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 .
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7 and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KATAGUCHI et al. (US 20210295868 A1).
[Claim 1] KATAGUCHI discloses (abstract) a tape-type magnetic recording medium (FIG.2) [0007], comprising:
a base body 11; and
a magnetic layer 13, wherein the magnetic layer contains magnetic particles, [0094-0095]
the magnetic particles contain hexagonal ferrite [0105] and
a ratio (Hc1/VXRD) between a coercive force Hcl of the magnetic layer in a vertical direction of the magnetic recording medium and a crystallite volume VXRD of the magnetic particles… [0011].
KATAGUCHI discloses the claimed invention except for:
a ratio (Hc1/VXRD) between a coercive force Hcl of the magnetic layer in a vertical direction of the magnetic recording medium and a crystallite volume VXRD of the magnetic particles… is 1.80 or more and 2.50 or less.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the option of optimizing the ratio as claimed above, given that the physical structure and materials are the same in KATAGUCHI as in the claimed invention.
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 Fo2d 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. Absent evidence of unexpected results due to the recited dimensions, the Examiner finds that the recited dimensions were predictable at the time of Applicant's disclosure.
The rationale is as follows:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to find the optimum range for the ratio, since 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).
Referring to claim 1, the product by process limitations (“obtained by measuring a constituent material of the magnetic layer by an X-ray diffraction method” - is interpreted as product by process limitation) in these claims 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, 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” claims or not. In this case, the X-ray diffraction method of claim 1 is deemed to be no different in characteristic than any other manner to measure a constituent material resulting from being formed by using another method of measurement.
[Claim 3] KATAGUCHI discloses [0008] the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the crystallite volume VXRD of the magnetic particles is 2500 nm3 or less.
[Claim 4] KATAGUCHI discloses [0120] the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the crystallite volume VXRD of the magnetic particles is 1400 nm3 or less.
[Claim 5] KATAGUCHI discloses [0023, 0126, 0153, 0157, 0202-0203, 0209-0210] the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the coercive force Hcl of the magnetic layer in the vertical direction of the magnetic recording medium is 1800 Oe or more and 3000 Oe or less.
[Claim 6] KATAGUCHI discloses [0023, 0126, 0153, 0157, 0202-0203, 0209-0210] the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the coercive force Hcl of the magnetic layer in the vertical direction of the magnetic recording medium is 2300 Oe or more and 3000 Oe or less.
[Claim 7] KATAGUCHI discloses [0019] the magnetic recording medium according to
claim 1, wherein the hexagonal ferrite includes barium ferrite or strontium ferrite.
[Claim 10] KATAGUCHI discloses [0009] the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1, wherein an average thickness of the magnetic recording medium is 5.30 µm or less.
[Claim 11] KATAGUCHI discloses the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1, wherein the magnetic layer is configured to be capable of recording signals at a data track width of 800 nm or less [0092-0094] and a bit length [0094].
However, KATAGUCHI fails to explicitly disclose:
a bit length of 46 nm or less.
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 Fo2d 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. Absent evidence of unexpected results due to the recited dimensions, the Examiner finds that the recited dimensions were predictable at the time of Applicant's disclosure.
The rationale is as follows:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to find the bit length reduced to a minimum to increase recording density [0094], since 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).
[Claim 12] KATAGUCHI discloses [0025] the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1, further comprising:
an underlayer,
wherein an average thickness of the underlayer is 0.90 µm or less.
[Claim 13] KATAGUCHI discloses [0022] the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1, wherein an average thickness of the magnetic layer is 0.08 µm or less.
[Claim 14] KATAGUCHI discloses [0024] the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1, wherein an average thickness of the base body is 4.40 µm or less.
[Claim 15] KATAGUCHI discloses [0026-0027] the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1, further comprising:
a back layer, wherein an average thickness of the back layer is 0.60 µm or less.
[Claim 16] KATAGUCHI discloses a cartridge (FIG.9-10), comprising:
the magnetic recording medium according to claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KATAGUCHI et al. (US 20210295868 A1) in view of TAKAYUKI et al. (US 5972554 A).
However, KATAGUCHI fails to explicitly disclose:
[Claim 2] The magnetic recording medium according to claim 1, wherein a variation coefficient ((a/Dave) x 100) obtained by dividing a standard deviation a of the magnetic particles by an average particle size Dave of the magnetic particles is 45% or less.
TAKAYUKI teaches (abstract) in a similar field of invention in magnetic materials, wherein a variation coefficient obtained by dividing a standard deviation a magnetic particle size by an average particle size, which is at most 40% or less, for the purpose of uniformly dispersing magnetic fine powder in a medium.
The prior art also teaches the known technique of using a variation coefficient as claimed above, of 45% or less. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of using a variation coefficient of 40% or less would have yielded predictable results and would have improved ability to disperse fine magnetic particles within a magnetic tape medium.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8-9 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS E GARCIA whose telephone number is (571)270-1354. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-6pm F 9-5pm.
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, Brian Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-3059. 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.
CARLOS E. GARCIA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2686
/Carlos Garcia/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2686 8/13/2026
Prosecution Insights