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 May 28, 2026 are 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 August 1, 2025 and the replacement drawings were received on September 12, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to claim 2 (line 1) and claim 11 (line 1), the term "the connecting strut at" should be changed to the term --the connecting strut is at--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Honda (US 2006/0291102 A1).
As per claim 1 (and analogously, as per claim 10), Honda (US 2006/0291102 A1) discloses a trace gimbal (e.g., Fig. 1 - also see Examiner's marked-up copy of Fig. 1 of Honda (US 2006/0291102 A1), infra) comprising: outer struts (e.g., including the Proximal Rear Outrigger and the Distal Rear Outrigger and the Proximal Front Outrigger and the Distal Front Outrigger - see Examiner's Mark-up, infra), including a front outrigger (e.g., including the Proximal Front Outrigger and the Distal Front Outrigger - see Examiner's Mark-up, infra)
at a distal end of the trace gimbal (Fig. 1) and a rear outrigger (e.g., including the Proximal Rear Outrigger and the Distal Rear Outrigger - see Examiner's Mark-up, infra) at a proximal end of the trace gimbal (Fig. 1); a connecting strut (e.g., Connecting Strut at the juncture of the Distal Rear Outrigger and the Proximal Front Outrigger - see Examiner's Mark-up, infra) connecting at a first side to the front outrigger and a second side to the rear outrigger (see Examiner's Mark-up, infra), wherein a width of the connecting strut is greater than a width of any of the front outrigger and the rear outrigger (as is readily shown in Examiner's Mark-up of Fig. 1, infra); and an inner strut (e.g., - see Examinee's Mark-up Fig. 1, infra) extending between the connecting strut to a slider tongue (e.g., tongue face (21) which supports the magnetic head slider (1)) - see Fig. 1 of Honda (US 2006/0291102 A1).
Additionally, as per amended claims 1 and 10, the connecting strut extends toward a center of the trace gimbal in a direction substantially parallel with a lateral axis along a width (the up-down direction of Fig. 1) of the trace gimbal - see Examiner's Mark-up of Fig. 1, infra)
Additionally, as per claim 10, a suspension is provided (e.g., 13 - Fig. 8).
PNG
media_image1.png
849
940
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claims 2 and 11, wherein the width of the connecting strut (e.g., see Examiner's Mark-up, supra) is at least twice the width of any of the front outrigger and the rear outrigger.
As per claim 3 and 12, wherein the connecting strut connects to the front outrigger at the first side at an angle such that a junction between the connecting strut and the front outrigger forms an acute angle (greater than zero degrees and less than 90 degrees - (e.g., see Examiner's Mark-up, infra).
PNG
media_image2.png
733
811
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As per claims 4 and 13, wherein the connecting strut is orthogonal to the rear outrigger at the second side such that a junction between the connecting strut and the rear outrigger forms a substantially right angle - see e.g., see Examiner's Mark-up, supra.
As per claims 5 and 14, wherein the connecting strut and the slider tongue (21, which includes the distal end portion proximate the "solder 41" as depicted in Fig. 1) are substantially in parallel with the lateral axis, and wherein the inner strut comprises an angled surface disposed at an angle relative to the lateral axis -e.g., see Examiner's Mark-up, supra.
PNG
media_image3.png
745
865
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As per claims 6 and 15, wherein the inner strut comprises an elbow extending from the inner strut (e.g., see Examiner's Mark-up, supra).
As per claims 7 and 16, wherein a width of the inner strut between the elbow and the angled surface is greater than the width of the connecting strut - e.g., see Examiner's Mark-up, infra, regarding claims 7 and 16.
PNG
media_image4.png
804
741
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As per claim 8 and per claim 10, wherein the front outrigger includes a distal front outrigger (see Examiner's marked-up copy of Fig. 3 of Honda (US 2006/0291102 A1), supra) and a proximal front outrigger - see Examiner's marked-up copy of Fig. 3 of Honda (US 2006/0291102 A1), supra), the rear outrigger includes a distal rear outrigger and a proximal rear outrigger - see Examiner's marked-up copy of Fig. 3 of Honda (US 2006/0291102 A1), supra).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Honda (US 2006/0291102 A1) in view of Sakakura (US 2017/0294200 A1).
See the description of Honda (US 2006/0291102 A1), supra.
As shown, supra (as per claim 9), wherein the connecting strut supports the slider tongue (21) (see Figs. 1 and the Examiner's Mark-up of Fig. 1, supra).
As per claim 9, Honda (US 2006/0291102 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein at least one microactuator is provided and mounted on the slider tongue.
Such features, however, are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Sakakura (US 2017/0294200 A1) discloses an analogous trace gimbal and suspension, in the same field of endeavor as Honda (US 2006/0291102 A1), wherein, as per claim 9, Sakakura (US 2017/0294200 A1) discloses at least one microactuator (e.g., 5) mounted on the slider tongue (18), wherein the corresponding connecting strut (e.g., including where (19) meets at a juncture of both (17) and (29) - see Fig. 3) supports the slider tongue (18). See Fig. 8.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Sakakura (US 2017/0294200 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 microactuator as taught by Sakakura (US 2017/0294200 A1) to the trace gimbal of Honda (US 2006/0291102 A1) in order to advantageously allow expansions/contraction of the piezo-elements which allows for fine positioning of the magnetic head slider. See, inter alia, paragraph [0176] of Sakakura (US 2017/0294200 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 with respect to the amended claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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