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 statements (IDSs) submitted on August 22, 2025 and July 13, 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 August 22, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) The Applicant should update, as appropriate, the U.S. application numbers referenced in the specification at page 1 (paragraph [0001]) to reflect if the application has now matured into a U.S. Patent (listing the associated U.S. Patent No., if appropriate).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species V (Figs. 9A, 9B) in the reply filed on July 13, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that:
Applicant respectfully submits that at least independent claim 7 is generic to at least Species III-VII, and independent claim 15 is generic to at least Species IV and Species V. At a very minimum, Applicant respectfully submits that a search for Species IV is likely to overlap with a search for at least Species V, as at least claims 7, 8, 13-15, and 17-20 are generic to both Species IV and Species V. As such, searching for at least Species IV and V would not require a different field of search, would not necessitate search queries tailored to different structures, and thus, would not be a burden for the Examiner.
This is not found persuasive because at least claims 1-6 is drawn to a non-elected Species, that is not generic to, and fails to encompass allowable subject matter.
It is noted, however, that independent claim 7, as currently drafted, is generic to withdrawn dependent claims 11 and 12, and assuming the Double Patenting rejection, infra, is overcome, would be tentatively allowable over the art of record, in current form.
Upon final disposition of the claims, any allowed generic (or sub-generic) claims that have withdrawn dependent claims depending therefrom, will result in such dependent (withdrawn) claims being rejoined.
Currently, at this time, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-6, 11, and 12 are currently 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. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on July 13, 2026.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 7, 9, 10, 13-16, 18, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are anticipated by the claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent).
More specifically, the limitations of claim 7 of the instant application are all found in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent) (cf. claim 7 of the instant application, with claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent).
For example, as per claim 7 of the instant application, US 12,406,689 B2 claims a tape head module, comprising: a substrate; a plurality of data heads disposed adjacent to the substrate at a media facing surface (MFS), the plurality of data heads being one or more of write heads and read heads; and a closure disposed adjacent to the plurality of data heads, the closure comprising: a first side portion disposed at a leading edge; a second side portion disposed at the leading edge, wherein the first and second side portions each comprises a first step recessed from the MFS and a second least one step recessed from the MFS (first and second side portions being recessed from the MFS via the at least one step); and a central portion disposed between the first and second side portions at the leading edge.
Additionally, see claims 9 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent), which also analogously anticipate claim 7 of the instant application.
As such, since the language of claim 7 of the instant application is readily found in claims 1 and/or 9 and/or 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent), claim 7 is anticipated by claims 1 and/or 9 and/or 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent).
Moreover, claim 7 of the instant invention is broader in scope, i.e., the entire scope of the reference claim(s) fall(s) within the scope of the examined claim (and the other rejected claims, as noted, infra). In such a situation, a later patent to a genus would, necessarily, extend the right to exclude granted by an earlier patent directed to a species or sub-genus. In this type of nonstatutory double patenting situation, an obviousness analysis is not required for the nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Therefore, a patent to the genus would improperly extend the right to exclude granted by a patent to the species or sub-genus should the genus issue as a patent after the species or sub-genus. See MPEP 804.
A patent to a genus would, necessarily, extend the rights of a species or sub-species should the genus claims of the instant application issue after the after the species or subgenus. Therefore, in this type of obvious-type double patenting situation, a Graham analysis of the type required in an Obviousness-Type Double Patenting situation is not required, albeit certainly, one could readily be applied.
Claim 9 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent).
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claims 7 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent).
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claims 8, 13, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent).
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to claims 4, 14, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent).
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claims 9, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent). Note: notch "width" as set forth in claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent), is equivalent term to the notch "length" of claim 15 of the instant application.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claims 7 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent).
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent).
Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds to claims 4, 14, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,406,689 (reference patent).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 17, and 19 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.
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 magnetic tape heads/modules incorporate leading edge structures to control the pressurization of the tape over the transducers. .
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
