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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I/Species I in the reply filed on June 26, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 11, 19, and 20 are currently withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention/Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 26, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on May 28, 2025 and May 4, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on May 28, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to claim 4 (line 3), the term "the distal end" should be changed to the term --a distal end--.
(ii) With regard to claim 5 (line 2), the term "a proximal end" should be changed to the term --the proximal end--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 § 102
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 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, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1).
As per claim 1 (and analogously, as per claim 13), Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) discloses a hard disk drive (HDD) suspension assembly comprising: a load beam (e.g., 204) ; a multi-layer flexure (e.g., 206 - which is seen to include electrical trace (212) for routing signals to/from the read/write transducers of the head slider (210)) coupled with the load beam (204), the flexure comprising a gimbal structure (e.g. see Fig. 2C) comprising a flexure tongue (slider mounting portion of flexure - see Figs. 2A-2C, to which a head slider (210) is mounted); and a microactuator (e.g., 208) mechanically configured to directly move the flexure tongue to move the head slider (210) mounted thereto, the microactuator (or microactuator system) (208) comprising: single-layer piezoelectric elements (208 - see, inter alia, paragraph [0036], "the one or more layers of PZT material 510 consists of a single layer of poled PZT material 510"; see Fig. 5; paragraph [0043]; claim 3 of Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1)) coupled with the flexure tongue and each recessed in a pocket in the flexure tongue (see the U-shaped pockets of (206) of the tongue, in which the piezoelectric microactuator pairs (208, 208) are provided in Fig. 2C), and wherein each piezoelectric element (208) comprises a continuous bottom electrode (e.g. 511b) spanning a substantially entire length of a bottom surface (e.g., 510b) of the piezoelectric element and a continuous top electrode (511a) spanning a substantially entire length of a top surface (510a) of the piezoelectric element. See Fig. 5.
Additionally, as per claim 13, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) further discloses a hard disk drive (HDD) (e.g., 100) comprising: disk media (e.g., 120 - see paragraphs [0045, 00456]) rotatably mounted on a spindle (e.g., 124); a plurality of head sliders (110b - one each for each of the plurality of disks (120)), each head slider housing a read-write transducer (e.g., 110a) configured to read from and to write to a disk medium of the disk media (120); means for moving (e.g., the VCM of paragraph [0046] - see also Fig. 1) the plurality of head sliders (110b) to access portions of the disk media (120); and suspension assemblies (200 - Fig. 2A; 110c, 110d - Fig. 1) coupled with the means for moving (VCM), each suspension assembly.
As per claim 12, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) further discloses wherein each piezoelectric element is composed of at least one from a group of materials consisting of lead zirconate titanate (PZT) (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0024]), lead magnesium niobate-lead titanate(PMN-PT), and lead indium niobate-lead magnesium niobate-lead titanate (PIN- PMN- PT).
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 2-7, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) in view of Williams (US 7,403,357 B1).
See the description of Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1), supra.
As per claim 7, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) further discloses wherein each piezoelectric element (208, 208) is recessed in a respective pocket in the flexure tongue - see Fig. 2C.
As per claim 10, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) further discloses wherein a hard disk drive (100) - see Fig. 1 of Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1).
As per claim 2, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) does not expressly disclose wherein each piezoelectric element is coupled with the flexure tongue via a non-conductive adhesive, at a proximal end of the piezoelectric element, configured to insulate the bottom electrode from electrically connecting with the top electrode.
As per claim 3, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) does not expressly disclose wherein the non- conductive adhesive is further configured to fill a gap between the piezoelectric element and a metal layer of the flexure tongue for piezoelectric-to-flexure tongue load transfer effectiveness.
As per claim 4, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) does not expressly disclose wherein the bottom electrode is electrically connected with a conductive layer of the flexure tongue beneath the pocket at the distal end of the piezoelectric element.
As per claim 5, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) does not expressly disclose wherein the top electrode is electrically connected, via an electrically-conductive adhesive at a proximal end of the piezoelectric element, with the conductive layer of the flexure tongue.
As per claim 6, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) does not expressly disclose wherein the pocket is formed in a metal layer of the flexure tongue.
Additionally, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) does not show the features of claims 14 and 15.
Such features, however, are known in the art.
As just one example, Williams (US 7,403,357 B1) discloses an analogous HDD suspension assembly, in the same field of endeavor as Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1), comprising one or more head-gimbal assemblies, each head-gimbal assembly (see column 1, lines 29-34) comprising: a load beam (see column 6, lines 64-67); a flexure and at least part of a flex cable integrated to define a single, multi-layer flexure assembly, wherein a slider assembly 136 is mounted on a flexure tongue 128 (see column 1, lines 44-45; column 9, lines 46-48; and figure 5A); an actuator 172; and a plurality of piezoelectric layers 178 along with appropriate electrode layers (see column 10, lines 30-35; and figure 5C).
Moreover, the additional features of claims 2-5 and 14-15 would be easily derived from the disclosure of Williams (US 7,403,357 B1) (see column 10, lines 54-57; column 12, lines 29-37; and figures 6-7: "The microactuator bond 186 should be a suitably electrically conductive material (e.g., gold), as it is part of the communication path to/from the microactuator 156." and "The electrical insulator layer 122 is appropriately fixed to corresponding portions of both the support layer 116 and flex cable 101' (e.g., the electrical insulator layer 122 is interposed between the support layer 116 and the flex cable 101'). Generally, the electrical insulator layer 122 electrically isolates the support layer 116 from relevant portions of the flex cable 101'. The electrical insulator layer 122 may be formed from any appropriate electrically insulating material (e.g., polyimide)").
Additionally, the features of claim 6 would be easily derived from the disclosure of Williams (US 7,403,357 B1) (see column 3, lines 52-54: "The support is metal, and it includes a plurality of support bond pad apertures and a bond pad support (also metal)").
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Williams (US 7,403,357 B1), 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, 14, and 15, as taught by Williams (US 7,403,357 B1) to the analogous microactuator HGA of Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1), in order to advantageously provide "a flexure assembly to accommodate both solder ball bonding and gold ball bonding for electrically interconnecting the read/write head of a disk drive slider, as well as any associated microactuator or slider positioner, with corresponding electrical traces." See column 1, line 66 through column 2, line 3 of Williams (US 7,403,357 B1).
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.
Claims 8-10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) in view of Vitikkate et al. (US 8,810,971 B1).
See the description of Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1), supra.
As per claim 10, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) further discloses wherein a hard disk drive (100) - see Fig. 1 of Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1).
As per claim 8, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) does not expressly disclose wherein
the top electrode is electrically connected, via an electrically-conductive adhesive at a proximal end of the piezoelectric element, with a conductive layer of the flexure tongue beneath an opening in a metal layer of the flexure tongue.
As per claim 9, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) does not expressly disclose wherein: the opening in the metal layer is separate from the pocket in which the piezoelectric element is recessed; and the electrically-conductive adhesive is configured to bridge a metal gap separating the pocket and the opening.
As per claim 16, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) does not expressly disclose wherein the top electrode is electrically connected with, via an electrically-conductive adhesive at a proximal end of the piezoelectric element, with a conductive layer of the flexure tongue beneath an opening in a metal layer of the flexure tongue.
As per claim 17, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) does not expressly disclose the opening in the metal layer is separate from the pocket in which the piezoelectric element is recessed; and the electrically-conductive adhesive is configured to bridge a metal gap separating the pocket and the opening.
As per claim 18, Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1) does not expressly disclose further comprising: electronic controller circuitry configured to operate each piezoelectric element with an alternating-current (AC) voltage and without a direct-current (DC) bias voltage.
Such features, however, are known in the art.
As just one example, Vitikkate et al. (US 8,810,971 B1) discloses an analogous HDD suspension assembly, in the same field of endeavor as Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1), wherein as per claims 8-9 and 16-17, such features would be easily derived from the disclosure of Vitikkate et al. (US 8,810,971 B1) (see column 2, lines 2-5: "The described microactuator is fabricated from and comprises a single sheet, or block, of a piezoelectric material, with the top and bottom covered with an electrically conductive material to form the electrodes").
The additional feature of claim 18 would be easily derived from the disclosure of Vitikkate et al. (US 8,810,971 B1) (see column 6, lines 60-64: "Each of microactuators 530a, 530b, 530c comprises differential-poled piezoelectric material 512 coupled to actuation electrodes 528 and 516, to which drive voltage can be applied to drive the fine rotational movement of the microactuator and slider").
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Vitikkate et al. (US 8,810,971 B1), 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 8, 9, and 16-18, as taught by Vitikkate et al. (US 8,810,971 B1) to the analogous microactuator HGA of Hagiya (US 2021/0304791 A1), in order to advantageously provide a "differential-poled PZT microactuator configuration . . . [that] achieves a relatively high resonant frequency and thus high servo bandwidth, provides precise control of slider motion, and can be batch processed and poled which, therefore, provides a readily manufacturable component." See col. 2, ll. 18-23 of Vitikkate et al. (US 8,810,971 B1),
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 hard disk drives (HDDs) include microactuators provided with piezoelectric materials, which are single-layered materials and/or provided within pockets of gimbal/flexure tongues.
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
Prosecution Insights