DETAILED ACTION
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 October 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 30 October 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a reinforcement member configured to reinforce the head supporting member from moving in a thickness direction of the head member and to allow the head supporting member to move in the direction along the surface” in independent claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Considerations - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,482,495.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because pending claims 1-7 are anticipated by or obvious over patented claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,482,495 as follows:
With respect to pending claim 1, U.S. Patent No. 12,482,495 claims a head driving device configured to move a head member relative to tape as a recording medium (lines 1-2 of patented claim 1), the head driving device comprising a base member including a first frame portion and a second frame portion (lines 2-5 of patented claim 1); a head supporting member supporting the head member (line 6 of patented claim 1); a first beam member arranged between the first frame portion and the head supporting member (lines 6-8 of patented claim 1) and including a first base portion connected to the first frame portion and a first head side hinge portion connected to the head supporting member (lines 8-11 of patented claim 1); a second beam member arranged on a side opposite to the first beam member with the head supporting member interposed therebetween (lines 12-14 of patented claim 1), the second beam member including a second base portion connected to the second frame portion and a second head side hinge portion connected to the head supporting member (lines 14-17 of patented claim 1); a first piezoelectric unit arranged on the first beam member and comprising piezoelectric elements configured to move the head supporting member in a direction along a surface of the tape when applied with a voltage (lines 18-21 of patented claim 1); a second piezoelectric unit arranged on the second beam member and comprising piezoelectric elements configured to move the head supporting member in the direction along the surface of the tape when applied with a voltage (lines 22-26 of patented claim 1); and a reinforcement member configured to reinforce the head supporting member from moving in a thickness direction of the head member and to allow the head supporting member to move in the direction along the surface (lines 27-30 of patented claim 1).
With respect to pending claim 2, U.S. Patent No. 12,482,495 does not claim “wherein the reinforcement member supporting the head supporting member has: a first rigidity against forces applied in the thickness direction of the head member; and a second rigidity against forces applied in the direction along the surface, and the first rigidity is greater than the second rigidity.” However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the “reinforcement member” limitation(s) in independent claim 1 that these would be necessary properties of the reinforcement member in order to perform in the manner detailed in independent claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have claimed wherein the reinforcement member supporting the head supporting member has: a first rigidity against forces applied in the thickness direction of the head member; and a second rigidity against forces applied in the direction along the surface, and the first rigidity is greater than the second rigidity.
With respect to pending claim 3, U.S. Patent No. 12,482,495 does not claim “wherein the reinforcement member is more resistant to deformation under forces applied in the thickness direction of the head member than under forces applied in the direction along the surface.” However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the “reinforcement member” limitation(s) in independent claim 1 that this would be a necessary property of the reinforcement member in order to perform in the manner detailed in independent claim 1. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have claimed wherein the reinforcement member is more resistant to deformation under forces applied in the thickness direction of the head member than under forces applied in the direction along the surface.
With respect to pending claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12,482,495 claims wherein the reinforcement member comprises a first member arranged between a first end portion in a length direction of the head member and the base member (lines 1-4 of patented claim 2) and a second member arranged between a second end portion in the length direction of the head member and the base member (lines 4-7 of patented claim 2).
With respect to pending claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 12,482,495 claims wherein the reinforcement member is formed of a plate arranged between the first beam member and the second beam member (lines 1-4 of patented claim 3), and the plate is arranged laterally along the head supporting member and includes a first end portion connected to the first beam member and a second end portion connected to the second beam member (lines 4-8 of patented claim 3).
With respect to pending claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 12,482,495 claims wherein the reinforcement member is formed of a plate arranged between the first beam member and the second beam member (lines 1-4 of patented claim 4), and the plate is arranged in a vertical direction orthogonal to the head supporting member and includes a first end portion connected to the first beam member and a second end portion connected to the second beam member (lines 4-9 of patented claim 4).
With respect to pending claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12,482,495 claims wherein the reinforcement member comprises a first extending portion extending from the first beam member toward the second beam member (lines 1-4 of patented claim 5), a second extending portion extending from the second beam member toward the first beam member (lines 4-6 of patented claim 5), and a connection portion connecting the first extending portion with the second extending portion (lines 6-8 of patented claim 5).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes Lantz et al. (US 12,555,599), which teach a tape head support reinforcement feature.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Craig A. Renner whose telephone number is (571) 272-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 7:30 PM.
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.
/CRAIG A. RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights