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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of election of species in the reply filed on 7/16/20 is acknowledged. Therefore, Examiner will exam elected embodiment and associated claims.
The new added claims (11, 12, 13) are belong to non-elected embodiment. These claims are withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In Claim 1, the limitations “the finger grip comprising one or more indentations on a top surface of the RBD housing sized to receive finger tips” are unclear since neither the written description nor the drawings appear to describe/show the claimed features. Examiner request Applicant to clearly indicate the claimed limitations, on the drawing, in the response.
In Claim 1, the limitations “one or more hanger(s) coupled to the RBD housing and configured to couple to a sidewall of the RBD enclosure: a locking mechanism on the RBD device configured to engage an ejection mechanism of the RBD enclosure” are unclear since neither the written description nor the drawings appear to describe/show the claimed features. Examiner request Applicant to clearly indicate the claimed limitations, on the drawing, in the response.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
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 limitations, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (see above), second paragraph, and/or discussed in the above claim objections 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.
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 of this title, 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 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fussell (US 5886869) in view of Arnouse (US 20130308265).
Regarding claim 1, Fussell disclosed A removable bootable drive (RBD) device (abstract, see also fig 2-9) comprising: an RBD housing (at least fig 7-9, the housing); a finger grip coupled to the RBD housing (at least fig 2-9, indentations on a top surface of the RBD housing sized to receive finger tips), the finger grip comprising one or more indentations on a top surface of the RBD housing sized to receive finger tips (at least fig 2-9, one or more indentations on a top surface of the RBD housing sized to receive finger tips); a quick-insertion guide formed in an RBD enclosure configured to receive the RBD device (at least fig 2-9, there is at least one quick-insertion guide formed in an RBD enclosure configured to receive the RBD device); one or more hanger(s) coupled to the RBD housing and configured to couple to a sidewall of the RBD enclosure (at least fig 2-9, one or more hanger(s) coupled to the RBD housing and configured to couple to a sidewall of the RBD enclosure); a locking mechanism on the RBD device configured to engage an ejection mechanism of the RBD enclosure (at least fig 2-9, col. 4, lines 35-55, col. 5, lines 30-59); a robust RBD interface coupled to the RBD housing (at least fig 2-9); a storage device coupled to the robust RBD interface (at least fig 2-9); wherein, in operation, the finger grip provides a useful grip (at least fig 2-9, and useful grip structure configured to be gripped by a user) for an entity performing a task of mating the quick-insertion guide of the RBD enclosure with a corresponding portion of a small form factor (SFF) device (at least fig 2-9) to facilitate operationally coupling (at least fig 2-9) the robust RBD interface with a corresponding power and data interface comprising a SATA port of the RBD enclosure.
Fussell lacks teaching: the storage device has boot software and operating system software stored thereon; when the SFF device and RBD device are operationally combined to form an SFF computing device (already disclosed by the primary art, at least fig 2-9), the SFF computing device is bootable using the boot software and the SFF computing device operates in accordance with the operating system software, wherein the storage device includes an M Dot Two (M.2) drive or a Serial AT Attachment (SA TA) drive.
Arnouse teaches a bootable drive comprising: the storage device has boot software and operating system software stored thereon (paragraph [44-45], [70-73], [77-79], [50-53], [79-81]); when the SFF computing device is bootable using the boot software and the SFF computing device operates in accordance with the operating system software, wherein the storage device includes an M Dot Two (M.2) drive or a Serial AT Attachment (SA TA) drive (paragraph [56]-[59]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature (see above discussion) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to primary art’s storage device) so as to have (Fussell in view of Arnouse): the storage device has boot software and operating system software stored thereon (Arnouse); when the SFF device and RBD device are operationally combined to form an SFF computing device (already disclosed by the primary art, at least fig 2-9), the SFF computing device is bootable using the boot software (Arnouse) and the SFF computing device operates in accordance with the operating system software (Arnouse), wherein the storage device includes an M Dot Two (M.2) drive or a Serial AT Attachment (SA TA) drive (Arnouse).
The motivation to modify the previous discussed structure with the current feature is to provide bootable feature and/or meet the standard requirement and/or reduce the cost.
Regarding claim 2, modified Fussell further disclosed the storage device includes a solid state drive (S SD) (see Arnouse’s paragraph [91]-[93]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature and modify to previous discussed structure so as to further enhance the performance of the modified structure.
Regarding claim 3, modified Fussell further disclosed the storage device includes an internal drive enclosed within the RBD housing (at least fig 2-9).
Regarding claim 5, modified Fussell further disclosed the robust RBD interface is formed of a sturdy material (at least fig 2; Examiner consider the interface allow user to use, or reuse, it more than one time which is a sturdy material; see also fig 2-9).
Regarding claim 7, modified Fussell further disclosed a first end of the RBD housing is narrower than a second end of the RBD housing to form a chamfered housing (at least fig 2-9).
Regarding claim 9, modified Fussell further disclosed a Radio Frequency Identifier (RFID) chip (Arnouse; paragraph [43]-[45]) or a radio opaque identifier. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, or at the time of the invention was made, to include this feature and modify to previous discussed structure so as to further enhance the modified structure.
Regarding claim 10, modified Fussell further disclosed the quick-insertion guide includes a quick-insertion groove or a protrusion (at least fig 2-9).
Claims 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fussell (US 5886869) in view of Arnouse (US 20130308265) further in view of Delprete (US 5820391).
With regard claim 6, the primary art and/or the modified structure discussed in the preceding claim disclosed all the subject matter except for the robust RBD interface is formed of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polycarbonate, or modified PMMA or polycarbonate.
Delprete further teaches a device comprising: the interface is formed of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), polycarbonate (col. 4, lines 40-50), or modified PMMA or polycarbonate.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to include this feature (using the known material as discussed above) and modify to previous discussed structure (modified to the robust RBD interface, so that is formed of the above discussed known material) so as to further reduce the cost of the modified structure by using the known material; and/or increase the life time of the device.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicants’ remarks that, “Furthermore, neither Kumar nor Wu disclose indentations sized to receive finger tips. The Office Action characterizes a generic flat surface as a "finger grip," but that is not the structure recited in amended claim 1. More specifically, the figures of Wu depict a rectangular enclosure and a key lock 40 - no finger tip indentations on the removable device's top surface. Accordingly, the cited art does not disclose the indentations as claimed. Moreover, Neither Kumar nor Wu disclose hangers on the removable drive that engage the enclosure sidewall. At most, the canister of Kumar and the cradle of Wu do not add this RBD-side hardware (see, e.g., Kumar FIGs. 1 - 3; Wu text and FIGs. 2 - 4). For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection of claim 1 be withdrawn. Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 10 and 11-14, which depend from claim 1, are allowable to the extent they depend from an allowable base claim, and potentially for other reasons as well. Accordingly, Applicant requests the rejections be withdrawn.” (pages 5 to the end).
Examiner’s Answer: the Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that:
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to current ground of rejection in the office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5420. The examiner can normally be reached on PHP: M-Th: 8:30-12:30; 2:30-8:30pm.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached on 571.270.5528. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JERRY WU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841