paragraph 3) have been considered but they are not persuasive. While reference Ryoke does not explicitly disclose a total chlorine content of the magnetic layer and the non-magnetic layer, Ryoke teaches the chlorine content of the ferromagnetic powder contained in the magnetic layer and Mori teaches magnetic layer containing barium ferrite power and a nonmagnetic layer containing red iron oxide, from which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably inferred the total chlorine content of the magnetic layer and the non-magnetic layer.
In response to applicant’s argument (page 8, paragraph 6 and page 9, paragraph 1) that there is no suggestion to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Ryoke reference and Mori reference teach chlorine content of the magnetic layer and the non-magnetic layer.
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 MICHELLE J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 11am-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