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 November 10, 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 November 5, 2025.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the "cutting mark" (configured to extend in a band shape) with at least a portion thereof overlapped with the parting line (see claim 1, lines 9-12), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to page 14 (lines 4-5 of paragraph [0071]), the term "Molten metal flows into the first recess 201a to form the cylindrical wall portion 414" should be changed to the term -- Molten metal flows into the second recess 201b to form the cylindrical wall portion 414--. See Figs. 9 and 11.
(ii) With regard to page 16, line 1 of paragraph [0079], the term "cutting section 30" should be changed to the term --cutting section 301-- in order to remain consistent with the preceding specification terminology and the description of the drawings.
(iii) With regard to page 21, line 5 of paragraph [00112], the term "cylindrical wall portion (411)" should be changed to the term --cylindrical wall portion (414)-- in order to remain consistent with the preceding specification terminology and the description of the drawings.
(iv) With regard to page 21, line 9 of paragraph [00112], the term "annular stepped portion (411a) " should be changed to the term --annular stepped portion (414a)-- in order to remain consistent with the preceding specification terminology and the description of the drawings.
(v) With regard to page 21, lines 10-11 of paragraph [00112], the term "thick portion (411b)" should be changed to the term --thick portion (414b)-- in order to remain consistent with the preceding specification terminology and the description of the drawings.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to claim 12 (line 9), the term "a lower end of the shaft" should be changed to the term -- a lower end of the shaft--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1).
As per claim 1, Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) discloses a base plate (e.g., 1) that becomes a part of a housing of a disk drive device and is made of a metal die-cast member (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0004, 0038, 0039]), comprising a bottom wall portion (e.g., 11) that extends perpendicularly to a rotation axis of a disk extending in a vertical direction (e.g., see Fig. 1); and a peripheral wall portion (e.g., 12, 121/122) that extends upward in an axial direction along the rotation axis from an outer peripheral edge of the bottom wall portion (11) and surrounds the bottom wall portion (11), wherein a parting line portion (e.g., 14) is configured to extend along a circumferential direction around an outer peripheral surface of the peripheral wall portion (e.g., see Figs. 3 and 12-15).
As per claim 1, however, Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein a cutting mark is configured to extend in a band shape along the circumferential direction around the outer peripheral surface, wherein when viewing the peripheral wall portion from outward the cutting mark has at least a portion overlapped with the parting line.
The process of deburring (flash removal} of residual portions of cast metal (from the molds) is well-known in the art.
As just one example, Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1) discloses a tool for the process of removing imperfections (including burrs) produced during a casting of metal. "The tool includes at least one bearing/bushing secured thereto, the bearing/bushing allowing rotation of the tool there within while the outer portion of the bearing/bushing remains stationary." See paragraph [0012] of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to remove the burrs from the parting line (14) (where the two molds met during cast metal production), and thereby provide a cutting mark is configured to extend in a band shape along the circumferential direction around the outer peripheral surface, wherein when viewing the peripheral wall portion from outward the cutting mark has at least a portion overlapped with the parting line (14), in the manner and with the tool as taught by Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1), in order to advantageously remove the surface imperfections left by a case metal formed by molds, with "a tool that is easy to operate and that prevents inadvertent damage to the casting or molded item." See paragraph [0011], as well as paragraph [0005] of Watton (US 2021/0060667 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.
As per claim 2, although Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1) as applied to Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the cutting mark is configured with an axial width of 4 mm to 8 mm, it would have been within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely modify the axial width of the cutting mark (in the range set forth in claim 2) in the course of routine optimization/experimentation.
That is, given the express conceptual teachings and implied/inferred suggestions of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1) (in combination with Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1))
as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to routinely modify the cutting mark produced by the deburring tool of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1), with an axial width of 4 mm to 8 mm (as per claim 2) in the course of routine optimization/experimentation and thereby obtain a cutting mark that sufficiently removes the cast metal surface imperfections left by the molds, while minimizing further damage of other portions of the disk drive base plate formed by the molds for the diecast metal.
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).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Additionally, as per claim 3, given the combination of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1) and Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1), providing the cutting marks on the three outer peripheral surfaces of the base plate walls, except for the outer peripheral surface where a gate mark remains and/or as per claim 4, wherein the cutting mark comprises a plurality of lines extending linearly in the circumferential direction around the outer peripheral surface, would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan.
That is, given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by the combination of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1) and Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 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 cutting marks on the three outer peripheral surfaces of the base plate walls, except for the outer peripheral surface where a gate mark remains (claim 3) and/or as per claim 4, wherein the cutting mark comprises a plurality of lines extending linearly in the circumferential direction around the outer peripheral surface, in order to prevent damage to the side of the peripheral wall with the gate mark (which is typically a larger imperfection than that of the residual mold parting lines imperfections); moreover, as taught by Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1), the outer peripheral surface with the gate mark (cut) imperfection is adequately addressed with cutting of the gate mark (worked surface) followed by the work surface (e.g., 16) being covered with an impregnant ( see abstract of Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 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.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1).
See the description of Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1), supra.
As per claim 5, Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1) remain silent with regard to wherein the base plate comprises a cylindrical wall portion that protrudes upward from an upper surface of the bottom wall portion along the rotation axis and has a shaft through hole through which a shaft is inserted, wherein the cylindrical wall portion has an annular stepped portion that protrudes radially outward from an outer peripheral surface of a root portion, and wherein a processed surface is formed on at least a part of an outer peripheral surface of the stepped portion.
Additionally, Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1) do not show the features of claim 7.
Such features, however, are known in the art.
Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) discloses an analogous base plate (e.g., 12), in the same field of endeavor as Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1), wherein the base plate (12) - see Figs. 1A, 2) that becomes a part of a housing (which includes cover ()2) and baseplate (12)) of a disk drive device (e.g., 100) and is made of a metal die-cast member (e.g. see paragraph [0089]), comprising: a bottom wall portion (e.g., portion of baseplate that is flat and at the bottom-most part of the baseplate (12); see designator (12) in Fig. 2) - that extends perpendicularly to a rotation axis of a disk (e.g., 1) extending in a vertical direction (e.g. along the axis of the shaft as seen in Fig. 2); and a cylindrical wall portion (e.g., including portion (12D) as depicted in Fig. 2) that protrudes upward from an upper surface of the bottom wall portion (e.g. designator (12) as depicted in Fig. 2) along the rotation axis and has a shaft through hole (e.g., 12C) through which a shaft (e.g., 11) is inserted, wherein the cylindrical wall portion (e.g., including portion (12D) as depicted in Fig. 2) has an annular stepped portion (e.g. portion of (12D) upon which the stator core (35) sits - see Fig. 2) that protrudes radially outward from an outer peripheral surface of a root portion (e.g. that portion of (12D) that is closer to the shaft (11)), and wherein a processed surface is formed on at least a part of an outer peripheral surface of the stepped portion. The "processed portion" is considered to be the manufacturing processing step that gives rise to the set upon which the stator core (35) resides.
Additionally, as per claim 7, Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) further discloses wherein an upper end of the processed surface (e.g., the uppermost end surface of the outer peripheral surface of the stepped portion, e.g., portion of (12D) upon which the stator core (35) sits - see Fig. 2), is located at an upper end of the outer peripheral surface of the stepped portion, and wherein a lower end (e.g., the lowermost end surface of the outer peripheral surface of the stepped portion, e.g., portion of (12D) upon which the stator core (35) sits - see Fig. 2)of the processed surface is located at a lower end of the outer peripheral surface of the stepped portion.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 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 5 and 7, as taught by Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1), to the combination of Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1), in order to advantageously properly seat a stator core associated with a rotor hub of a fluid dynamic bearing.
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.
Claims 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1) and Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Showa (US 2020/0005826 A1).
See the description of Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1) and Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1), supra.
As per claim 12, Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) further discloses a spindle motor (e.g., see Fig. 2) comprising: the base plate (e.g., 12) according to claim 1; the shaft (e.g., 11) that extends along the rotation axis and has a lower end inserted through the shaft through hole (e.g., 12C) (see Fig. 2); an annular stator core (e.g., 35) that is disposed on an upper surface of the base plate (12) and surrounds the shaft (11); a rotor (e.g., 10) that rotates about the rotation axis; and a bearing unit ((50) - FDB - see Fig. 3) that supports the rotor (e.g., 10) to be rotatable about the shaft as the rotation axis.
As per claim 12, however, Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) (in combination with
Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1)) remains silent regarding wherein the shaft has a shaft inclined portion which is disposed at a lower end of the shaft and has an outer diameter that decreases toward a lower side in an axial direction.
Such structure is known in the art. As just one example, Showa (US 2020/0005826 A1) discloses an analogous spindle motor, in the same field of endeavor as Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1) and Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1), wherein, as per claim 12, a spindle motor shaft (e.g. 21) has a shaft inclined portion (e.g., the inclined portion (e.g. 23); see paragraph [0028]) which is disposed at a lower end of the shaft (21) and has an outer diameter that decreases toward a lower side in an axial direction - along the Y1 axis, in the down direction of Fig. 3.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Showa (US 2020/0005826 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 shaft of Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) (in combination with Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1)) as having a shaft inclined portion which is disposed at a lower end of the shaft and has an outer diameter that decreases toward a lower side in an axial direction, as taught by Showa (US 2020/0005826 A1), in order to advantageously facilitate the insertion of the shaft into the spindle shaft through hole of the base, and secure attachment thereto via adhesive (AD).
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.
Additionally, as per claim 14, Showa (US 2020/0005826 A1) further discloses wherein the shaft (21) has a shaft contact portion (e.g. that portion of the shaft surface (21x) which contacts the inner peripheral surface (e.g., 40i) of the hole (40)) that is disposed above the shaft inclined portion (23) in the axial direction and contacts an inner peripheral surface (e.g. 40i) of the shaft through hole (e.g., 40), and wherein an axial length of the shaft contact portion (length of (21x)) is longer than an axial length of the shaft inclined portion (23) - see Fig. 3.
Additionally, as per claims 15 and 16, although Showa (US 2020/0005826 A1) as applied to Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1), remains silent regarding wherein in a cross section including the rotation axis, the shaft inclined portion has an inclination angle of 10° or less with respect to the rotation axis (claim 11) and/or wherein in the cross section including the rotation axis, the shaft inclined portion has an inclination angle of 5° or more with respect to the rotation axis (claim 12), given the teachings and suggestions of Showa (US 2020/0005826 A1) for providing such an inclined shaft portion, using the teachings of Showa (US 2020/0005826 A1) as a demonstrative template, it would have been within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely modify the angles of inclination of (23) (in the ranges set forth in claims 15 and 16) in the course of routine optimization/experimentation and thereby obtain various standard optimized relationships including those set forth in claims 15 and 16.
That is, given the express conceptual teachings and implied/inferred suggestions of Showa (US 2020/0005826 A1) as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to routinely modify the inclination angle of the lower shaft portion (at 23) in the course of routine optimization/experimentation and thereby obtain various standard optimized relationships including those set forth in claims 15 and 16 in order to arrive at a prescribed surface of inclination for which the adhesive (AD) can be affixed to the inclined surface portion (23) of spindle shaft (21).
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).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
Additionally, as per claim 17, Showa (US 2020/0005826 A1) further discloses, wherein an adhesive (e.g., AD; paragraph [0019] - see Fig. 3) is disposed between the shaft inclined portion (23) and the inner peripheral surface (e.g., 40i) of the shaft through hole (e.g., 40).
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1) and Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1), as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1).
See the discussion of Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1) and Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1).
As per claim 12, Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) (in combination with
Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1)) discloses a spindle motor (e.g., see Fig. 2) comprising base plate (e.g. 12) - see Figs. 1A, 2) that becomes a part of a housing (which includes cover (2) and baseplate (12)) of a disk drive device (e.g., 100) and is made of a metal die-cast member (e.g. see paragraph [0089]), comprising: a bottom wall portion (e.g., portion of baseplate that is flat and at the bottom-most part of the baseplate (12); see designator (12) in Fig. 2) - that extends perpendicularly to a rotation axis of a disk (e.g., 1) extending in a vertical direction (e.g. along the axis of the shaft as seen in Fig. 2); a cylindrical wall portion (e.g., including portion (12D) as depicted in Fig. 2) that protrudes upward from an upper surface of the bottom wall portion (e.g. designator (12) as depicted in Fig. 2) along the rotation axis and has a shaft through hole (e.g., 12C) through which a shaft (e.g., 11) is inserted; the shaft (e.g., 11) which is configured to extend along the rotation axis and has a lower end inserted through the shaft through hole (e.g., 12C) (see Fig. 2); an annular stator core (e.g., 35) that is disposed on an upper surface of the base plate (12) and surrounds the shaft (11); a rotor (e.g., 10) that rotates about the rotation axis; and a bearing unit ((50) - FDB - see Fig. 3) that supports the rotor (e.g., 10) to be rotatable about the shaft as the rotation axis.
As per claim 12, Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) (in combination with
Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1)) remains silent with regard to wherein the shaft has a shaft inclined portion which is disposed at the lower end of the shaft and has an outer diameter that decreases toward a lower side in an axial direction. Additionally, Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) remains silent with regard to the features of claims 13-20.
Such shafts (with lower inclined portions as per claim 12, as well as the features set forth in claims 13-20) used for spindle motors in hard disk drives, are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1) discloses an analogous spindle motor, in the same field of endeavor as Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) (in combination with
Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1)), wherein, as per claim 12, a spindle motor shaft (e.g., 41 - see, inter alia, Figs. 1,4, 11) has a shaft inclined portion (e.g., 831 - see Fig. 11) which is disposed at the lower end of the shaft (41) and has an outer diameter that decreases toward a lower side in an axial direction - see, inter alia, Figs. 4, 11.
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 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 shaft of Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) (in combination with Sakurada et al. (US 2019/0093234 A1) in view of Watton (US 2021/0060667 A1)) as having a shaft inclined portion which is disposed at a lower end of the shaft and has an outer diameter that decreases toward a lower side in an axial direction, as taught by Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1), in order to advantageously "prevent a gas arranged in an interior of a housing from leaking out of the housing" and to further "achieve an improvement in perpendicularity of the upper end surface of the thrust portion with respect to the outside surface of the shaft." See paragraphs [0018-0019] of Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 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.
The limitation set forth in claim 13, reciting "wherein a minimum inner diameter of the shaft through hole is smaller than an outer diameter of an upper end of the shaft inclined portion and is larger than an outer diameter of a lower end of the shaft inclined portion before the shaft is inserted through the shaft through hole" (emphasis added) is considered to is considered a product-by-process limitation.
The product by process limitations are directed to the final product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17(footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product "gleaned" from the process limitations or steps, which must be determined in a "product by process" claim limitation, and not the patentability of the process limitations. Moreover, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in "product-by-process" claim limitation or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
The final product (after the shaft is inserted into and through the shaft through hole of the base plate) limitation derived from the claimed "process limitation" of " wherein a minimum inner diameter of the shaft through hole is smaller than an outer diameter of an upper end of the shaft inclined portion and is larger than an outer diameter of a lower end of the shaft inclined portion before the shaft is inserted through the shaft through hole" fails to result in a structural difference between the combined teachings of Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) in view of Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1) and the claimed final product, at least at it applies to the product limitation(s) "gleaned" from the process limitation(s). As such, the combined teachings of Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) in view of Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1) are seen to meet this limitation as it applies to the patentability of the final structure.
As per claim 14, Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1) further discloses wherein the shaft (4) has a shaft contact portion (e.g., 81 - see Figs. 4, 11) that is disposed above the shaft inclined portion (831) in the axial direction and contacts an inner peripheral surface of the shaft through hole (e.g., 230), and wherein an axial length of the shaft contact portion (e.g., 912) is longer than an axial length of the shaft inclined portion (831) - see Figs. 4, 11.
Additionally, as per claims 15 and 16, although Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1) as applied to Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1), remains silent regarding wherein in a cross section including the rotation axis, the shaft inclined portion has an inclination angle of 10° or less with respect to the rotation axis (claim 3) and/or wherein in the cross section including the rotation axis, the shaft inclined portion has an inclination angle of 5° or more with respect to the rotation axis (claim 4), given the teachings and suggestions of Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1) for providing such an inclined shaft portion, using the teachings of Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1) as a demonstrative template, it would have been within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art to routinely modify the angles of inclination of (831) (in the ranges set forth in claims 3 and 4) in the course of routine optimization/experimentation and thereby obtain various standard optimized relationships including those set forth in claims 3 and 4.
That is, given the express conceptual teachings and implied/inferred suggestions of Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1) as a whole, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to routinely modify the inclination angle of the lower shaft portion (at 831) in the course of routine optimization/experimentation and thereby obtain various standard optimized relationships including those set forth in claims 3 and 4 in order to arrive at a prescribed surface of inclination for which the adhesive (e.g., 7) can be affixed to the inclined surface portion of spindle shaft (41).
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).
Moreover, the instant disclosure does not set forth evidence ascribing unexpected results due to the claimed dimensions. See Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1984), which held that the dimensional limitations failed to point out a feature which performed and operated any differently from the prior art.
As per claim 17, Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1) further discloses wherein an adhesive (e.g., 7) is disposed between the shaft inclined portion (831) and the inner peripheral surface of the shaft through hole (230) - see, inter alia, Figs. 4, 11.
As per claim 18, Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1) further discloses wherein the shaft through hole (230) includes a columnar portion (at (81) - see Figs. 4, 11) that extends parallel to the rotation axis (e.g., J1) and contacts an outer peripheral surface of the shaft (41) and an enlarged hole portion (e.g. the wider hole portion of (230) that is axially lower than the columnar portion - see Figs. 4, 11) that is disposed on a lower side of the columnar portion in the axial direction (Figs. 4, 11) and has an inner diameter larger than an inner diameter of the columnar portion (see Figs. 4, 11), and wherein an upper end of the enlarged hole portion is located above the upper end of the shaft inclined portion (831) in the axial direction - see Figs. 4, 11.
As per claim 19, Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1) further discloses wherein an inner diameter of the enlarged hole portion increases toward the lower side in the axial direction - see Figs. 4, 11.
As per claim 20, wherein the shaft through hole has a connecting portion (e.g., at 232 as depicted in Fig. 4 and/or 233 in Fig. 11) that connects the columnar portion and the enlarged hole portion, and wherein an inner diameter of the connecting portion increases toward the lower side in the axial direction - see Figs. 4, 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 8-11 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 disk drive base plate with patting lines formed by opposing molds and/or deburring tools.
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