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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment to the title has been fully considered and are persuasive. See page 2,
lines 3-4, of the specification, as filed on 04/22/2026. Accordingly, the objection of the title is
withdrawn.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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication Number US20230267956A1 (hereinafter YAMADA) in view of Erpelding U.S. Patent Publication US20030223152A1(hereinafter Erpelding).
Regarding Claim 1, YAMADA discloses A disk drive suspension (para. [0045] i.e., suspension 10 ) comprising: a load beam (para. [0048] i.e., load beam 22 ); and a flexure (para. [0049] i.e., flexure 30 ), wherein the flexure includes: a metal base (para. [0049] i.e., metal base 40 ); a slider arrangement portion on which a slider is arranged (Fig. 7 i.e., suspension 10); and a circuit portion electrically connected to the slider (para. [0049] i.e., wiring portion 50 provided along the metal base 40), and the slider arrangement portion (para. [0051] i.e., tongue portion 33) includes: an aperture portion provided at a position on which the slider is arranged and open in a thickness direction of the metal base (Fig. 7 i.e., the portion on which the slider is arranged, and "opening 36"; para. [0110-0111] i.e., metal base 40…a step S is formed…; para. [0065] i.e., opening 36 ); a resin member filing the aperture portion (Fig. 7 i.e., 80, 71(70), and 71(60)); para. [0059] i.e., ...the cover insulation layer 80 ...resin material... ) ;
a conductor portion embedded in the resin member in a part of the circuit portion (Fig. 7 i.e., the first conductor portion 71; para. [0104] i.e., the first conductor portion 71); a slider support resinous portion which is a first surface in a thickness direction of the resin member and on which the slider is arranged (Fig. 7 i.e., surface 91; para. [0074-0075] i.e., The pillows 90 are formed...resin material...pillows 90 each include a surface 91 on which the slider ...is disposed...); and a first contacting portion where the slider and the slider support resinous portion are secured to each other (para. [0075] i.e., The pillows 90 each include a surface 91 on which the slider 11 is disposed.) but fails to explicitly disclose an abutting resinous portion which is a second surface in the thickness direction of the resin member and contacting which contacts a protrusion portion of a dimple portion of the load beam; and a second contacting portion where the protrusion portion and the abutting resinous portion contact with each other.
In an analogous art, Erpelding teaches an abutting resinous portion which is a second surface in the thickness direction in the resin member (Fig. 7, the location of the layer(138) adjacent to the dimple (138); para. [0042] i.e., layer 138, ...polyimide layer. ) and which contacts a protrusion portion of a dimple portion of the load beam (Fig. 7, the protruding portion of the dimple 136; para. [0042] i.e., dimple 136; para. [0074] i.e., FIG. 7 shows that the dimple is in contact with layer 138...polyimide layer.); and a second contacting portion where the protrusion portion and the abutting resinous portion contact with each other (Fig. 7 i.e., "layer 138" and "dimple 136"; para. [0074] i.e., FIG. 7 shows that the dimple is in contact with layer 138...polyimide layer.).
YAMADA describes HDDs are being pushed toward higher recording density and more disks in the same enclosure. That creates a need for thinner suspensions so that adjacent suspensions do not interfere when disk spacing is reduced. YAMADA teaches the thin region is made by reducing the thickness of the metal base, insulation layer, conductor layer, or by omitting one or more layers entirely.
Erpelding teaches a copper/polymer/copper laminate provides both electrical routing and constrained-layer damping. A channel through the top copper and polymer layers reduces stiffness and shifts the bending neutral axis to increase damping. The dimple is also configured to load through polymer rather than directly on steel, which damps slider nutation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the dimple configuration in Reference Erpelding in the suspension of Reference YAMADA to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Reference Erpelding, the motivation for the combination would be to provide improvements in ILS gimbal system dynamics and stiffness(Erpelding, para. 7).
Regarding Claim 2, YAMADA as modified by Erpelding teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above. YAMADA further teaches the resin member includes: a base resin layer formed inside the aperture portion (Fig. 7 i.e., 60) ; and an embedding resin embedding the conductor portion and overlapping the base resin layer (Fig. 7 i.e., 80 ; para. [0059] i.e., The base insulation layer 60 and the cover insulation layer 80 are each formed,...resin material...).
Regarding Claim 13, YAMADA as modified by Erpelding teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above. YAMADA further teaches a pedestal member (Fig. 11 i.e., 90) is provided on the slider support resinous portion (Fig. 11, upper portion of a base insulating layer 60; para. [0059] i.e., The base insulation layer 60 ...resin material…), and the slider (Fig. 11, i.e., slider 11) is provided on the slider support resinous portion with the pedestal member sandwiched between the slider and the slider support resinous portion (Fig. 11 i.e., 11, upper portion of 60, 91, and 90 ; para. [0075] i.e., The pillows 90 each include a surface 91 on which the slider 11 is disposed. The slider 11 is placed on the surfaces 91 of pillows 90...).
Regarding Claim 14, YAMADA as modified by Erpelding teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above. YAMADA further teaches a pedestal member integrally formed with the resin member is provided on the resin member (Fig. 8 i.e., "pillows 90" and "cover insulation layer 80"; para. [0059] i.e.,cover insulation layer 80 are each formed... resin material…; para. [0074] i.e., the pillows 90 are formed to be integrated with the cover insulation layer 80), and
the slider is provided on the slider support resinous portion with the pedestal member sandwiched between the slider and the slider support resinous portion (Fig. 8 i.e., 11, upper portion of 80, 91, and 90 ; para. [0075] i.e., The pillows 90 each include a surface 91 on which the slider 11 is disposed. The slider 11 is placed on the surfaces 91 of pillows 90...).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA in view of Erpelding as applied to claims 1-2 and 13-14 above, and further in view of Maruyama et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number US20050063097A1(hereinafter Maruyama).
PNG
media_image1.png
272
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 8, YAMADA as modified by Erpelding teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach the base resin layer of the resin member includes: a first portion; and a second portion thinner than the first portion, and the conductor portion includes: a first conductor provided on the first portion; and a second conductor provided on the second portion.
In an analogous art, Maruyama teaches the suspension, wherein the base resin layer of the resin member includes: a first portion (See annotated Fig. 9A, a first portion); and a second portion thinner than the first portion (See annotated Fig. 9A, a second portion; T2 is thinner than the T1.), and the conductor portion includes: a first conductor provided on the first portion (See annotated Fig. 9A i.e., 4-1 and 4-2; para. [0089] i.e., 4-1 and 4-2 show write wirings; para. [0089] i.e. , ...symbols T1 and T2 show a film thickness of polyimide resin functioning as an insulating layer positioned under the write wiring path, and a film thickness of polyimide resin functioning as an insulating layer positioned under the read wiring path. A relationship between these film thicknesses is given as T1>T2. ); and a second conductor provided on the second portion (See annotated Fig. 9A i.e., 4-3 and 4-4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the different resin thickness disclosed in Maruyama into the disk drive suspension in order to improve a packaging density of electric writing (Maruyama, para. 89).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA in view of Erpelding and Maruyama, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Kikuchi et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number US20220189505A1(hereinafter Kikuchi).
Regarding Claim 9, YAMADA as modified by Erpelding and Maruyama teaches the suspension of claim 8 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach a part of the first conductor is exposed to the first surface of the resin member.
In an analogous art, Kikuchi teaches the suspension, wherein a part of the first conductor is exposed to the first surface of the resin member (Fig. 10 i.e., 44 c; para. [0066] i.e., ...a cover insulating layer 44 d is removed from a thin portion 60 of a second bridge portion 47 d. An exposed conductive layer 44 c,...).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thin portion of the conductive layer of Kikuchi into the disk drive suspension in order to improve the strokes without having to change the characteristics or size of the drive element(Kikuchi, para. 60, 61, and 68).
Regarding Claim 10, YAMADA as modified by Erpelding and Maruyama teaches the suspension of claim 8 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach a part of the second conductor is exposed to the second surface of the resin member.
Kikuchi teaches the suspension, wherein a part of the second conductor is exposed to the second surface of the resin member (Fig. 10 i.e., 44 c; para. [0066] i.e., ...a cover insulating layer 44 d is removed from a thin portion 60 of a second bridge portion 47 d. An exposed conductive layer 44 c,...).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the thin portion of the conductive layer of Kikuchi into the disk drive suspension in order to improve the strokes without having to change the characteristics or size of the drive element(Kikuchi, para. 60, 61, and 68).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA in view of Erpelding and Maruyama, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of YAMADA U.S. Patent Publication Number US 20230154489 A1(hereinafter YAMADA '489).
Regarding Claim 11, YAMADA as modified by Erpelding and Maruyama teaches the suspension of claim 8 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach the suspension, further comprising: a connection conductor electrically connecting the first conductor and the second conductor.
In an analogous art YAMADA '489 teaches a connection conductor electrically connecting the first conductor and the second conductor (Fig. 15, right 93; para. [0154] i.e., the flexure 30 further comprises the connection portion 93. The connection portion 93 is formed of, for example, a metallic material such as copper.).
The core idea of YAMADA '489 is to place the wiring portion in a compact arrangement relative to the metal base so the flexure’s overall thickness does not grow unnecessarily.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wiring portion disclosed in Reference YAMADA '489 in the suspension to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Reference YAMADA '489, the motivation for the combination would be to make a thin suspension(YAMADA '489, para. 8-9).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA in view of Erpelding as applied to claims 1-2 and 13-14 above, and further in view of Inoue et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number US20140368954A1 (hereinafter Inoue).
Regarding Claim 3, YAMADA as modified by Erpelding teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach an auxiliary member contacting the protrusion portion is provided on the abutting portion.
In an analogous art, Inoue teaches an auxiliary member contacting the protrusion portion is provided on the abutting portion (Fig. 9 i.e., hinge portion 93 and dimple 100; para. [0070] i.e., The dimple 100 is an example of a supporting protrusion, and has a convex surface projecting toward the gimbal portion 30 of the flexure 22. As the top of the convex surface (distal end of the dimple 100) contacts the hinge portion 93... ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the hinge portion of Inoue into the disk drive suspension of YAMADA in order to provide stable slider support(Inoue, para. 70).
Claim(s) 4-7, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA in view of Erpelding as applied to claims 1-2 and 13-14 above, and further in view of YAMADA '489.
Regarding Claim 4, YAMADA as modified by Erpelding teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach the resin member is thinner than the metal base.
In an analogous art, YAMADA '489 teaches the resin member (Fig. 13 i.e., 61; para. [0090] i.e.,The thickness T61 of the base insulating layer 61 is...6 μm. ; para. [0091] i.e.,The thickness T81 of the cover insulating layer 81 is … in a range from 2 to 10 μm. The thickness T81 of the cover insulating layer 81 is, for example, 2 μm.) is thinner than the metal base (Fig. 13 i.e., 40(41A and 41B)); para. [0090] i.e., The thickness T41 of the first portions 41A and 41B is, for example, in a range from 11 to 50 μm.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wiring portion disclosed in Reference YAMADA '489 in the suspension to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Reference YAMADA '489, the motivation for the combination would be to make a thin suspension(YAMADA '489, para. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 5, YAMADA as modified by Erpelding teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach the resin member includes: a base resin layer formed inside the aperture portion; an embedding resin embedding the conductor portion and overlapping a surface of the base resin layer; and a foundation resin overlapping an opposite surface of the base resin layer.
In an analogous art, YAMADA '489 teaches the resin member includes: a base resin layer formed inside the aperture portion (Fig. 13 i.e., 61; para. [0072] i.e., The base insulating layer 61 ... are formed of ... resin material...); an embedding resin embedding the conductor portion and overlapping a surface of the base resin layer (Fig. 13 i.e., 81; para. [0072] i.e., The base insulating layer 61 and the cover insulating layer 81 are formed of... resin material ... ); and a foundation resin overlapping an opposite surface of the base resin layer (Fig. 13 i.e., support layer 92; para. [0146] i.e., The support layer 92 is formed of...resin material... ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wiring portion disclosed in Reference YAMADA '489 in the suspension to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Reference YAMADA '489, the motivation for the combination would be to make a thin suspension(YAMADA '489, para. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 6, YAMADA as modified by Erpelding teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach the resin member is composed of an embedding resin filling the aperture portion and embedding the conductor portion.
In an analogous art, YAMADA '489 teaches the resin member is composed of an embedding resin filling the aperture portion and embedding the conductor portion (Fig. 13 i.e., 61 and 81; An embedding resin filing corresponds to the base insulating layer 61 and the cover insulating layer 81 that embed the conductor layer 71 and fill the aperture portion.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wiring portion disclosed in Reference YAMADA '489 in the suspension to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Reference YAMADA '489, the motivation for the combination would be to make a thin suspension(YAMADA '489, para. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 7, YAMADA as modified by Erpelding teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach the resin member includes: an embedding resin filling the aperture portion and embedding the conductor portion; and a foundation resin overlapping the embedding resin.
In an analogous art, YAMADA '489 teaches the resin member includes: an embedding resin filling the aperture portion and embedding the conductor portion (Fig. 13 i.e., 61 and 81; The embedding resin filing corresponds to the base insulating layer 61 and the cover insulating layer 81 that embed the conductor layer 71 and fill the aperture portion. ); and a foundation resin overlapping the embedding resin (Fig. 13 i.e., support layer 92; para. [0146] i.e., The support layer 92 is formed of...resin material…; para. [0149] i.e., the support layer 92 overlaps with the wiring portion 50; The wiring portion 50 includes the embedding resin portion.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wiring portion disclosed in Reference YAMADA '489 in the suspension to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Reference YAMADA '489, the motivation for the combination would be to make a thin suspension(YAMADA '489, para. 8-9).
Regarding Claim 12, YAMADA as modified by Erpelding teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach the suspension, further comprising: a ground conductor electrically connecting the metal base and the conductor portion.
In an analogous art, YAMADA '489 teaches a ground conductor electrically connecting the metal base and the conductor portion (Fig. 15 left 93; para. [0160] i.e.,The connection portion 93 can be used to ground the conductor layer 71 to the metal base 40... ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the wiring portion disclosed in Reference YAMADA '489 in the suspension to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Reference YAMADA '489, the motivation for the combination would be to make a thin suspension(YAMADA '489, para. 8-9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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
Prosecution Insights