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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 17, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on March 17, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 § 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 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A).
As per claim 1 (as well as per claim 10, rejected, infra), Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) discloses a magnetic tape (e.g., 100), comprising: a base material (e.g., 101); and a magnetic layer (e.g., 102) provided on one of main surfaces (e.g., uppermost surface) of the base material (101), wherein the base material is formed of polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) (e.g., see, inter alia, p. 5, ll. 21-23 of the enclosed English-machine translation of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A)), a total thickness of the magnetic tape (100 is 4.9 µm or more and 5.4 µm or less (e.g., see, inter alia, p. 5, ll. 15-28; p. 7, ll. 28-30; p. 12, ll. 3-11 of the enclosed English-machine translation of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) - wherein the combined thicknesses of the constituent layers (101, 102, 103, 104) of the magnetic tape (100) have a combined range of 4.45 µm to 5.235 µm).
As per claim 3, wherein a thickness of the base material (101) is 4.2 µm or less (e.g., see, inter alia, p. 5, l. 28 of the enclosed English-machine translation of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A)).
As per claim 4, wherein a thickness of the base material (101) is 4.1 µm or less (e.g., see, inter alia, p. 5, l. 28 of the enclosed English-machine translation of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A)).
As per claim 5, wherein a thickness of the base material (101) is 4.0 µm or less (e.g., see, inter alia, p. 5, l. 28 of the enclosed English-machine translation of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A)).
Additionally, regarding claim 1 (as well as per claim 10, rejected, infra), although Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) does not expressly set forth wherein a loop stiffness of the magnetic tape in a width direction thereof is 1.1 mg/ µm or more and 1.4 mg/ µm or less, Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) nevertheless, explicitly discusses the advantages of providing a prescribed loop stiffness of the width of the magnetic tape (100). That is, Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) readily appreciates that the loop stiffness (STD) of the magnetic tape in a width direction can be adjusted as needed to arrive at a desired edge-to-edge stiffness to provide benefits noted therein (which can then be extrapolated to a much longer tape, such as an LTO tape format), thus evidencing that Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) identifies the loop stiffness of the magnetic tape in a width direction as being a result-effective-variable (e.g., see, inter alia, the abstract; p. 4, ll. 13-19; p. 7, l. 37 through p. 8, l. 21 of the enclosed English-machine translation of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to provide the loop stiffness of the magnetic tape in a width direction thereof is 1.1 mg/ µm or more and 1.4 mg/ µm or less, of a magnetic tape (including a longer, LTO formatted tape), in order to provide a desired edge-to-edge tape stiffness, ensuring adequate lateral strength, avoiding edge damage, and minimizing buckling when in contact with a tape guide of the like during tape running, while not providing too stiff an edge-to-edge tape stiffness which would cause tape wear and friction (e.g., see, inter alia, p. 11, ll. , l. 5 through p. 12, l. 1 of the enclosed English-machine translation of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A))
The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention was effectively filed to satisfy the claimed range(s) and/or dimension(s), particularly in light of the teachings of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan, as a whole, through routine optimization/experimentation. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Additionally, using the teachings of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) and the skill of an ordinary artisan, as a demonstrative template, it would have been within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely modify the loop stiffness of the magnetic tape in a width direction (based upon the express suggestions of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A)) in the course of routine optimization/experimentation and thereby obtain various standard optimized relationships including those set forth in claims 1 (and 10, rejected, infra) as nothing more than a predictable variation based the on the overarching teachings of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan.
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.
No new or unobvious result is seen to be obtained, given the express teachings and motivations of the applied prior art, and as such, the claimed ranges are seen, absent any unobvious evidence, as nothing more than a predictable variation based the on such overarching and pertinent teachings of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) and the well-known knowledge of the ordinary skilled artisan, in light of the general knowledge of an artisan having ordinary skill in the art, with the express rationale provided supra. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., No. 04-1350 (U.S. Apr. 30, 2007).
Moreover still, the Supreme Court opined “[w]hen a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentably.” (Emphasis added) 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1740.
The Examiner finds this situation analogous to the optimization of a range or other variable within the claims that flows from the “normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious). As noted above, in In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456 (C.C.P.A. 1955), it was held that the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious. See also In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (C.C.P.A. 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.”); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“‘[I]t is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’” (quoting Aller, 220 F.2d at 456)); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding no clear error in Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusion that the amount of eluent to be used in a washing sequence was a matter of routine optimization known in the pertinent prior art and therefore obvious).
Claims 2, 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) in view of Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1) (which corresponds to US 2024/0161781 A1).
See the description of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A), supra.
As per claim 2, Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) further discloses a back layer (e.g., 104) provided on another one of the main surfaces (e.g., bottommost surface of (101)) of the base material (101), but remains silent with regard to providing a non-magnetic layer between the base material and the magnetic layer.
As per claim 6, Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) remains silent with regard to wherein the magnetic layer contains magnetic particles of hexagonal ferrite, s iron oxide, or cobalt-containing ferrite.
As per claim 7, Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) remains silent with regard to wherein a squareness ratio of the magnetic layer in a longitudinal direction of the magnetic tape is 35% or less.
As per claim 8, Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) remains silent with regard to wherein a coercive force of the magnetic layer is 2000 Oe or less.
As per claim 10, Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) remains silent with regard to wherein the magnetic tape is housed in a tape cartridge, comprising: a tape reel including a first flange, a second flange, and a cylindrical reel hub including a first end portion formed integrally with the first flange and a second end portion to which the second flange is bonded, the tape wound on an outer circumferential surface of the reel hub.
Such features as set forth in claims 2, 6-8 and 10 are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1) discloses an analogous magnetic tape, in the same field of endeavor as Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A), wherein, as per claim 2, a non-magnetic layer (e.g., 42) is provided between a base material (e.g., 41) and a magnetic layer (43) (e.g., see Fig, 14, paragraph [0092]).
As per claim 6, Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1) further discloses wherein the magnetic layer (43) contains magnetic particles of hexagonal ferrite, s iron oxide, or cobalt-containing ferrite (e.g., see paragraphs [0118-0122, etc.]).
As per claim 7, Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1) further discloses wherein a squareness ratio of the magnetic layer in a longitudinal direction of the magnetic tape is 35% or less (e.g., see paragraph [0202]).
As per claim 8, Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1) further discloses wherein a coercive force of the magnetic layer is 2000 Oe or less (e.g., see paragraph [0191]).
As per claim 10, Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1) further discloses the magnetic tape (22) is housed in a tape cartridge (e.g., 1), comprising: a tape reel (e.g., 5) including a first flange (e.g., 7), a second flange (e.g., 8), and a cylindrical reel hub (e.g., 6) including a first end portion (e.g., bottommost portion of hub (6) connected with the first flange (7)) formed integrally with the first flange (7) (e.g. see paragraph [0041]) and a second end portion (e.g., uppermost portion of hub (6) connected with the second flange (8)) to which the second flange (8) is bonded (e.g. see paragraph [0041]), the tape (22) wound on an outer circumferential surface of the reel hub (6).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1), 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 features of claims 2, 6-8 and 10, as taught by Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1), to the analogous magnetic tape of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) in order to advantageously smooth out microscopic irregularities between the base film and the magnetic layer (along with enhanced adhesion) (claim 2); provide high intrinsic perpendicular coercivity (claim 6); enhanced vertical magnetization for high-density perpendicular recording (claims 7, 8); and a protective casing with a means for winding/storing the magnetic tape (claim 10), as evidenced by Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1), as is well-known, established and appreciated in the art.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) and further in view of Inaba et al. (US 6,074,724).
See the description of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A), supra.
As per claim 9, Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) remains silent with regard to wherein a shrinkage rate of the magnetic tape in a longitudinal direction thereof when stored at 70º C for 48 hours is 0.1% or less.
Such magnetic tape characteristics as set forth in claim 9 are known in the art.
As just one example, Inaba et al. (US 6,074,724) discloses an analogous magnetic tape, wherein as per claim 9, a shrinkage rate of the magnetic tape in a longitudinal direction thereof when stored at 70º C for 48 hours is 0.1% or less. See, inter alia, col. 14, l. 64 through col. 15, l. 14, ll. 28-36.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Inaba et al. (US 6,074,724), 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 features of claim 9, as taught by Inaba et al. (US 6,074,724), to the analogous magnetic tape of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) in order to advantageously secure the off-track margin by reducing the thermal shrinkage rate for recently high-density magnetic recording tapes - see, inter alia, col. 14, l. 64 through col. 15, l. 2.
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.
Claim 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) in view of Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1), as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Takenoshita et al. (US 2012/0305693 A1).
See the description of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) in view of Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1), supra.
As per claim 11, Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) in view of Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1) collectively remain silent with regard to wherein the magnetic tape is curved in a shape that becomes convex toward a side of the second flange, and a deviation of the magnetic tape from a chord having a length of 1 m is 3.8 mm or less.
As per claim 12, Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) in view of Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1) collectively remain silent with regard to wherein an inner surface of the first flange and an inner surface of the second flange are each formed as a tapered surface that widens toward an outer circumferential side of the tape reel.
As per claim 13, Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) in view of Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1) collectively remain silent with regard to wherein a minimum value of a distance between the first flange and the second flange along an axial direction of the hub is 12.9 mm ± 0.14 mm.
As per claim 14, Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A) in view of Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1) collectively remain silent with regard to wherein a maximum value of a distance between the first flange and the second flange along an axial direction of the hub is 13.125 mm ± 0.195 mm.
Such features as set forth in claims 11-14 are known in the art.
As just one example (as per claim 12), Takenoshita et al. (US 2012/0305693 A1) discloses an analogous magnetic tape cartridge (e.g., 10) with a magnetic tape (e.g., T), wherein as per claim 12, wherein an inner surface (e.g., 38U) of the first flange (e.g., 38) and an inner surface (e.g., 40L) of the second flange (e.g., 40) are each formed as a tapered surface that widens toward an outer circumferential side of the tape reel (e.g., 11) - see, inter alia, Fig, 2.
As per claim 13, wherein a minimum value of a distance (e.g., Dfi) between the first flange and the second flange along an axial direction of the hub is 12.9 mm ± 0.14 mm - see, inter alia, paragraph [0059].
As per claim 14, wherein a maximum value of a distance (e.g., Dfo) between the first flange and the second flange along an axial direction of the hub is 13.125 mm ± 0.195 mm - see, inter alia, paragraph [0058].
Moreover, regarding claim 11, based upon the tapered shape of the upper flange and the tape edge deviation therefrom as one progresses radially outward further from the reel hub as taught by of Takenoshita et al. (US 2012/0305693 A1), the particular features of providing such a flange taper would lend itself to an optimally derived variable to provide a prescribed a deviation of the magnetic tape from a chord having a length of 1 m is 3.8 mm or less, through routine experimentation (n the instant case, about a deviation angle of 0.21772º taper or less), of the inner facing surface of the flange to arrive at the claimed range of claim 11.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Takenoshita et al. (US 2012/0305693 A1), 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 features of claims 11-14, as expressly taught (or as per claim 11, as strongly suggested) by Takenoshita et al. (US 2012/0305693 A1), to the analogous magnetic tape of Ito et al. (JP 2005-339648 A)/ Saito (WO 2022/196194 A1) in order to advantageously provide "a recording tape cartridge capable of keeping position error signals (PES) during running of a recording tape small." See paragraph [0007] of Takenoshita et al. (US 2012/0305693 A1).
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.
Citation of Prior or Relevant Art on enclosed PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art made of record (see the enclosed PTO-892), not applied to the rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including wherein magnetic tapes include polymer base material including polyethylene naphthalate (PEN) and/or prescribed edge-to-edge rigidity to enhance tape stiffnesses and/or tapered reel hub flanges.
The best prior art has been applied to the claimed invention (see the rejection of the claims on the applied prior art, supra). However, if Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a manner to obviate the applied prior art, as noted in the rejection, supra, the Applicant is advised to not only carefully review the applied prior art for all it teaches and/or suggests, but also the cited prior art of record in order to obviate any potential rejections based on potential amendment(s); by doing so, compact prosecution on the merits can be enhanced.
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