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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on August 11, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent 12,387,754 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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, 3, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1).
As per claim 1, Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) discloses a head driving device (e.g., 200, 502, 504, 506 as the embodiment of Fig. 5 as applied to Fig. 2) configured to move a head member (e.g., R/W heads of head bar 220, 502 - see abstract) relative to tape as a recording medium (e.g., 115), the head driving device comprising: a base member (235) including a first frame portion (e.g., left-side portion of head support block 235 - see Fig. 2) and a second frame portion (e.g., right-side portion of head support block 235 - see Fig. 2); a head supporting member (head bar (220, 502) which supports the heads - see abstract "The head bar includes at least one read head and at least one write head") supporting the head member; a first end support beam (e.g., 504) arranged between a first end portion of the head member in a length direction (e.g., the vertical direction) and the base member (235); and a first skew driving piezoelectric unit (e.g., 506 and/or 508; see, inter alia, paragraphs [0069-0071 - see Fig. 5, as applied to Fig. 2)
configured to drive the head member (e.g., R/W heads of head bar 220, 502 - see abstract), the first skew driving piezoelectric unit (e.g., 506 and/or 508) being arranged in the first end support beam (504) and comprising piezoelectric elements configured to drive the head member (e.g., R/W heads of head bar 220, 502 - see abstract). See paragraphs [0069-0071] and Fig. 5, wherein: the first skew driving piezoelectric unit (e.g., 506 and/or 508) comprises a pair of piezoelectric elements (506 and 508) configured to drive the head member (e.g., R/W heads of head bar 220, 502 - see abstract) by causing displacement of a distal end of the first end support beam (504), and each of the piezoelectric elements (506 and 508) is configured to expand or contract in response to applied voltage such that one of the piezoelectric elements (e.g., 506 – see Fig. 5) expands in response to the applied voltage and another one of the piezoelectric elements (e.g., 508 – see Fig. 5) contracts in response to the same applied voltage to cause the distal end of the first end support beam (504) to be displaced to thereby drive the head member (502); see, inter alia, paragraphs [0045, 0051, 0069-0071], wherein the PZT actuators (506) and (508), respectively “extends or contracts” based on the applied voltage.
As per claim 3, wherein the pair of piezoelectric elements of the first skew driving piezoelectric unit (e.g., 506 and/or 508; see, inter alia, paragraphs [0069-0071 - see Fig. 5, as applied to Fig. 2) are arranged in a width direction of the head member (e.g., R/W heads of head bar 220, 502 - see abstract).
As per claim 6, further comprising: a reinforcement member (e.g., upper portion of the corresponding upper 235 and/or the upper portion of support 236, as depicted in Fig. 2) arranged between a second end portion the head member (e.g., upper vertical end of the R/W heads of head bar 220, 502 - see abstract) in the length direction and the base member (e.g. the upper portion of the base member (235) as seen in Fig. 2).
As per claim 9, wherein the distal end of the first end support beam (504) is displaceable in opposite directions. See Fig. 5, wherein the piezoelectric element (506) extends (expands) (represented by up-arrow) in an upward direction, and the piezoelectric element (508) contracts (represented by downward arrow), such that the head member (502) resting upon the beam (504), is tilted or skewed from the solid-line position, to the dashed-line position in Fig. 5.
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.
Claims 4, 5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) in view of Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2).
See the description of Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1), supra.
As per claim 4, although Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) does not expressly disclose providing a mirror-image of first skew driving piezoelectric unit (506, 508) at a second, upper end of the head member (502) (Fig. 5), to arrive at the invention sets forth in claims 4 and 5, it is known in the art to provide such piezoelectric unit mirror image symmetry.
For example, as per claim 4, Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2) teaches providing a second head driving piezoelectric unit (e.g., 1000a, 1000b) which would correspond to a second skew driving piezoelectric unit of Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1), when combined, arranged in the corresponding second end support beam (e.g., 1000) and comprising piezoelectric elements (1000a, 1000b - see col. 5, ll. 6-25) configured to drive the head member (1004) in a desired direction, which are symmetrically disposed about the corresponding first driving piezoelectric units 1002a, 1002b), corresponding to the first skew driving piezoelectric units (506, 508) of Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1)). Such a combination and applicable teachings of Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2) to Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) would thus further yield the second skew driving piezoelectric unit (comprises a pair of uppermost piezoelectric elements (e.g., 1000a, 1000b) as taught by Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2)), which would correspond to a second skew driving piezoelectric unit of Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1), when combined, arranged in a width direction of the head member (head bar 220, 502 of Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) (as per claim 5).
Note the amended claim 4 limitations regarding the second skew driving piezoelectric unit as comprising a pai of piezoelectric elements and their function, are met by the teachings of providing such an upper second piezoelectric unit (as taught by Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2)) in combination with the function of the skew driving piezoelectric unit (which already discloses a pair of piezoelectric elements that expand/contract in opposition to the applied voltage (as taught by Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1)).
Additionally, regarding claim 10, when combined with Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2), Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) and Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2) would further (as combined) provide for wherein the distal end of the second end support beam is displaceable in opposite directions. See Fig. 5, analogous to the operation of the first support beam, wherein the piezoelectric element (506) extends (expands) (represented by up-arrow) in an upward direction, and the piezoelectric element (508) contracts (represented by downward arrow), such that the head member (502) resting upon the beam (504), is tilted or skewed from the solid-line position, to the dashed-line position in Fig. 5.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2), 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 a mirror image second skew driving piezoelectric unit (along vertical direction), as set forth in claims 4 and 5, by applying the teachings of Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2) to Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1), in order to advantageously provide head driving piezoelectric symmetry about the head member of Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1), thus ensuring accurate micropositioning of the head member, in the manner taught and suggested by Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) in view of Imai (US 2015/0213818 A1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) in view of Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2), as applied to claim 4, and further in view of Imai (US 2015/0213818 A1).
See the description of Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1)/Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2), supra.
As per claims 7 and 8, although Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) (and/or Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2)) does not expressly disclose wherein the piezoelectric elements of the first (and/or second) skew driving piezoelectric unit have opposite polarity to cause the one of the piezoelectric elements of the first (and/or second) skew driving piezoelectric unit to expand and the another one of the piezoelectric elements of the first (and/or second) skew driving piezoelectric unit to contract in response to the applied voltage or vice versa, such features of PZT piezoelectric elements are well-known and ubiquitous in the magnetic recording/reproducing art.
For example, as per claims 7 (and analogously, claim 8), Imai (US 2015/0213818 A1) teaches providing a pair of analogous PZT piezoelectric elements (e.g., 316a, 316b), to move a magnetic recording/reproducing head in a swing (skew) direction, wherein the piezoelectric elements (316a, 316b) of the driving piezoelectric unit have opposite polarity to cause the one of the piezoelectric elements of the skew driving piezoelectric unit to expand and the another one of the piezoelectric elements of the skew driving piezoelectric unit to contract in response to the applied voltage or vice versa (see, inter alia, paragraph [0030] of Imai (US 2015/0213818 A1)).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Imai (US 2015/0213818 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 wherein the piezoelectric elements of the first skew driving piezoelectric unit of Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) (and/or in combination with Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2) for the analogous second skew driving piezoelectric unit of claim 8) to have opposite polarity to cause the one of the piezoelectric elements of the first/second skew driving piezoelectric unit to expand and the another one of the piezoelectric elements of the first/second skew driving piezoelectric unit to contract in response to the applied voltage or vice versa, in order to simply move the driven head member in the well-known, expanding/contracting piezoelectric elements manner n applied voltage, as is well-known, established and appreciated in the art, as evidenced by Imai (US 2015/0213818 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, as it pertains to the rejected claims, supra.
Applicant alleges:
Hanaoka et al does not disclose the feature of the present invention as recited in amended independent claim 1 whereby "the first skew driving piezoelectric unit comprises a pair of piezoelectric elements configured to drive the head member by causing displacement of a distal end of the first end support beam, each of the piezoelectric elements being configured to expand or contract in response to applied voltage such that one of the piezoelectric elements expands in response to the applied voltage and another one of the piezoelectric elements contracts in response to the same applied voltage to cause a distal end of the first end support beam to be displaced to thereby drive the head member".
The Examiner disagrees. As set forth in the rejection, Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) does indeed show such a feature. More concretely, Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) discloses the first skew driving piezoelectric unit (e.g., 506 and/or 508) as including a pair of piezoelectric elements (506 and 508) configured to drive the head member (e.g., R/W heads of head bar 220, 502 - see abstract) by causing displacement of a distal end of the first end support beam (504), and each of the piezoelectric elements (506 and 508) is configured to expand or contract in response to applied voltage such that one of the piezoelectric elements (e.g., 506 – see Fig. 5) expands in response to the applied voltage and another one of the piezoelectric elements (e.g., 508 – see Fig. 5) contracts in response to the same applied voltage to cause the distal end of the first end support beam (504) to be displaced to thereby drive the head member (502); see, inter alia, paragraphs [0045, 0051, 0069-0071], wherein the PZT actuators (506) and (508), respectively “extends or contracts” based on the applied voltage.
Moreover, in combination with Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2), the combination of Weng et al. (US 7,474,495 B2) to Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) would indeed provide for the analogous second skew driving piezoelectric unit to have such a similar feature (as discussed in the rejection).
Regarding the newly presented claims 7-10, see the rejection of such claims in the rejection, above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 11, and 12 are tentatively objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but, pending an updated search, amendments or arguments presented by the Applicant and considered by the Examiner in reply to this office communication, would be favorably considered if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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