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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species III (Figure 8) and sub-species C (Fig. 6C) reading on claims 1, 3-6, 14, and 16-20 in the reply filed on August 5, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there would be no serious burden placed upon the Examiner, with an overlap in searching amongst the species, and not necessarily a different field of search.
This is not found persuasive because the Examiner maintains that each identified species, as articulated in the Restriction Requirement, would impose other grave, serious burdens upon the Examiner. Moreover, in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104, to the nature of each distinctly grouped inventions, the Examiner must make a thorough study thereof and a thorough investigation of the available prior art relating to the claimed subject matter of each distinctly identified Grouping. The examination for each distinct species (currently claimed and which may later be claimed, via a future amendment) must be complete with respect both to compliance of the application with the applicable statutes and rules and to the patentability of the invention as claimed, in addition to matters of form, including Title 35 to the United States Code, sections 101,102, 103 and 112, to each distinctly grouped invention.
Moreover, each separately grouped species/sub-species must be thoroughly searched, including, but not limited to, various searching fields, inclusive of differing text search strategies and/or queries, determination of anticipation, if any, of uncovered prior art, potential application of the Graham factual inquiries to each distinct species/invention to review for any indicia of possible obviousness, etc.
As noted in the Restriction Requirement, at the very least, the Species groupings, require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). For example, the search strategy for each of the independent and distinct Species I-III (and sub-species A-C) would entail a search strategy focusing in on distinct and independent structure of each of the species, relative to the other species of the chiplet, including, but not limited to a search for a flat chambered surface (as per one species), a search for a convex chamfered surface (as per another distinct species), a search for a chamfered surface that includes first and second corners (as per another distinct species), and a search for a chiplet side edges including four surfaces, two of which are perpendicular to the other two (as per another distinct species), etc.
Moreover still, as has been held, if there is an express admission that the claimedinventions would have been obvious over each other within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103, restriction should not be required. In re Lee, 199 USPQ 108 (Comm'r Pat. 1978).
There is nothing on record, at present, to show that the distinctly groupedinventions are obvious variants.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2, 7-13 and 15 are currently withdrawn (pending rejoinder of any eventual allowed generic claim) from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on August 5, 2026.
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 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, 5, 6, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1).
As per claim 1, Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1) discloses a magnetic recording head assembly (e.g. 300 - see, e.g., Fig. 4a) configured to read from and write to a magnetic medium (e.g., 200), comprising: one or more rows of chiplets (e.g., 316 - a structure comprising at least one of read transducers and write transducers - see Figs. 4a, "plurality of elements 316 (e.g., a span or set of read and/or write elements)"), each of the one or more rows of chiplets (316) having a leading edge (e.g., edge of 316 closest to 368), a trailing edge (e.g., edge of 316 closest to 372), a first side edge (e.g., left-side edge of (316) as depicted in Fig. 4a, which is parallel to the tape travel direction), and a second side edge (e.g., left-side edge of (316) as depicted in Fig. 4a, which is parallel to the tape travel direction), and a media facing surface (MFS - 310), wherein: the first and second side edges being disposed between the leading edge and the trailing edge (see Fig. 4a), and the first side edge comprises a first chamfered surface (e.g., 318) disposed adjacent to the MFS and a first outer surface (e.g., side surface(s) of (304) perpendicular to surface (310) on the left-side) of each of the one or more rows of chiplets, the first outer side surface (e.g., side surface(s) of (304) perpendicular to surface (310)) disposed perpendicular to the MFS (e.g., 310) - see Figs. 4a, 4b.
As per claim 3, wherein the first chamfered surface is a convex surface. See, inter alia, col. 8, ll. 23-28; see also Figs. 5a-5c.
As per claim 5, wherein the second side edge (e.g., left-side edge of (316) as depicted in Fig. 4a, which is parallel to the tape travel direction) comprises a second chamfered surface (e.g., 324) disposed adjacent to the MFS (310) and a second outer side surface (e.g., side surface(s) of (304) perpendicular to surface (310) on the right-side) of each of the one or more rows of chiplets, the second outer side surface being disposed perpendicular to the MFS (e.g., 310) – see Figs. 4a, 4b.
As per claim 6, a magnetic recording device (e.g. 10 - see Fig. 1) comprising the magnetic recording head assembly of claim 1.
As per claim 14, Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1) discloses a magnetic recording head assembly (e.g., 300 – see Fig. 4a), configured to read from and write to a magnetic media medium (e.g., 200), the assembly comprising: one or more rows of chiplets (e.g., 316 - a structure comprising at least one of read transducers and write transducers - see Figs. 4a, "plurality of elements 316 (e.g., a span or set of read and/or write elements)"), each of the one or more rows of chiplets (316) having a leading edge (e.g., edge of 316 closest to 368), a trailing edge (e.g., edge of 316 closest to 372), a first side edge (e.g., left-side edge of (316) as depicted in Fig. 4a, which is parallel to the tape travel direction), and a second side edge (e.g., left-side edge of (316) as depicted in Fig. 4a, which is parallel to the tape travel direction), and a media facing surface (MFS - 310), wherein: the first and second side edges are disposed between the leading edge and the trailing edge (e.g., see Fig. 4a); the first side edge comprises a first surface (e.g., side surface(s) of (304) perpendicular to surface (310) on the left-side) disposed perpendicular to the MFS (310) and a second surface (e.g., 318, chamfered and recessed away from the MFS (310)) recessed from the MFS (310), the second surface being chamfered (see Figs. 4a, 4b, etc.); and the second surface (chamfered surface (318)) is disposed between the first surface e.g., side surface(s) of (304) perpendicular to surface (310) on the left-side) and the MFS (310).
As per claim 16, wherein the second surface is a convex surface, a concave surface, or a curved or rounded surface. See, inter alia, col. 8, ll. 23-28; see also Figs. 5a-5c.
As per claim 18, the recitation of “wherein the magnetic medium is in contact with at least one of a first corner and a second corner, wherein the first corner is formed by the intersection of the MFS and the second surface and the second corner is formed by the intersection of the first surface and the second surface,” is considered to be a capability of the magnetic recording head assembly, since the claim 18 (and the claim from which it depends, claim 14) is drawn to a magnetic recording head assembly, and not a magnetic recording head device that is actively operating and utilizing the magnetic medium is a positive, contact manner.
Nevertheless, Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1) is seen to meet the limitations of claim 18 – see col. 8, ll. 29-54, wherein Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1) discloses that the magnetic medium, at the very least, contacts portions of (318, 324) capable of contacting the magnetic tape (magnetic medium), nearest the MFS and each corner, when in use, and other portions of (318, 324) which do not contact the magnetic tape (200).
As per claim 19, wherein the second side edge (e.g., left-side edge of (316) as depicted in Fig. 4a, which is parallel to the tape travel direction) comprises a third surface (e.g., side surface(s) of (304) perpendicular to surface (310) on the right-side) disposed perpendicular to the MFS (310) and a fourth surface (chamfered surface (324)) recessed from the MFS (310), the fourth surface (324) being chamfered (see Figs. 4a, 4b, etc.), and wherein the fourth surface is disposed between the third surface and the MFS - see Figs. 4a, 4b, etc.
As per claim 20, a magnetic recording device (e.g. 10 - see Fig. 1) comprising the magnetic recording head assembly of claim 14.
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 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 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1).
See the description of Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1), supra.
As per claim 4 (and analogously, as per claim 17), Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1) remain silent with regard to wherein the first chamfered surface (second surface as per claim 17) has a first ratio of depth to width between about 0.01 and about 0.2.
The Examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention was effectively filed to satisfy the claimed range(s) and/or dimension(s), particularly in light of the teachings of Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1) as a whole, through routine optimization/experimentation. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Additionally, the law is replete with cases in which when the mere difference between the claimed invention and the prior art is some range, variable or other dimensional limitation within the claims, patentability cannot be found.
It furthermore has been held in such a situation, the Applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range. In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
As noted and appreciated by Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1), by providing a chamfered (sloping or stepped) surface (318, 324) of the chiplet, an "inactive zone" is provided "such as second and third regions 318, 324, recessed away from the first region 310 to eliminate or at least limit contact between the tape 200 and the additional region(s) as the tape 200 moves over the upper surface 308 in one of the first and second directions 212, 216 along the first reference axis 400." See col. 8, ll. 7-12 of Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1). This advantageously prevents damage to the traveling magnetic tape along the tape outer edges. See paragraph [0039]. As such, Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1) readily recognizes that the particular configuration of the chamfered surface is a result effective variable. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art, based upon the teachings and suggestions of Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1), would have been motivated to routinely optimize such a chamfered surface to arrive at an advantageous inactive zone away from the tape traveling edges, in the manner taught and suggested by Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1), including providing a first ratio of depth to width between about 0.01 and about 0.2 (as set forth in claim 4 and analogously, as per claim 17).
No new or unobvious result is seen to be obtained by quantifying the chamfered surface of Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1) as having a first ratio of depth to width between about 0.01 and about 0.2, given the teachings of Lakshmikumaran et al. (US 8,958,175 B1) as a whole, and the level of one having ordinary skill in the art.
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 side edge structures/surfaces which are beveled, chamfered or contoured, which are provided adjacent to magnetic heads, in order to effect the manner in which the magnetic medium (e.g., tape) interacts with the transducers of the head and/or the immediate MFS.
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