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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 31, 2026 has been entered.
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, 6-17, 26, 28-30, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1).
As per claim 1, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) discloses a magnetic recording disk (e.g., 102, 300, 400, 500, 510, 700, 917A-917C, 1000, 1100, 1200, etc., referred to hereinafter, collectively, or individually as "102"), comprising: a glass substrate (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0046]; 300, 1102, Figs. 3, 11, etc.) having a data surface; and a magnetic recording layer on the data surface (e.g. 304, 11 04, etc.; Figs. 3, 11) for magnetic recording, wherein the magnetic recording disk (102) has a thickness less than 0.5 millimeter (e.g., see, inter alia, abstract; paragraphs [0026, 0028, 0029], etc.), wherein the magnetic recording disk (102) has a flatness value corresponding to a height difference between a highest point and a lowest point on the data surface taken when the magnetic recording disk is standalone (e.g. when the magnetic recording disk is "un-clamped" and is pre-stressed, i.e., having an "internal stress" which corresponds to aa flatness deviation, corresponding to the maximum deviation generated by the difference between a peak (highest point) and trough (lowest point) of the disk due to such flatness deviation, a flatness deviation threshold of, e.g., "un-clamped" (standalone) (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0031, 0042]; Fig. 11, etc.).
For example, as set forth in paragraph [0031], "That is, for a given disk thickness (at least for disks less than or equal to 0.5 mm), the deformation or deviation of the OD of the disk from a flat disk profile will likely be greater for a disk with high internal stress than for a similar disk with lower internal stress. In some aspects, the thin disks described herein have internal stress high enough so that the (un-clamped) OD deviation of the disk from a flat disk profile is greater than a predetermined flatness deviation threshold, such as 20 µm." Emphasis added
Thus, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) provides for wherein the flatness value taken when the magnetic recording disk is standalone (un-clamped) is greater than a first flatness threshold (e.g., a flatness deviation threshold having an internal stress of equal to or greater than 240 MPa, which is associated with less flatness deviation - see paragraph [0031], as noted above, and paragraphs [0054 and 0057].
Additionally, the flatness value is less than or equal to a second flatness threshold (e.g., a flatness deviation threshold having an internal stress of equal to 600 MPa or less, which is associated with a larger flatness deviation - see paragraph [0031], as noted above, and paragraphs [0052, 0054, 0068]; claims 11, 13; Fig. 6 of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1).
The data surface comprises one of a concave shape, a convex shape, and a cylinder shape (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0050], etc.). Note: the claimed flatness threshold(s) merely set forth a range in which the actual flatness value must reside, with regard to the magnetic disk product, in its final form. As long as the prior art (e.g., Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1)) discloses a value within a claimed threshold range, the claim limitation(s) as it pertains to a range within which the flatness value exists, such a limitation is seen to be anticipated.
As per amended claim 1, the flatness value corresponding to a height difference between a highest point and a lowest point on regions of the data surface includes an outer diameter region of the data surface (e.g., see Fig. 5, wherein the outer diameter region is the outermost peripheral region near the disk outer diameter, corresponding to the uppermost dashed line of which the “flatness deviation” measurement is made) and an inner diameter region of the data surface (e.g., see Fig. 5, wherein the inner diameter region is the innermost region near the disk center, corresponding to the lowermost dashed line of which the “flatness deviation” measurement is made); thus, the “flatness deviation” as depicted in Fig. 5, clearly and unambiguously shows the it is made between the outermost peripheral (disk outer diameter region) portion of the disk, and an inner, central portion of the disk (inner diameter region of the disk), the outer diameter region being separate from the inner diameter region and closer to an outer diameter edge of the magnetic recording disk than the inner diameter region, as seen in Fig. 5, and explained, supra. See also, paragraph [0050] of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1).
As per claim 3, wherein the flatness value is greater than the first flatness threshold (e.g., the flatness value associated with the low internal stress of, e.g., 240 MPa as discussed in claim 1) and less than or equal to the second flatness threshold (e.g., the flatness value associated with the high internal stress of, e.g., 600 MPa as discussed in claim 1) when the data surface comprises one of the concave shape, the convex shape, and the cylinder shape (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0046, 0050], etc.).
As per claim 6, wherein a shape of the data surface (e.g., "concave, convex, saddle, or cylindrical shape" - see paragraph [0050]) is estimated based on a plurality of first height values along a first circular path around an outer diameter region of the data surface near an outer diameter edge. It is noted that claim 6 is drawn to a magnetic disk product, in its final form. Limitations reciting a manner in which features and/or attributes (ranges, shapes, etc.) are determined during the design/production phase, are only given patentable weight to the extent in which the final product, gleaned from such design steps, impart structural/compositions, etc. features in the in the final product form. Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) discloses that the flatness of the magnetic disk, in its final form, includes a flatness value over its entire extent, that lies within the final product claimed range, as noted, supra. As such, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) is seen to anticipate claim 6. See also, inter alia, paragraphs [0031, 0042]; Figs. 5, 11, etc.
As per claim 7, wherein the flatness value is based on a highest value and a lowest value among the plurality of first height values and a plurality of second height values along a second circular path around an inner diameter region of the data surface near a center of the magnetic recording disk (102) (see Fig. 5). It is noted that claim 7 is drawn to a magnetic disk product, in its final form. Limitations reciting a manner in which features and/or attributes (ranges, shapes, etc.) are determined during the design/production phase, are only given patentable weight to the extent in which the final product, gleaned from such design steps, impart structural/compositions, etc., features in the in the final product form. Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) discloses that the flatness of the magnetic disk, in its final form, includes a flatness value over its entire extent, that lies within the final product claimed range, as noted, supra. As such, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) is seen to anticipate claim 7. See also, inter alia, paragraphs [0031, 0042]; Figs. 5, 11, etc.
As per claim 8, wherein a wavelength of a periodic curve (disclosed deviations from flatness - for instance, from OD (outer diameter) to ID (inner diameter) and back to OD (outer diameter) from one side of the disk to the other - see Fig. 5) of that corresponds to a curve generated based on the plurality of first height values over a plurality of locations on the first circular path (e.g., at the outer diameter OD), respectively corresponding to the plurality of first height values, is greater than a length of a slider head.
It is noted that claim 8, is drawn to a magnetic disk product, in its final form. Limitations reciting a manner in which features and/or attributes (ranges, shapes, etc.) are determined during the design/production phase, are only given patentable weight to the extent in which the final product, gleaned from such design steps, impart structural/compositions, etc. features in the in the final product form. The claim recitation regarding the slider, fails to provide a patentable feature in claim 8, since claim 8 (as well as claim 1) is drawn to a magnetic disk, per se, and not the combination of a magnetic disk and slider. Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) discloses the flatness of the magnetic disk, in its final form, includes a flatness value - deviations from flatness with high point(s) and low point(s) which provide the amplitude of the flatness deviation, e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0031, 0042]; Fig. 11, etc. over its entire extent. See Fig. 5 (inner to outer diameter). As such, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) is seen to anticipate claim 8.
As per claim 9, the recitation "wherein the shape of the data surface is estimated based on light interference measurements on the data surface " has been given patentable weight only to the extent in which recitations impart a structural/compositional change to the final product of the magnetic disk (102).
It is noted that claim 9, is drawn to a magnetic disk product, in its final form. Limitations reciting a manner in which features and/or attributes (shape estimations), are only given patentable weight to the extent in which the final product, gleaned from such estimations via a process, impart structural/compositions, etc. features in the in the final product form. The claim recitation regarding the manner in which the shape is estimated (based on light interference measurements on the data surface), fails to impart a distinction in the final shape of the magnetic disk, that isn’t already shown by the final product (magnetic disk) of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1). As such, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) is seen to anticipate claim 9.
As per claim 10, the recitation "wherein the first flatness threshold is based on at least one of a ramp-disk spacing for a preselected hard disk drive and a fly height based on spacing between a slider head and the data surface with the preselected hard disk drive" has been given patentable weight only to the extent in which recitations impart a structural/compositional change to the final product of the magnetic disk (102).
It is noted that claim 10, is drawn to a magnetic disk product, in its final form. Limitations reciting a manner in which features and/or attributes are determined during the design/production phase, are only given patentable weight to the extent in which the final product, gleaned from such design steps, impart structural/compositions, etc. features in the in the final product form. The claim recitation regarding the slider, preselected hard disk drive, ramp for a ramp-disk spacing), fails to provide a patentable feature in claim 10 that defines over Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1), since claim 10 is drawn to a magnetic disk, per se, and not the combination of a magnetic disk, slider, preselected hard disk drive, ramp. As such, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) is seen to anticipate claim 10.
As per claim 11, the final product (magnetic recording disk) includes a magnetic recording layer (e.g., 504, 606) on the data surface of the magnetic disk (500).
The limitation "the magnetic recording layer is deposited on the data surface with a deposition temperature that is greater than a reference temperature, the reference temperature being 75 degrees Celsius less than a glass transition temperature of the glass substrate" (as per claim 11) and "wherein the reference temperature is 675 degrees Celsius" (as per claim 12) is/are considered a product-by-process limitations/reference points used in the process of masking the magnetic recording disk.
The product by process limitations are directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17(footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product "gleaned" from the process limitations or steps, which must be determined in a "product by process" claim limitation, and not the patentability of the process limitations. Moreover, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in "product-by-process" claim limitation or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
The final product limitation derived from the claimed "process limitation" as noted above, in claims 11 and 12, fails to result in a structural difference between the disclosure of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) and the claimed product, at least at it applies to the product limitation(s) "gleaned" from the process limitation(s). As such, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) is seen to anticipate this limitation (as per claims 11 and 12) as it applies to the patentability of the final structure.
As per claim 13, wherein the data surface comprises the concave shape - see paragraph [0050].
As per claim 14, wherein the data surface comprises the convex shape - see paragraph [0050]..
As per claim 15, wherein the data surface comprises the cylinder shape - see paragraph [0050]..
As per claim 16, a data storage device (e.g., 100 - see Fig. 1) is provided, comprising: the magnetic recording disk (e.g., 102) of claim 1; at least one magnetic head (e.g., 108); a drive mechanism (e.g., including the actuator assembly depicted in Fig. 1) for positioning the at least one magnetic head (108) over the magnetic recording disk (102); and a controller (e.g., 110) electrically coupled to the at least one magnetic head for controlling operation of the at least one magnetic head (108) (see paragraphs [0037-0039]).
As per claim 17, further comprising: a second magnetic recording disk (e.g., see Fig. 9, one of the other disks of 917-A through 917-C) comprising: a second glass substrate having a second data surface; and a second magnetic recording layer on the second data surface for magnetic recording (e.g., see Fig. 9 in combination with the embodiments of disks discussed above, e.g., 102, 300, 400, 500, 510, 700, 917A-917C, 1000, 1100, 1200, etc., referred to hereinafter, collectively, or individually as "102", as applied thereto). The second magnetic recording disk has a thickness less than 0.5 millimeter (e.g., see, inter alia, abstract; paragraphs [0026, 0028, 0029], etc.), wherein the second (just like the first) magnetic recording disk (102) has a flatness value corresponding to a height difference between a highest point and a lowest point on the data surface (e.g., corresponding to the maximum waviness generated by the difference between a peak (highest point) and trough (lowest point) of the disk, a flatness deviation threshold as noted with respect to the first disk, of claim 1), and wherein the (second) flatness value of the second disk is greater than a second (analogous to the first) flatness threshold (analogous to the first flatness threshold of the first disk in claim 1) and the data surface comprises one of a concave shape, a convex shape, a cylinder shape, a saddle shape (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0050], etc.). Note: the claimed flatness threshold(s) merely set forth a range in which the actual flatness value must reside, with regard to the magnetic disk product, in its final form. As long as the prior art (e.g., Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1)) discloses a value within a claimed threshold range, the claim limitation(s) as it pertains to a range within which the flatness value exists, such a limitation is seen to be anticipated.
As per claim 26, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) discloses a magnetic recording disk (e.g., 102, 300, 400, 500, 510, 700, 917A-917C, 1000, 1100, 1200, etc., referred to hereinafter, collectively, or individually as "102"), comprising: a glass substrate (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0046]; 300, 1102, Figs. 3, 11, etc.) having a data surface; and a magnetic recording layer on the data surface (e.g. 304, 1104, etc.; Figs. 3, 11) for magnetic recording, wherein the magnetic recording disk (102) has a thickness less than 0.5 millimeter (e.g., see, inter alia, abstract; paragraphs [0026, 0028, 0029], etc.), wherein the magnetic recording disk (102) has a flatness value corresponding to a height difference between a highest point and a lowest point on the data surface, and wherein the flatness value is less than a flatness threshold.
Thus, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) provides for wherein the flatness value taken when the magnetic recording disk is standalone (un-clamped) is greater than a first flatness threshold (e.g., a flatness deviation threshold having an internal stress of equal to or greater than 240 MPa, which is associated with less flatness deviation - see paragraph [0031], as noted above, and paragraphs [0054 and 0057].
Additionally, the flatness value is less than or equal to a second flatness threshold (e.g., a flatness deviation threshold having an internal stress of equal to 600 MPa or less, which is associated with a larger flatness deviation - see paragraph [0031], as noted above, and paragraphs [0052, 0054, 0068]; claims 11, 13; Fig. 6 of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1).
Moreover, the flatness threshold (either the first and/or second) is based on a shape of the data surface, and the shape of the data surface being one of a concave shape, a convex shape, a cylinder shape, and a saddle shape (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0050], wherein the disk is expressly disclosed as one of those shapes based upon the internal stress of the disk, which corresponds to the flatness value and associated flatness threshold.).
As per amended claim 26, the flatness value corresponding to a height difference between a highest point and a lowest point on regions of the data surface includes an outer diameter region of the data surface (e.g., see Fig. 5, wherein the outer diameter region is the outermost peripheral region near the disk outer diameter, corresponding to the uppermost dashed line of which the “flatness deviation” measurement is made) and an inner diameter region of the data surface (e.g., see Fig. 5, wherein the inner diameter region is the innermost region near the disk center, corresponding to the lowermost dashed line of which the “flatness deviation” measurement is made); thus, the “flatness deviation” as depicted in Fig. 5, clearly and unambiguously shows the it is made between the outermost peripheral (disk outer diameter region) portion of the disk, and an inner, central portion of the disk (inner diameter region of the disk), the outer diameter region being separate from the inner diameter region and closer to an outer diameter edge of the magnetic recording disk than the inner diameter region, as seen in Fig. 5, and explained, supra. See also, paragraph [0050] of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1).
As per claim 28, wherein a shape of the data surface (e.g., "concave, convex, saddle, or cylindrical shape" - see paragraph [0050]) is estimated based on a plurality of first height values along a first circular path around an outer diameter region of the data surface near an outer diameter edge. It is noted that claim 28 is drawn to a magnetic disk product, in its final form. Limitations reciting a manner in which features and/or attributes (ranges, shapes, etc.) are determined during the design/production phase, are only given patentable weight to the extent in which the final product, gleaned from such design steps, impart structural/compositions, etc. features in the in the final product form. Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) discloses that the flatness of the magnetic disk, in its final form, includes a flatness value over its entire extent, that lies within the final product claimed range, as noted, supra. As such, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) is seen to anticipate claim 6. See also, inter alia, paragraphs [0031, 0042]; Figs. 5, 11, etc.
As per claim 29, wherein the flatness value is based on a highest value and a lowest value among the plurality of first height values and a plurality of second height values along a second circular path around an inner diameter region of the data surface near a center of the magnetic recording disk (102) (see Fig. 5). It is noted that claim 29 is drawn to a magnetic disk product, in its final form. Limitations reciting a manner in which features and/or attributes (ranges, shapes, etc.) are determined during the design/production phase, are only given patentable weight to the extent in which the final product, gleaned from such design steps, impart structural/compositions, etc., features in the in the final product form. Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) discloses that the flatness of the magnetic disk, in its final form, includes a flatness value over its entire extent, that lies within the final product claimed range, as noted, supra. As such, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) is seen to anticipate claim 7. See also, inter alia, paragraphs [0031, 0042]; Figs. 5, 11, etc.
As per claim 30, wherein a wavelength of a periodic curve (disclosed deviations from flatness - for instance, from OD (outer diameter) to ID (inner diameter) and back to OD (outer diameter) from one side of the disk to the other - see Fig. 5) of that corresponds to a curve generated based on the plurality of first height values over a plurality of locations on the first circular path (e.g., at the outer diameter OD), respectively corresponding to the plurality of first height values, is greater than a length of a slider head.
It is noted that claim 30, is drawn to a magnetic disk product, in its final form. Limitations reciting a manner in which features and/or attributes (ranges, shapes, etc.) are determined during the design/production phase, are only given patentable weight to the extent in which the final product, gleaned from such design steps, impart structural/compositions, etc. features in the in the final product form. The claim recitation regarding the slider, fails to provide a patentable feature in claim 8, since claim 8 (as well as claim 1) is drawn to a magnetic disk, per se, and not the combination of a magnetic disk and slider. Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) discloses the flatness of the magnetic disk, in its final form, includes a flatness value - deviations from flatness with high point(s) and low point(s) which provide the amplitude of the flatness deviation, e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0031, 0042]; Fig. 11, etc. over its entire extent. See Fig. 5 (inner to outer diameter). As such, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) is seen to anticipate claim 30.
As per claim 32, the final product (magnetic recording disk) includes a magnetic recording layer (e.g., 504, 606) on the data surface of the magnetic disk (500).
The limitation "the magnetic recording layer is deposited on the data surface with a deposition temperature that is greater than a reference temperature, the reference temperature being 75 degrees Celsius less than a glass transition temperature of the glass substrate" (as per claim 32) is considered a product-by-process limitations/reference points used in the process of masking the magnetic recording disk.
The product by process limitations are directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17(footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product "gleaned" from the process limitations or steps, which must be determined in a "product by process" claim limitation, and not the patentability of the process limitations. Moreover, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in "product-by-process" claim limitation or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
The final product limitation derived from the claimed "process limitation" as noted above, in claim 32, fails to result in a structural difference between the disclosure of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) and the claimed product, at least at it applies to the product limitation(s) "gleaned" from the process limitation(s). As such, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) is seen to anticipate this limitation (as per claim 32) as it applies to the patentability of the final structure.
As per claims 33 and 34, the data surface comprises an annulus shape (ring-shape of disk when viewed from above) disposed between an inner diameter edge (central hole of magnetic disk into which the spindle hub is inserted – as exemplified in Fig. 9) and the outer diameter edge of the magnetic recording disk; the data surface comprises the aforementioned inner diameter region and the outer diameter region where each comprises an annulus shape (being ring shaped portions); and the inner diameter region is closer to the inner diameter edge than the outer diameter region. See Fig. 5, which is a cross-section of the disk, that, when viewed in la from above, meets the limitations of newly presented claims 33 and 34.
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 2, 4, 5, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1).
See the description of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1).
As per claim 2, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the first flatness threshold is 15 micrometers.
As per claim 4, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the first flatness threshold is 15 micrometers, and the second flatness threshold is 40 micrometers.
As per claim 5, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the second flatness threshold is four times greater than the first flatness threshold.
As per claim 27, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the flatness threshold is 40 micrometers when the shape of the data surface is one of the concave shape, the convex shape, or the cylinder shape, and wherein the flatness threshold is 15 micrometers when the shape of the data surface is the saddle shape.
As per claim 31, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the flatness threshold for any of the concave shape, the convex shape, or the cylinder shape is four times greater than the flatness threshold for the saddle shape.
Regarding claims 27 and 31, as noted, supra, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) already discloses that the shape of the pre-stressed (unclamped) magnetic recording disk can take on a variety of shapes at a multitude of differing internal stress levels (from 240 MPa to 600 MPa, which correspond to lower and higher flatness levels and associated flatness thresholds).
Given the teachings and suggestions of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) for providing a magnetic recording disk with pre-stressed (un-clamped, standalone) of a particular range (e.g. internal stress in a range of 240 MPa - 600 MPa, as noted, supra, which corresponds to upper and lower flatness values and associated thresholds), using the teachings of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) as a demonstrative template, it would have been within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the instant invention was effectively filed, to routinely modify the first and second threshold values, as provided for in claims 2, 4, 5, 27, and 31, in the course of routine optimization/experimentation and thereby obtain various magnetic recording disk which can be selected for use (or rejected) based on such internal stress (and the corresponding flatness thresholds associated, therewith) including those set forth in claims 2, 4, 5, 27, and 31.
That is, given the express conceptual teachings and implied/inferred suggestions of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to routinely modify the first and second threshold values (via the internal stresses), in the course of routine optimization/experimentation and thereby obtain various standard optimized relationships including those set forth in claims 2, 4, 5, 27, and 31, in order to accept or reject selected disks which meet the desired criteria as set forth by Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) - see paragraphs [0056-0058] of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1), which gives rise to advantageously "reduce the magnitude of deflections caused by mechanical shocks to an HDD in which the disk is installed, as compared to other disks of equal thickness but with relatively less internal stress" by way of using such thresholds to "reject[] disks that do not meet certain internal stress-based criteria" based on those thresholds - see abstract of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1).
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the Applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) in view of Yuan et al. (US 11,735,217 B2).
As per claim 18, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) remains silent regarding wherein the slider/magnetic head further comprises a laser configured to generate light; and a near field transducer (NFT) configured to receive the light and generate a localized heat, wherein the magnetic recording disk is configured to dissipate the localized heat during a writing process.
Such features, however, are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Yuan et al. (US 11,735,217 B2) discloses an analogous magnetic recording disk (e.g., 102 - see Fig. 1) and data stage system (e.g., 100 - see Fig. 1) in the same field of endeavor as Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1), wherein, as per claim 18, Yuan et al. (US 11,735,217 B2) discloses a slider/magnetic head (e.g., 108) that further comprises a laser (e.g. 114 - see Fig. 2) configured to generate light; and a near field transducer (NFT) configured to receive the light and generate a localized heat (e.g., see col. 3, l. 66 through col. 4, l. 11 of Yuan et al. (US 11,735,217 B2)), wherein the magnetic recording disk comprises a heat sink layer configured to dissipate the localized heat during a writing process (e.g., see col. 2, ll. 4-8 of Yuan et al. (US 11,735,217 B2)).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Yuan et al. (US 11,735,217 B2), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the slider/magnetic head of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) as further comprising a laser configured to generate light; and a near field transducer (NFT) configured to receive the light and generate a localized heat, wherein the magnetic recording disk comprises a heat sink layer configured to dissipate the localized heat during a writing process, as taught by Yuan et al. (US 11,735,217 B2), in order to advantageously "increase the areal density of information recorded magnetically on various magnetic media" - see col. 2, ll. 60-62 of Yuan et al. (US 11,735,217 B2).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 31, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant has amended claim 1 and now alleges that such amendment defines over Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1).
The Examiner disagrees, for the reasons now articulated in response to the amendment, and as set forth in the rejection, above.
More concretely, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) discloses a magnetic recording disk (e.g., 102, 300, 400, 500, 510, 700, 917A-917C, 1000, 1100, 1200, etc., referred to hereinafter, collectively, or individually as "102"), comprising: a glass substrate (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0046]; 300, 1102, Figs. 3, 11, etc.) having a data surface; and a magnetic recording layer on the data surface (e.g. 304, 1104, etc.; Figs. 3, 11) for magnetic recording, wherein the magnetic recording disk (102) has a thickness less than 0.5 millimeter (e.g., see, inter alia, abstract; paragraphs [0026, 0028, 0029], etc.), wherein the magnetic recording disk (102) has a flatness value corresponding to a height difference between a highest point and a lowest point on the data surface taken when the magnetic recording disk is standalone (e.g. when the magnetic recording disk is "un-clamped" and is pre-stressed, i.e., having an "internal stress" which corresponds to aa flatness deviation, corresponding to the maximum deviation generated by the difference between a peak (highest point) and trough (lowest point) of the disk due to such flatness deviation, a flatness deviation threshold of, e.g., "un-clamped" (standalone) - (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0031, 0042]; Fig. 11, etc.).
For example, as set forth in paragraph [0031], "That is, for a given disk thickness (at least for disks less than or equal to 0.5 mm), the deformation or deviation of the OD of the disk from a flat disk profile will likely be greater for a disk with high internal stress than for a similar disk with lower internal stress. In some aspects, the thin disks described herein have internal stress high enough so that the (un-clamped) OD deviation of the disk from a flat disk profile is greater than a predetermined flatness deviation threshold, such as 20 µm." Emphasis added
Thus, Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1) provides for wherein the flatness value taken when the magnetic recording disk is standalone (un-clamped) is greater than a first flatness threshold (e.g., a flatness deviation threshold having an internal stress of equal to or greater than 240 MPa, which is associated with less flatness deviation - see paragraph [0031], as noted above, and paragraphs [0054 and 0057].
Additionally, the flatness value is less than or equal to a second flatness threshold (e.g., a flatness deviation threshold having an internal stress of equal to 600 MPa or less, which is associated with a larger flatness deviation - see paragraph [0031], as noted above, and paragraphs [0052, 0054, 0068]; claims 11, 13; Fig. 6 of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1).
Such thresholds, as set forth, supra, are with respect to an un-clamped magnetic recording disk, i.e., a standalone magnetic recording disk, as set forth in claim 1.
Additionally, as per amended claims 1 and 26, the flatness value corresponding to a height difference between a highest point and a lowest point on regions of the data surface includes an outer diameter region of the data surface (e.g., see Fig. 5, wherein the outer diameter region is the outermost peripheral region near the disk outer diameter, corresponding to the uppermost dashed line of which the “flatness deviation” measurement is made) and an inner diameter region of the data surface (e.g., see Fig. 5, wherein the inner diameter region is the innermost region near the disk center, corresponding to the lowermost dashed line of which the “flatness deviation” measurement is made); thus, the “flatness deviation” as depicted in Fig. 5, clearly and unambiguously shows the it is made between the outermost peripheral (disk outer diameter region) portion of the disk, and an inner, central portion of the disk (inner diameter region of the disk), the outer diameter region being separate from the inner diameter region and closer to an outer diameter edge of the magnetic recording disk than the inner diameter region, as seen in Fig. 5, and explained, supra. See also, paragraph [0050] of Suzuki (US 2023/0110894 A1).
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
Prosecution Insights