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 3-5, 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 Accordingly, the objection of the title is withdrawn.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) 1-3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA U. S. Patent Publication Number US20230267956A1(hereinafter YAMADA) in view of YAMADA U.S. Patent Publication Number US 20230154489 A1(hereinafter YAMADA 489) and further in view of Stephan et al. U.S. Patent Number US11651785B1(hereinafter Stephan).
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 circuit portion provided along the metal base (para. [0049] i.e., wiring portion 50 provided along the metal base 40); and a slider arrangement portion on which a slider is arranged (para. [0051] i.e., tongue portion 33),
and the slider arrangement portion includes: an aperture portion provided in the metal base (Fig. 8 i.e., "step S" and "metal base 40"; para. [0110-0111] i.e., metal base 40…a step S is formed…); a slider support portion with the embedding circuit portion being arranged in the aperture portion (Fig. 8 i.e., "surface 91" and "S"; para. [0111] i.e., …a step S is formed…; para. [0075] i.e., surface 91); and an abutting portion contacting a protrusion portion formed on the load beam (Fig. 8 i.e., "dimple 24", the portion contacting the dimple; para. [0159] i.e., dimple 24) but fails to explicitly disclose an embedding circuit portion arranged inside the aperture portion in a part of the circuit portion; and a slider support portion is a slider support metal portion which is a part of the metal base and which supports the slider.
In an analogous art, YAMADA 489 teaches an embedding circuit portion arranged inside the aperture portion in a part of the circuit portion (Fig. 13 i.e., conductor layer 71; para. [0016] i.e., The flexure further comprises a connection portion, and the conductor layer may include a plurality of lines arranged in a direction orthogonal to a direction of extension of the wiring portion, and the connection. portion. may be electrically connected to at least one of the plurality of lines).
YAMADA 489 describes that HDDs are being pushed toward higher recording density and more disks in a given drive size. As disk spacing shrinks, facing suspensions can contact each other, so suspensions must be made thinner. But thinning is difficult because load beams affect spring load and resonance, and there is still room for improvement in suspension thinning. The stated problem is how to provide a flexure and suspension that can be thinned while still maintaining useful mechanical and electrical performance.
YAMADA 489’s solution is to arrange the flexure’s wiring portion so it fits within the transverse width of the metal base’s side portions, rather than stacking entirely above the metal base. In the main embodiment, at least one insulating layer contacts the opposed side surfaces of the metal base, and the conductor layer does not overlap the metal base in the stacking direction. This reduces the flexure’s thickness while preserving wiring. Some embodiments also make a second metal portion thinner than the first portions, or provide openings, so the total stack stays compact.
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 flexure’s wiring structure as taught by YAMADA 489 into a suspension in Reference YAMADA in order to improve the suspension by reducing its thickness.
In an analogous art, Stephan teaches that a slider support portion is a slider support metal portion which is a part of the metal base and which supports the slider (Fig. 4 i.e., mounting support 406; Col. 6 lines 24-26 i.e., mounting supports …AlTiC.).
Reference Stephan addresses the need for a robust way to create a larger pad gap while still mechanically supporting the slider. The mounting support acts both as a structural support and a spacer that creates gaps between an exposed surface of a slider and a suspension surface.
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 support metal portion as taught by Stephan into the slider arrangement portion in order to provide a structural support.
Regarding Claim 2, YAMADA as modified by YAMADA 489 and Stephan teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose that the embedding circuit portion includes a base resin layer, a conductor along the base resin layer, a cover resin covering the conductor, and the abutting portion.
In an analogous art, YAMADA 489 teaches the embedding circuit portion includes a base resin layer (Fig. 13 i.e., 61; para. [0072] i.e., The base insulating layer 61 ...are formed of ... resin material..), a conductor along the base resin layer (Fig. 13 i.e., conductor 71; para. [0071] i.e., ...a conductor layer 71 overlapping with the base insulating layer 61...), a cover resin covering the conductor (Fig. 13 i.e., 81; para. [0072] i.e., ...the cover insulating layer 81 are formed of ... resin material..), and the abutting portion (Fig. 13; The uppermost surface of the flexure on which a dimple is positioned).
It is well known in the art to use a resin layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the resin layer as taught by YAMADA 489 into a present suspension in order to provide insulation and improve the rigidity of the flexure(para. [0104]).
Regarding Claim 3, YAMADA as modified by YAMADA 489 and Stephan teaches the suspension of claim 2 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose the slider arrangement portion includes a foundation resin overlapping the base resin layer.
In an analogous art, YAMADA 489 teaches the slider arrangement portion includes a foundation resin overlapping 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 is well known in the art to use a resin layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to employ the resin layer as taught by YAMADA 489 into a present suspension in order to provide insulation and improve the rigidity of the flexure(para. [0104]).
Regarding Claim 7, YAMADA as modified by YAMADA 489 and Stephan teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach the suspension further comprising: a ground connecting conductor electrically connecting the metal base and a conductor of the embedding circuit portion
In an analogous art, YAMADA 489 teaches the suspension further comprising : a ground connecting conductor electrically connecting the metal base and a conductor of the embedding circuit 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 flexure’s wiring structure as taught by YAMADA 489 into a suspension in order to improve the suspension by reducing its thickness.
Regarding Claim 9, YAMADA as modified by YAMADA 489 and Stephan teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach that the slider support portion includes: an electrically insulating first pedestal member covering the aperture portion; and an electrically insulating second pedestal member between the slider and the first pedestal member.
In an analogous art, YAMADA 489 further teaches that the slider support portion includes: an electrically insulating first pedestal member (Fig. 11 i.e., base insulation layer 60; para. [0059] i.e., The base insulation layer 60...formed...of an electrically insulating … material... ) covering the aperture portion (Fig. 11 i.e., 36 ; para. [0129] i.e., The base insulation layer 60 in the thin-walled portion …); and an electrically insulating second pedestal member (Fig. 11 i.e., pillows 90) between the slider and the first pedestal member (Fig. 11 i.e., "11", "90", and "60"; 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…; para. [0129] i.e.,The base insulation layer 60 in the thin-walled portion 38 is in contact with a plurality of pillows 90... ).
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 flexure’s wiring structure as taught by YAMADA 489 into a suspension in Reference YAMADA in order to improve the suspension by reducing its thickness.
Claim(s) 4-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA as modified by YAMADA 489 and Stephan as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-9 above, and further in view of Deokar et al. U.S. Patent Number US11037589B1(hereinafter Deokar).
Regarding Claim 4, YAMADA as modified by YAMADA 489 and Stephan teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach the suspension further comprising: a metal portion provided inside the aperture portion and formed of a part of the metal base, wherein the metal portion includes the slider support portion.
In an analogous art, Deokar teaches the suspension further comprising: a metal portion provided inside the aperture portion and formed of a part of the metal base , wherein the metal portion includes the slider support portion (Fig. 15 i.e., conductor layer 70; para. [0060] i.e., The conductor layer 70 is formed of a metal material ...such as copper.).
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 slider support region of Deokar into a disk drive suspension in order to maintain gimbal compliance, which improves stability of the slider (Deokar, Col. 3 lines 56-64).
Regarding Claim 5, YAMADA as modified by YAMADA 489 and Stephan teaches the suspension of claim 4 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach the metal portion includes the abutting portion.
In an analogous art, Deokar teaches the metal portion includes the abutting portion (Fig. 5 i.e., 162; Col. 6 lines 3-8 i.e., top surface of slider support region 130 of flexure 127 at locations 162).
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 slider support region of Deokar into a disk drive suspension in order to maintain gimbal compliance, which improves stability of the slider (Deokar, Col. 3 lines 56-64).
Regarding Claim 8, YAMADA as modified by YAMADA 489 and Stephan teaches the suspension of claim 4 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach the slider support portion includes: an electrically insulating pedestal member provided between the metal portion and the slider
In an analogous art, Deokar teaches the slider support portion includes: an electrically insulating pedestal member provided between the metal portion and the slider (Fig. 5 i.e., 147; Col. 3 lines 5-16 i.e., electrical trace ribbon 147 … insulating layers. ).
Deokar’s invention separates the gimbal from the flexure and stacks them so the gimbal can be independently shaped and it may improve the ability of the HGA to accurately position the slider, which may enable the magnetic recording head of the slider to more accurately read and write data from and to the magnetic storage media (Deokar, Col. 1 lines 51-59).
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 slider support portion disclosed in Reference Deokar in the disk drive suspension to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Reference Deokar, the motivation for the combination would be to enable the magnetic recording head of the slider to more accurately read and write data.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMADA as modified by YAMADA 489 and Stephan as applied to claims 1-3 and 7-9 above, and further in view of Kikuchi et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number US20220189505A1(hereinafter Kikuchi).
Regarding Claim 6, YAMADA as modified by YAMADA 489 and Stephan teaches the suspension of claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly teach the embedding circuit portion includes: a load beam-side face facing the load beam; a slider-side face facing the slider; a first conductor including a terminal portion exposed to the load beam-side face; and a second conductor including a terminal portion exposed to the slider-side face.
In an analogous art, YAMADA 489 teaches a load beam-side face facing the load beam (Fig. 13, The upper portion of the conductor layer 71); and a slider-side face facing the slider (Fig. 13, The lower portion of the conductor layer 71).
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 flexure’s wiring structure as taught by YAMADA 489 into a suspension in order to improve the suspension by reducing its thickness.
In an analogous art, Kikuchi teaches a first conductor including a terminal portion exposed to the load beam-side face (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,...); and a second conductor including a terminal portion exposed to the slider-side face (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).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9 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