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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 3, 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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I/Species I in the reply filed on June 12, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is as set forth at pp. 9-10.
While not acquiescing to the Applicant's arguments, the restriction requirement between Invention I and Invention II, mailed on April 17, 2026, has been reconsidered based on the search of the prior art, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and the examination of the claimed subject matter as a whole.
More specifically, the restriction requirement, as set forth in the Office action mailed on April 17, 2026, has been reconsidered with regard to Inventions I and II and is hereby expressly withdrawn at the current time, based on the claims as currently presented.
The restriction requirement between Species I-II (as set forth at p. 4 of the Restriction Requirement), is maintained.
In view of the above noted withdrawal of the restriction requirement between Inventions I and II, applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application.
Once a restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
The requirement between Species I-II is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings filed on June 3, 2025 have been approved.
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 1-4, 6-10 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arai et al. (US 2023/0223044 A1) in view of Diewanit et al. (US 2005/0078407 A1).
As per claim 1 and claim 7, Arai et al. (US 2023/0223044 A1) discloses a head gimbal assembly (HGA), and as per claim 12, a method of assembling a head gimbal assembly (HGA), (e.g., see, inter alia, Figs. 9-10) comprising: an arm or carriage arm (e.g., 8) comprising a swaging hole (e.g., 83); a first suspension assembly (e.g., 10A); a first swage plate (lower plate body (21) as depicted in Fig. 9) to which the first suspension assembly (10A) is coupled, the first swage plate (lower plate body (21) as depicted in Fig. 9) swage-coupling (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0103-0105, 0121, etc.]) the first suspension assembly (e.g., 10A) to a first side (e.g., 81) of the arm (8) and comprising a first series of intermittent swage boss structures (e.g., 42 - see, inter alia, Figs. 5, 6, 9, 10, 16-20) extending from a first baseplate (e.g., 20A) around a through-hole (e.g., 41) in the first baseplate (20A); a second suspension assembly (e.g., 10B); and a second swage plate (upper plate body (21) as depicted in Fig. 9) to which the second suspension assembly (10B) is coupled, the second swage plate (upper plate body (21) as depicted in Fig. 9) swage-coupling (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0103-0105, 0121, etc.]) the second suspension assembly (10B) to a second opposing side (e.g., 82) of the arm (8) and comprising a second series of intermittent swage boss structures (e.g., 42 of base plate (20B) - see, inter alia, Figs. 5, 6, 9, 10, 16-20) extending from a second baseplate (20B) around a through-hole (e.g., 41) in the second baseplate (20B); wherein each intermittent swage boss structure (42 of the baseplate (20A)) of the first series of intermittent swage boss structures is positioned between adjacent intermittent swage boss structures (42 of the baseplate (20B)) of the second series of intermittent swage boss structures (e.g. see, inter alia, paragraphs [0074-0075], etc.; Figs. 6, 9, 17).
Additionally, as per claim 7, a hard disk drive (HDD) (e.g., 1) is provided (see Fig. 1) comprising: a plurality of recording disk media (e.g., 4A, 4B) rotatably mounted on a spindle (see Fig. 1); means for writing to and reading from (e.g., via magnetic head slider (11)) a first recording disk medium (e.g., either of 4A or 4B) of the plurality of recording disk media (e.g., 4A, 4B); a voice coil actuator (e.g., 7) configured to move the means for writing to and reading from to access portions of the first recording disk medium (e.g., either of 4A or 4B); and the head gimbal assembly (HGA) coupled with the voice coil actuator (see Figs. 1, 2).
As per claim 2, and analogously as per claim 8, wherein: the first swage plate (lower plate body (21) as depicted in Fig. 9) couples the first suspension assembly (10A) to the first side (81) of the arm (8) via the first series of intermittent swage boss structures (e.g., 42 of the baseplate (20A) - see, inter alia, Figs. 5, 6, 9, 10, 16-20) extending in one direction into the swaging hole (83) of the (carriage) arm (8); and the second swage plate (upper plate body (21) as depicted in Fig. 9) couples the second suspension assembly (10B) to the second side (82) of the (carriage) arm (8) via the second series of intermittent swage boss structures (e.g., 42 of the baseplate (20B) - see, inter alia, Figs. 5, 6, 9, 10, 16-20) extending in an opposing direction into the swaging hole (83) of the (carriage) arm (8), such that the second series of intermittent swage boss structures (e.g., 42 of the baseplate (20B) - see, inter alia, Figs. 5, 6, 9, 10, 16-20) does not interfere with the first series of intermittent swage boss structures (e.g., 42 of the baseplate (20A) - see, inter alia, Figs. 5, 6, 9, 10, 16-20).
As per claim 3, and analogously as per claim 9, wherein a height of the swage boss structures of the first series of intermittent swage boss structures (e.g., 42 of the baseplate (20A) - see, inter alia, Figs. 5, 6, 9, 10, 16-20), extending in one direction into the swaging hole (83) of the arm, is substantially equal to a height of the swage boss structures of the second series of intermittent swage boss structures (e.g., 42 of the baseplate (20B) - see, inter alia, Figs. 5, 6, 9, 10, 16-20), extending in an opposing direction into the swaging hole (83) of the arm (8).
As per claim 4, and analogously as per claim 10, wherein each of the swage boss structures is of substantially equal circumferential span (e.g., 42 of the baseplate (20A) - see, inter alia, Figs. 5, 6, 9, 10, 16-20) are equidistant.
As per claim 6, a hard disk drive (e.g., 1 - see Fig. 1) is provided.
As per claims 1, 7, and 12, Arai et al. (US 2023/0223044 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the swage boss structures of the first series of intermittent swage boss structures are not equidistant.
Diewanit et al. (US 2005/0078407 A1) discloses an analogous swage plate (e.g., 800, 900), in the same field of endeavor as Arai et al. (US 2023/0223044 A1), wherein the swage plate (e.g., 800, 900) includes a series of intermittent swage boss structures (wall structures of the swage boss (802, 902) delineated by the slots (804, 904)) that are not equidistant (e.g., see paragraph [0037] - "In FIG. 8, slots 804 in swaging boss 802 are disposed equidistantly from each other (i.e., 60 degrees between each slot 804). Similarly, in FIG. 9, four slots 904 in swaging boss 902 are also disposed equidistantly (i.e., 45 degrees between each slot 904). It should be noted that slots need not be spaced in such a uniform manner." The emphasis indicates that the slots need not be uniformly or equidistantly spaced, which would give rise to corresponding intermittent boss structures which are not equidistant (as per claims 1, 7, and 12). By providing the disclosed alternatives, such as providing the boss slots in a non-uniform manner (giving rise to corresponding intermittent boss structures which are not equidistant, as per claims 1, 7, and 12), advantageously allows for "slots [and corresponding intermittent boss structures provided between the slots which] can be disposed to bias a specified portion or segment of a swaging boss to tailor a distribution of stress and deformation for a specific application."
As such, given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Diewanit et al. (US 2005/0078407 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 swage boss structures of the first series of intermittent swage boss structures of Arai et al. (US 2023/0223044 A1) as being not equidistant, as per claims 1, 7, and 12, as taught by Diewanit et al. (US 2005/0078407 A1), in order to advantageously allow for the intermittent boss structures to be disposed in a non-equidistant manner, to "bias a specified portion or segment of a swaging boss to tailor a distribution of stress and deformation for a specific application." See paragraph [0037] of Diewanit et al. (US 2005/0078407 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.
Regarding claims 12-16, the method steps set forth therein are drawn to the method of assembling the corresponding head gimbal assembly of claims 1-4 and 7-10, with such method steps disclosed by the combination of Arai et al. (US 2023/0223044 A1) and Diewanit et al. (US 2005/0078407 A1). Therefore method claims 12-16 correspond to the corresponding head gimbal assembly as 1-4 and 7-10 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above, with each step being met by the combination of Arai et al. (US 2023/0223044 A1) and Diewanit et al. (US 2005/0078407 A1).
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 base plates, attached to disk drive suspensions, wherein the base plates include boss hubs that overlap with other boss hubs of opposed base plates (in vertical directions) and/or wherein the boss plates hubs are discontinuous in the circumferential directions.
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 on (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