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 .
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on September 27, 2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2024-169103 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 2, 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.
Drawings
The drawings were received on September 2, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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, 2, 5-7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasada (US 2020/0312361 A1).
As per claim 1, Kasada (US 2020/0312361 A1) discloses a magnetic tape (e.g., 1) comprising: a non-magnetic support; and a magnetic layer containing a ferromagnetic powder (e.g., see abstract "magnetic tape includes: a non-magnetic support; and a magnetic layer including ferromagnetic powder"), wherein both an average valley depth Rvm (e.g., 1/2 the edge weave α as discussed, below) measured at one edge portion of a surface of the magnetic layer and an average valley depth Rvm (opposing tape edge) measured at the other edge portion are -0.55 µm or more and -0.20 µm or less, and the edge portion is a portion of 0 µm to 1 µm in a tape width direction in a case where a position of an edge is 0 µm.
The average valley depth Rvm of Kasada (US 2020/0312361 A1) is considered to be 1/2 the edge weave α. That is, the edge weave α, wherein 1/2 the edge weave value is considered as the zero value, with the highest amplitude bump in the outward direction positive, and the lowest bump in the direction toward the opposing tape side, negative. See mark-up of Fig. 1 of Kasada (US 2020/0312361 A1), infra.
The peak-to-peak value (1.5 µm or less) is the edge weave α - thus, half that amount, in the lowest peak bump amplitude toward the opposing side is negative 0.75 or less, and down to 0.4 µm - e.g., see, inter alia, Table 1-1 examples 3, 7, 8; see also claims 9 and 15 of Kasada (US 2020/0312361 A1) wherein the peak-to-peak amplitude is 0.8 µm, and the amplitude of the negative peak is half or -0.4 µm, which falls within the claimed range.
The edge portion is a portion of 0 µm to 1 µm in a tape width direction in a case where a position of an edge is 0 µm (which includes the outer edge and /or portions of the tape in the width direction, inward toward an opposing tape edge side). Additionally, Kasada (US 2020/0312361 A1) states (e.g., see abstract) that "an amount of an edge weave of a tape edge on at least one side of the magnetic tape" (emphasis added) - so the edge weave can be provided on both edges. Thus, Kasada (US 2020/0312361 A1) anticipates claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
609
853
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per claim 2 (as well as claim 8, rejected, infra), wherein a tape thickness of the magnetic tape (1) is 5.0 µm or less (e.g., see paragraphs [0105-0108], wherein component layers of the magnetic tape (magnetic layer, non-magnetic support, back coating layer) have specific dimensions that, when combined, fall below the claimed 5.0 µm).
As per claim 5 (as well as claim 8, rejected, infra), wherein the non-magnetic support is an aromatic polyamide support. See paragraph [0101].
As per claim 6 (as well as claim 8, rejected, infra), further comprising: a non-magnetic layer containing a non-magnetic powder between the non-magnetic support and the magnetic layer. See paragraph [0013].
As per claim 7 (as well as claim 8, rejected, infra), further comprising: a back coating layer containing a non-magnetic powder on a surface side of the non- magnetic support opposite to a surface side having the magnetic layer. See paragraph [0014].
As per claim 9, a magnetic tape cartridge comprising: the magnetic tape according to claim 1. See paragraph [0002].
As per claim 10, a magnetic tape apparatus comprising: the magnetic tape according to claim 1. See paragraph [0002].
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 3, 4, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasada (US 2020/0312361 A1) in view of Kasada et al. (US 2023/0045648 A1).
See the description of Kasada (US 2020/0312361 A1), supra.
As per claims 3 and 8, Kasada (US 2020/0312361 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein a vertical squareness ratio of the magnetic tape is 0.65 or more.
As per claims 4 and 8, Kasada (US 2020/0312361 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the non-magnetic support is an aromatic polyester support.
As per claim 11, Kasada (US 2020/0312361 A1) remains silent with regard to further comprising: a magnetic head, wherein the magnetic head has a module including an element array with a plurality of magnetic head elements between a pair of servo signal reading elements, and the magnetic tape apparatus changes an angle Ɵ formed by an axis of the element array with respect to a width direction of the magnetic tape during running of the magnetic tape in the magnetic tape apparatus.
Such features, however, are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Kasada et al. (US 2023/0045648 A1) disclose an analogous magnetic tape, in the same field of endeavor as Kasada (US 2020/0312361 A1), wherein, as per claims 3, 4, and 8 the magnetic tape of 5.0 µm or less (e.g., see paragraph [0156] of Kasada et al. (US 2023/0045648 A1)), a vertical squareness ratio of the magnetic tape is 0.65 or more (e.g., see paragraph [0198] of Kasada et al. (US 2023/0045648 A1)), the non-magnetic support is an aromatic polyester support (e.g., see paragraph [0078] of Kasada et al. (US 2023/0045648 A1)) or an aromatic polyamide support (e.g., see paragraph [0077] of Kasada et al. (US 2023/0045648 A1)), the magnetic tape further includes a non-magnetic layer containing a non-magnetic powder between the non-magnetic support and the magnetic layer (e.g., see paragraph [0035] of Kasada et al. (US 2023/0045648 A1)), and the magnetic tape further includes a back coating layer containing a non-magnetic powder on a surface side of the non-magnetic support opposite to a surface side having the magnetic layer (e.g., see paragraph [0036] of Kasada et al. (US 2023/0045648 A1)).
As per claim 11, Kasada et al. (US 2023/0045648 A1) further discloses a magnetic head, wherein the magnetic head has a module including an element array with a plurality of magnetic head elements between a pair of servo signal reading elements, and the magnetic tape apparatus changes an angle Ɵ formed by an axis of the element array with respect to a width direction of the magnetic tape during running of the magnetic tape in the magnetic tape apparatus (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0008-0014] of Kasada et al. (US 2023/0045648 A1)).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Kasada et al. (US 2023/0045648 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 features of claims 3, 4, 8, and 11, as taught by Kasada et al. (US 2023/0045648 A1) in order to advantageously "provide a magnetic tape device capable of performing recording and/or reproducing in an excellent manner during recording and/or reproducing of data by changing a head tilt angle during running of a magnetic tape." See paragraph of Kasada et al. (US 2023/0045648 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.
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 recording media (tapes) include specific surface roughness along surfaces thereof.
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