DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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.
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 24 April 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 23 April 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
a. The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
b. In line 19 of claim 3, “the upper end of the shaft” should be changed to
--an upper end of the shaft-- in order to provide a clear antecedent.
c. In line 1 of claim 12, “according to claim 2 o, wherein” should be corrected to read --according to claim 2, wherein--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a. In lines 1-2 of claim 11, “wherein the shaft has an outer diameter of 5.5 mm or more and 7.0 mm” is indefinite because it gives two distinct value(s)/range(s) for the outer diameter, i.e., “5.5 mm or more” and “7.0 mm.”
b. In line 3 of claim 14, it is indefinite as to whether “the center axis” refers to that set forth in line 2 of independent claim 1, or that set forth in line 7 of independent claim 1.
c. Claim 15 inherits the indefiniteness associated with base claim 14 and stands rejected as well.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because pending claim 1 is anticipated by patented claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 as follows:
With respect to pending claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims a spindle motor comprising: a shaft that extends along a center axis extending in a vertical direction (lines 1-3 of patented claim 1); a base part that has a through hole to which a lower end portion of the shaft is fixed (lines 4-5 of patented claim 1); a stator core in an annular shape that is disposed on an upper surface of the base part and surrounds the shaft (lines 6-7 of patented claim 1); a rotor that rotates around the center axis (line 8 of patented claim 1); and a bearing part that rotatably supports the rotor with the shaft as a center axis (lines 9-10 of patented claim 1), wherein the bearing part includes: an upper annular member and a lower annular member which protrude radially outward from an outer peripheral surface of the shaft and are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in an axial direction (lines 15-19 of patented claim 1); and a sleeve in a cylindrical shape that has an insertion hole into which the shaft is inserted, covers the outer peripheral surface of the shaft, and extends in the axial direction (lines 19-23 of patented claim 1), and wherein the base part has an annular protruding portion in an annular shape that protrudes axially upward from the upper surface of the base part and surrounds the shaft (lines 2-4 of patented claim 5), wherein the stator core is held on an outer peripheral surface of the annular protruding portion (lines 5-6 of patented claim 5), and wherein a radially inner end of the annular protruding portion overlaps at least a portion of the upper annular member and the lower annular member when viewed in the axial direction (lines 6-10 of patented claim 5).
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 6-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 in view of Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because pending claims 1-4 and 6-15 are obvious over patented over claims 1-4 and 6-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 in view of Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) as follows:
With respect to pending claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims a spindle motor comprising: a shaft that extends along a center axis extending in a vertical direction (lines 1-3 of patented claim 1); a base part that has a through hole to which a lower end portion of the shaft is fixed (lines 4-5 of patented claim 1); a stator core in an annular shape that is disposed on an upper surface of the base part and surrounds the shaft (lines 6-7 of patented claim 1); a rotor that rotates around the center axis (line 8 of patented claim 1); and a bearing part that rotatably supports the rotor with the shaft as a center axis (lines 9-10 of patented claim 1), wherein the bearing part includes: an upper annular member and a lower annular member which protrude radially outward from an outer peripheral surface of the shaft and are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in an axial direction (lines 15-19 of patented claim 1); and a sleeve in a cylindrical shape that has an insertion hole into which the shaft is inserted, covers the outer peripheral surface of the shaft, and extends in the axial direction (lines 19-23 of patented claim 1).
With respect to pending claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 does not claim “wherein the base part has an annular protruding portion in an annular shape that protrudes axially upward from the upper surface of the base part and surrounds the shaft, wherein the stator core is held on an outer peripheral surface of the annular protruding portion, and wherein a radially inner end of the annular protruding portion overlaps at least a portion of the upper annular member and the lower annular member when viewed in the axial direction.”
Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) teach that a base part (21, see Fig. 2, for instance) having an annular protruding portion (between shaft 41 and coils 222) in an annular shape that protrudes axially upward from an upper surface of the base part and surrounds a shaft (41, as shown in Fig. 2, for instance), wherein a stator core (221) is held on an outer peripheral surface of the annular protruding portion (as shown in Fig. 2, for instance), and wherein a radially inner end (adjacent fixing region 8d, see Figs. 18 and 19, for instance) of the annular protruding portion overlaps at least a portion of an upper annular member (422) and an lower annular member (421) when viewed in the axial direction (as shown in Fig. 2 relative to Fig. 19, for instance, i.e., due to the spacing created by adhesive 71d, for instance) is a notoriously old and well known spindle motor configuration.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have claimed wherein the base part has an annular protruding portion in an annular shape that protrudes axially upward from the upper surface of the base part and surrounds the shaft, wherein the stator core is held on an outer peripheral surface of the annular protruding portion, and wherein a radially inner end of the annular protruding portion overlaps at least a portion of the upper annular member and the lower annular member when viewed in the axial direction as taught/suggested by Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) since such is a notoriously old and well known spindle motor configuration in the art, and selecting a known spindle motor configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to pending claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims wherein the sleeve has: an upper inner peripheral surface that radially faces the upper annular member and is inclined axially upward in a direction away from the shaft (lines 2-5 of patented claim 2); and a lower inner peripheral surface that radially faces the lower annular member and is inclined axially downward in a direction away from the shaft (lines 5-8 of patented claim 2), wherein the upper inner peripheral surface has first dynamic pressure grooves and second dynamic pressure grooves which are disposed adjacent to each other in the axial direction and are respectively defined in plurality in a circumferential direction (lines 9-13 of patented claim 2), wherein the first dynamic pressure grooves and the second dynamic pressure grooves are inclined axially upward in different directions in the circumferential direction (lines 14-16 of patented claim 2), wherein the lower inner peripheral surface has third dynamic pressure grooves and fourth dynamic pressure grooves which are disposed adjacent to each other in the axial direction and are respectively defined in plurality in the circumferential direction (lines 17-21 of patented claim 2), wherein the third dynamic pressure grooves and the fourth dynamic pressure grooves are inclined axially upward in different directions in the circumferential direction (lines 22-24 of patented claim 2), wherein the shaft has an outer diameter of 5.5 mm or more and less than 6.5 mm (lines 25-26 of patented claim 2), and wherein a distance in the axial direction between a boundary between the first dynamic pressure grooves and the second dynamic pressure grooves and an upper end of the shaft is 0.60 times or more and 0.85 times or less a distance in the axial direction between the boundary between the first dynamic pressure grooves and the second dynamic pressure grooves and a boundary between the third dynamic pressure grooves and the fourth dynamic pressure grooves (lines 26-35 of patented claim 2).
With respect to pending claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims wherein the sleeve has: an upper inner peripheral surface that radially faces the upper annular member and is inclined axially upward in a direction away from the shaft (lines 2-5 of patented claim 3); and a lower inner peripheral surface that radially faces the lower annular member and is inclined axially downward in a direction away from the shaft (lines 5-8 of patented claim 3), wherein the upper inner peripheral surface has first dynamic pressure grooves and second dynamic pressure grooves which are disposed adjacent to each other in the axial direction and are respectively defined in plurality in a circumferential direction (lines 9-13 of patented claim 3), wherein the first dynamic pressure grooves and the second dynamic pressure grooves are inclined axially upward in different directions in the circumferential direction (lines 14-16 of patented claim 3), wherein the lower inner peripheral surface has third dynamic pressure grooves and fourth dynamic pressure grooves which are disposed adjacent to each other in the axial direction and are respectively defined in plurality in the circumferential direction (lines 17-21 of patented claim 3), wherein the third dynamic pressure grooves and the fourth dynamic pressure grooves are inclined axially upward in different directions in the circumferential direction (lines 22-24 of patented claim 3), wherein the shaft has an outer diameter of 6.5 mm or more and 7.0 mm or less (lines 25-26 of patented claim 3), and wherein a distance in the axial direction between a boundary between the first dynamic pressure grooves and the second dynamic pressure grooves and the upper end of the shaft is 0.50 times or more and 0.80 times or less a distance in the axial direction between the boundary between the first dynamic pressure grooves and the second dynamic pressure grooves and a boundary between the third dynamic pressure grooves and the fourth dynamic pressure grooves (lines 26-35 of patented claim 3).
With respect to pending claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims wherein a lower end of the lower annular member is disposed higher than an upper end of the stator core in the axial direction (lines 1-3 of patented claim 4).
With respect to pending claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 does not claim “wherein a space is included between an inner peripheral surface of the annular protruding portion and the outer peripheral surface of the shaft.”
Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) teach that a space (defined by adhesive 71d, for instance, see Fig. 19) included between an inner peripheral surface of the annular protruding portion and the outer peripheral surface of the shaft is a notoriously old and well known spindle motor configuration.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have claimed wherein a space is included between an inner peripheral surface of the annular protruding portion and the outer peripheral surface of the shaft as taught/suggested by Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) since such is a notoriously old and well known spindle motor configuration in the art, and selecting a known spindle motor configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
With respect to pending claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims wherein the shaft has a hollow hole that extends axially upward from a lower end of the shaft (lines 1-3 of patented claim 6).
With respect to pending claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims wherein an upper end of the hollow hole is disposed higher than an upper end of the through hole in the axial direction (lines 1-3 of patented claim 7).
With respect to pending claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims wherein a lower end of the lower annular member is disposed higher than an upper end of the hollow hole in the axial direction (lines 1-3 of patented claim 8).
With respect to pending claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims wherein an upper end of the hollow hole is disposed at a position overlapping the stator core in a radial direction (lines 1-3 of patented claim 9).
With respect to pending claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims wherein the shaft has: a curved surface portion that is defined in a curved surface shape at a radially outer end portion of a lower end of the shaft (lines 1-5 of patented claim 10); and a shaft inclined portion that is defined continuously with an upper end portion of the curved surface portion and has an outer diameter that increases toward an axially upper side (lines 5-9 of patented claim 10).
With respect to pending claim 11, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims wherein the shaft has an outer diameter of 5.5 mm or more and 7.0 mm (lines 1-3 of patented claim 11).
With respect to pending claim 12, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims wherein the distance in the axial direction between the boundary between the first dynamic pressure grooves and the second dynamic pressure grooves and the upper end of the shaft is 8.5 mm or more (lines 1-5 of patented claim 12).
With respect to pending claim 13, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims wherein the through hole has a hole inclined portion at an upper end portion of the through hole, and an inner diameter of the hole inclined portion decreases toward an axially lower side (lines 1-4 of patented claim 13).
With respect to pending claim 14, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims a disk driving device comprising: the spindle motor (lines 1-2 of patented claim 14); a disk that is rotated about the center axis by the spindle motor (lines 3-4 of patented claim 14); an access part that performs at least one of reading and writing information with respect to the disk (lines 5-6 of patented claim 14); and a housing that houses the spindle motor, the disk, and the access part (lines 7-8 of patented claim 14).
With respect to pending claim 15, U.S. Patent No. 12,308,047 claims wherein an inside of the housing is filled with a gas having a density lower than that of air (lines 2-3 of patented claim 15).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300).
Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) teach a spindle motor (12/12d, see Figs. 1-2 and 18-19, for instance) comprising a shaft (41/41d) that extends along a center axis (J1) extending in a vertical direction (as shown in Figs. 2 and 18, for instance); a base part (21/21d) that has a through hole (230/230d) to which a lower end portion (412/412d) of the shaft is fixed (as shown in Figs. 2 and 18, for instance); a stator core (221) in an annular shape that is disposed on an upper surface of the base part and surrounds the shaft (as shown in Fig. 2, for instance); a rotor (3) that rotates around the center axis; and a bearing part (4/4d) that rotatably supports the rotor with the shaft as a center axis, wherein the bearing part includes an upper annular member (422) and a lower annular member (421) which protrude radially outward from an outer peripheral surface of the shaft and are disposed to be spaced apart from each other in an axial direction (as shown in Fig. 2, for instance); and a sleeve (5) in a cylindrical shape that has an insertion hole into which the shaft is inserted (as shown in Fig. 2, for instance), covers the outer peripheral surface of the shaft (as shown in Fig. 2, for instance), and extends in the axial direction (as shown in Fig. 2, for instance), and wherein the base part has an annular protruding portion in an annular shape that protrudes axially upward from the upper surface of the base part and surrounds the shaft (as shown below in annotated Fig. 2, for instance), wherein the stator core is held on an outer peripheral surface of the annular protruding portion (as shown below in annotated Fig. 2, for instance),
PNG
media_image1.png
724
644
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and wherein a radially inner end of the annular protruding portion overlaps at least a portion of the upper annular member and the lower annular member when viewed in the axial direction (as shown in Fig. 19 relative to Fig. 2, for instance, i.e., the space created by adhesives 71d and 72d would cause the radially inner end of the annular protruding portion to overlap at least a portion of the upper annular member and the lower annular member when viewed in the axial direction) [as per claim 1]; wherein a space (corresponding to adhesives 71d and 72d) is included between an inner peripheral surface (231d) of the annular protruding portion and the outer peripheral surface of the shaft (as shown in Fig. 19, for instance) [as per claim 5]; wherein the shaft has a hollow hole that extends axially upward from a lower end of the shaft (as shown in Figs. 2 and 4, for instance) [as per claim 6]; wherein a lower end of the lower annular member is disposed higher than an upper end of the hollow hole in the axial direction (as shown in Fig. 2, for instance) [as per claim 8]; wherein the through hole has a hole inclined portion (833d) at an upper end portion of the through hole, and an inner diameter of the hole inclined portion decreases toward an axially lower side (as shown in Fig. 18, for instance) [as per claim 13]; wherein the spindle motor is a component of a disk driving device comprising the spindle motor (as shown in Fig. 1, for instance); a disk (11) that is rotated about the center axis by the spindle motor; an access part (13) that performs at least one of reading and writing information with respect to the disk; and a housing (14) that houses the spindle motor, the disk, and the access part (as shown in Fig. 1, for instance) [as per claim 14]; and wherein an inside (143) of the housing is filled with a gas having a density lower than that of air (see paragraph [0043], for instance, i.e., “interior space 143 of the housing 14 is preferably filled with a low-density gas, such as, for example, helium gas”) [as per claim 15].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) in view of Herndon et al. (US 2002/0089252).
Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) teach the spindle motor as detailed in paragraph 12, supra. Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300), however, remain silent as to “wherein a lower end of the lower annular member is disposed higher than an upper end of the stator core in the axial direction” as per claim 4, and “wherein an upper end of the hollow hole is disposed higher than an upper end of the through hole in the axial direction” as per claim 7.
Herndon et al. (US 2002/0089252) teach that a lower end of the lower annular member (i.e., lower conical member in FIG. 2, for instance) being disposed higher than an upper end of a stator core (216) in an axial direction, and an upper end of a hollow hole (in shaft 204) being disposed higher than an upper end of a through hole (in base 202) in the axial direction is a notoriously old and well known spindle motor configuration (as shown in FIG. 2, for instance). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had a lower end of the lower annular member of Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) be disposed higher than an upper end of the stator core in the axial direction, and an upper end of the hollow hole of Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) be disposed higher than an upper end of the through hole in the axial direction, as taught/suggested by Herndon et al. (US 2002/0089252). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had a lower end of the lower annular member of Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) be disposed higher than an upper end of the stator core in the axial direction, and an upper end of the hollow hole of Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) be disposed higher than an upper end of the through hole in the axial direction, as taught/suggested by Herndon et al. (US 2002/0089252) since such is a notoriously old and well known spindle motor configuration, and selecting a known spindle motor configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) in view of Matsuzaki et al. (US 6,342,743).
Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) teach the spindle motor as detailed in paragraph 12, supra. Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300), however, remain silent as to “wherein an upper end of the hollow hole is disposed at a position overlapping the stator core in a radial direction.”
Matsuzaki et al. (US 6,342,743) teach that an upper end of a hollow hole (at lower end of shaft 31, see Fig. 3, for instance) being disposed at a position overlapping a stator core (39) in a radial direction is a notoriously old and well known spindle motor configuration (as shown in Fig. 3, for instance). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had an upper end of the hollow hole of Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) be disposed at a position overlapping the stator core in a radial direction as taught/suggested by Matsuzaki et al. (US 6,342,743). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had an upper end of the hollow hole of Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) be disposed at a position overlapping the stator core in a radial direction as taught/suggested by Matsuzaki et al. (US 6,342,743) since such is a notoriously old and well known spindle motor configuration, and selecting a known spindle motor configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) in view of Moro et al. (US 2019/0379255).
Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) teach the spindle motor as detailed in paragraph 12, supra. Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300), however, remain silent as to “wherein the shaft has: a curved surface portion that is defined in a curved surface shape at a radially outer end portion of a lower end of the shaft; and a shaft inclined portion that is defined continuously with an upper end portion of the curved surface portion and has an outer diameter that increases toward an axially upper side.”
Moro et al. (US 2019/0379255) teach that a shaft (23) having a curved surface portion that is defined in a curved surface shape at a radially outer end portion of a lower end of the shaft; and a shaft inclined portion that is defined continuously with an upper end portion of the curved surface portion and has an outer diameter that increases toward an axially upper side is a notoriously old and well known spindle motor configuration (as shown in Figs. 2 and 3, for instance). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the shaft of Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) have a curved surface portion that is defined in a curved surface shape at a radially outer end portion of a lower end of the shaft; and a shaft inclined portion that is defined continuously with an upper end portion of the curved surface portion and has an outer diameter that increases toward an axially upper side, as taught/suggested by Moro et al. (US 2019/0379255). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the shaft of Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) have a curved surface portion that is defined in a curved surface shape at a radially outer end portion of a lower end of the shaft; and a shaft inclined portion that is defined continuously with an upper end portion of the curved surface portion and has an outer diameter that increases toward an axially upper side, as taught/suggested by Moro et al. (US 2019/0379255) since such is a notoriously old and well known spindle motor configuration, and selecting a known spindle motor configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300).
Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) teach the spindle motor as detailed in paragraph 12, supra, further wherein the shaft has an outer diameter (as shown in Fig. 2, for instance). Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300), however, remain silent as to the outer diameter being “5.5 mm or more and 7.0 mm.”
Official notice is taken of the fact that it is notoriously old and well known in the spindle motor art to modify the parameters of spindle motor components during the course of routine optimization/experimentation. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the outer diameter in Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) be 5.5 mm or more and 7.0 mm. The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the outer diameter in Sugi et al. (US 2015/0228300) be 5.5 mm or more and 7.0 mm since such a range, absent any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is generally achievable through routine optimization/experimentation, and since discovering the optimum or workable ranges, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes Yu (US 5,734,211), Yamauchi et al. (US 2006/0191881), Sekii et al. (US 2008/0078084), Sekii et al. (US 2009/0231754), Iguchi et al. (US 2010/0202080), Sugi et al. (US 2012/0092792), Sugi et al. (US 2012/0162818), Sugi et al. (US 2015/0179212), and Shuto et al. (US 2017/0169851), which each individually teaches a spindle motor bearing part arrangement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Craig A. Renner whose telephone number is (571) 272-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 7:30 PM.
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.
/CRAIG A. RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688