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 6, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) 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.
(ii) 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.
(iii) 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 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to claim 5 (line 2), the term "the inner peripheral surface" should be changed to the term --an inner peripheral surface--.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) in view of Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1).
As per claim 1, Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 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 1, Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 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 2-8 and 10.
Such shafts (with lower inclined portions as per claim 1, as well as the features set forth in claims 2-8 and 10) 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), wherein, as per claim 1,
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) 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 1, 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 2, 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 3 and 4, 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 5, 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 6, 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 7, 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 8, 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.
As per claim 9, both Sugiki (US 2010/0277833 A1) and Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1) disclose a disk drive device (e.g., 100 or 1, respectively) comprising: the spindle motor according to claim 1; a disk (e.g., 1 or 11, respectively) that rotates about the rotation axis by the spindle motor; and a head (e.g., 3 or 131, respectively) that reads and writes information from and to the disk.
As per claim 10, Sugi et al. (US 2013/0308224 A1) further discloses wherein the inside of the housing (e.g., 14) is filled with a gas having a lower density than air (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0040]).
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 spindle motors are provided with thickened base portions proximate the shaft insertion hole of a baseplate of the disk drive.
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