DETAILED ACTION
The present office action is responsive to the applicant’s filling an RCE on 04/16/2025.
The application has claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, and 14-20 present. All the claims have been examined. Claims 1, 5, 9 and 14 have been amended.
Previous rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been withdrawn as necessitated by the claim amendments.
This action is made Final.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 9 “transferring said stream of descriptive data to an e-paper driver” is a repeated limitation from line 8. 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 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 1-3 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. (US 20060049248), in view of “A multi-functional tablet built for backcountry survival” by C.C. Weiss (https://newatlas.com/earl-tablet-backcountry-survival/27446/) published May 10 2013 as available in July 11, 2017 (hereinafter Weiss), Chilukuri et al (US 20110154061), Aktas (US 20160180092), Hesselink (US 20110150436), Mahmood (US 11321652) and Barnett et al. (US 20150269497).
In regards to claim 1, Becker teaches an e-paper system disposed upon a surface of an electronic data storage unit comprising: a processing unit embedded within an environmental control board (interpreted as embedded on the devices) configured to receive said data stored within said electronic data storage data unit and transfer said data to an e-paper driver; (see abstract and at least para 12-14, 25-26, 31; teaches an e-paper device that has data stored in the memory and access the data to be displayed. The data is descripted in association to a component); wherein said e-paper driver is configured to generate a label on said e-paper system (see at least para 31-32: generate and display data -label).
Becker doesn’t specifically teach wherein said electronic storage unit is contained within a ruggedized housing.
Weiss teaches wherein said electronic storage unit is contained within a ruggedized housing(see pages 1-3: teaches a display device with an e-ink display built for outdoors: “Earl is a bit more rugged and grizzled than the average tablet. It uses a waterproof case that can hold its breath in 3 feet (91 cm) of water for 30 minutes. It is also dust-, shock- and mud-proof and works in temperatures between 0 and 50ºC (32 to 122ºF) and altitudes as high as land rises (40,000 feet/12,192 m – more than 10,000 feet/3,000 m higher than Everest)”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Weiss, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides means to protect the device and allow to operate in many environments (see page 2-3).
Becker doesn’t specifically teach configured to automatically encrypt data.
Chilukuri teaches configured to automatically encrypt data (see para 25-26: In one or more embodiments, during a secure mode of operation, the data secure memory/storage control system 250 may be configured to encrypt a data stream associated with a multimedia (e.g., text, image, audio, video) content to be processed (e.g., rendered on a display unit) on the data processing device 200 based on a device-specific security key generated by the security key generation/management block 206 of the data secure memory/storage control system 250).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Chilukuri, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would have been motivated because it provides means to secured data (see abstract and para 25-26).
Beker teaches display data on a label of the device from the storage unit (see para 31-32) as taught above, but doesn’t specifically mentions wherein said e-paper driver is configured to dynamically generate and update a label on said e-paper system based on metadata stored within said electronic data unit.
Mahmood teaches wherein said e-paper driver is configured to dynamically generate and update a label on said e-paper system based on metadata stored within said electronic data unit (see at least: col 15 lines 24-26; col 22 lines 25-28; col 35 lines 5-18: teaches controlling instruction for devices with e-paper display where, its programed to dynamically update data provided on the display. As needed the data can be updated on the label as programmed when a change or when data is updated).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mahmood with the teachings of Becker in order to dynamically update the data provided on the label, since by doing so it enhances the ability to see updated data within the display.
Beker teaches a label (see para 31-32) as taught above, but doesn’t specifically teach said label being operably linked to enforce data encryption and user access policies within the storage unit, and further configurable by a user via a software utility program to define rules for display of selected metadata attributes.
Aktas teaches said label being operably linked to enforce data encryption and user access policies within the storage unit, and further configurable by a user via a software utility program to define rules for display of selected metadata attributes (see para 15, 21, 26, 30-33: teaches securing data by encryption and access policies on a portable device which restrict how/when to provide access to data to trusted application. Para 33: “Policies 144 can limit the access, data, communication etc. to portable secure storage device 104 to help protect portable secure storage device 104 against malware attacks”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Aktas with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would have been motivated because it provides means to secured data for access only by the appropriate users (see abstract and para 32-33).
Beker doesn’t specifically teach a docking device, wherein said docking device is configured to read and copy said data stored within said e-paper system and ensure encryption of said data.
Hesselink teaches a docking device, wherein said docking device is configured to read and copy said data stored within said e-paper system and ensure encryption of said data (see FIG. 5A-B and at least para 18, 32: teaches a docking device that stores, reads/writes files to a storage device. The docking device has means to encrypt the files through encryption algorithms within the integrated circuits of the docking device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Hesselink with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would have been motivated because it provides means to secured data for access only by the appropriate users (see para 18).
Beker doesn’t specifically teach an erase control operably linked to said processing unit, configured to selectively erase stored contents and/or displayed information associated with said storage unit.
Barnett teaches an erase control operably linked to said processing unit, configured to selectively erase stored contents and/or displayed information associated with said storage unit (see abstract and at least para 95: teaches encryption devices and security features including destroy/erase data stored on the device upon tampering).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Barnett with the teachings of Becker in order to provide security features when device is tampered with, because it allows for the owner to know that the data is secured in case of unauthorized access to the storage device.
In regards to claim 5, Beker teaches a method using e-paper system disposed upon a surface of an electronic data storage device, wherein said e-paper system is configured to indicate contents of said electronic storage device (see abstract and at least para 12-14, 25-26, 31-32; teaches an e-paper device that has data stored in the memory and access the data to be displayed. The data is descripted in association to a component): comprising acquiring data via a processing unit, wherein said data is transmitted to and stored within said electronic data storage unit; abstracting and editing said stored data to form a stream of descriptive data, transferring said stream of descriptive data to an e-paper driver (see para 31-32: the example given is description associated to a component or to the specific users need); formatting said stream of descriptive data for display upon an e paper disposed upon said surface of said electronic data storage for observation by human users of said system (see at least para 25-26, 31-32: obtains information from the user and associated content (The data is descripted in association to a component) and generate and adapts and display data on the e-paper display “interpret the contents of the memory device and provide processed data to the display. By manipulating, or processing, the contents of the memory device 60, the display on, for example, the e-paper, can be controlled. By providing processing unit 90, it is, for example, possible to display graphics on the display. For example, a customer-specific logo or other graphic design can be processed and displayed. Additionally, in accordance with this embodiment, it is possible to provide effects such as color changes for the text or graphics and provide animations as well”); wherein said e-paper driver is configured to generate a label (see at least para 31-32: generate a label from data).
Becker doesn’t specifically teach configured to automatically encrypt data.
Chilukuri teaches configured to automatically encrypt data (see para 25-26: In one or more embodiments, during a secure mode of operation, the data secure memory/storage control system 250 may be configured to encrypt a data stream associated with a multimedia (e.g., text, image, audio, video) content to be processed (e.g., rendered on a display unit) on the data processing device 200 based on a device-specific security key generated by the security key generation/management block 206 of the data secure memory/storage control system 250).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Chilukuri, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would have been motivated because it provides means to secured data (see abstract and para 25-26).
Becker doesn’t specifically teach contained within a ruggedized housing.
Weiss teaches contained within a ruggedized housing (see pages 1-3: teaches a display device with an e-ink display built for outdoors: “Earl is a bit more rugged and grizzled than the average tablet. It uses a waterproof case that can hold its breath in 3 feet (91 cm) of water for 30 minutes. It is also dust-, shock- and mud-proof and works in temperatures between 0 and 50ºC (32 to 122ºF) and altitudes as high as land rises (40,000 feet/12,192 m – more than 10,000 feet/3,000 m higher than Everest)”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Weiss, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides means to protect the device and allow to operate in many environments (see page 2-3).
Beker teaches display data on a label on the device (see para 31-32) as taught above, but doesn’t specifically mentions wherein said e-paper driver is configured to dynamically generate and update a label based on metadata stored within said electronic data storage unit.
Mahmood teaches wherein said e-paper driver is configured to dynamically generate and update a label based on metadata stored within said electronic data storage unit (see at least: col 15 lines 24-26; col 22 lines 25-28; col 35 lines 5-18: teaches controlling instruction for devices with e-paper display where, its programed to dynamically update data provided on the display. As needed the data can be updated on the label as programmed when a change or when data is updated).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mahmood with the teachings of Beker in order to dynamically update the data provided on the label, since by doing so it enhances the ability to see updated data within the display.
Beker doesn’t specifically mentions said label being operably linked to enforcement of encryption and access control policies within said storage unit, and further configurable by a user via a software utility program to define rules for display of selected metadata attributes.
Aktas teaches said label being operably linked to enforcement of encryption and access control policies within said storage unit, and further configurable by a user via a software utility program to define rules for display of selected metadata attributes (see para 15, 21, 26, 30-33: teaches securing data by encryption and access policies on a portable device which restrict how/when to provide access to data to trusted application. Para 33: “Policies 144 can limit the access, data, communication etc. to portable secure storage device 104 to help protect portable secure storage device 104 against malware attacks”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Aktas with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would have been motivated because it provides means to secured data for access only by the appropriate users (see abstract and para 32-33).
Beker doesn’t specifically comprising an erase control operably linked to said processing unit, configured to selectively erase stored contents and/or displayed information associated with said storage unit.
Barnett teaches comprising an erase control operably linked to said processing unit, configured to selectively erase stored contents and/or displayed information associated with said storage unit (see abstract and at least para 95: teaches encryption devices and security features including destroy/erase data stored on the device upon tampering).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Barnett with the teachings of Becker in order to provide security features when device is tampered with, because it allows for the owner to know that the data is secured in case of unauthorized access to the storage device.
Beker doesn’t specifically teach docking said e-paper system on a docking device, wherein said docking device is configured to read and copy said data stored within said e-paper system and ensure encryption of said data.
Hesselink teaches docking said e-paper system on a docking device, wherein said docking device is configured to read and copy said data stored within said e-paper system and ensure encryption of said data (see FIG. 5A-B and at least para 18, 32: teaches a docking device that stores, reads/writes files to a storage device. The docking device has means to encrypt the files through encryption algorithms within the integrated circuits of the docking device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Hesselink with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would have been motivated because it provides means to secured data for access only by the appropriate users (see para 18).
In regards to claims 2 and 6, Becker doesn’t specifically teach wherein said data stored within said electronic data storage unit includes data representative ownership, version and date last used, security class and capacity available.
However, Becker on para 31 teaches “the data displayed on the e-paper is customer-specific data such as a reseller's name and address, etc, and/or any other information related to the component that is desired to be displayed on the e-paper”.
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 use Beckers teachings in order to have any descriptive information needed, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides “means to display any other information related to the component that is desired to be displayed on the e-paper” (see para 31).
In regards to claims 3, Becker further teaches wherein said data stored within said electronic data storage unit is output to said e-paper displayed upon the surface of said electronic data storage unit (see FIG. 2 and para 31; applied directly on the housing).
In regards to claim 7, Becker teaches wherein said data stored within said electronic data storage unit is output to said e-paper displayed upon the surface of said electronic data storage unit (see FIG. 2 and para 31; e-paper displayed upon the surface).
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker et al. (US 20060049248), in view of Chilukuri et al (US 20110154061), Aktas (US 20160180092), Hesselink (US 20110150436), Mahmood (US 11321652), and Barnett et al. (US 20150269497).
In regards to claim 9, Becker teaches an e-paper system disposed upon a surface of an electronic data storage unit comprising: a processing unit configured to retrieve data stored and transmitted within said electronic data storage unit and transfer said data to an e-paper driver (see abstract and at least para 12-14, 25-26, 31; teaches an e-paper device that has data stored in the memory and access the data to be displayed. The data is descripted in association to a component); wherein said e-paper driver is configured to display data upon e-paper disposed upon the surface of said electronic data storage unit via gathering said data from said processing unit (see FIG. 2 and abstract and at least para 12-14, 26-32; the data is transmitted to be displayed. On para 31; applied directly on the housing), and wherein said e-paper system generates a label (see para 31-32: with the data associated to users need, generates a label to display on the e-paper).
Becker doesn’t specifically teach wherein said data stored within said electronic data storage unit includes metadata comprising at least ownership, version and date last used, security class and capacity available.
However, Becker on para 31 teaches “the data displayed on the e-paper is customer-specific data such as a reseller's name and address, etc, and/or any other information related to the component that is desired to be displayed on the e-paper.”
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 use Becker’s teachings in order to have any descriptive information needed, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides “means to display any other information related to the component that is desired to be displayed on the e-paper” (see para 31).
Becker doesn’t specifically teach configured to automatically encrypt data.
Chilukuri teaches configured to automatically encrypt data (see para 25-26: In one or more embodiments, during a secure mode of operation, the data secure memory/storage control system 250 may be configured to encrypt a data stream associated with a multimedia (e.g., text, image, audio, video) content to be processed (e.g., rendered on a display unit) on the data processing device 200 based on a device-specific security key generated by the security key generation/management block 206 of the data secure memory/storage control system 250).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Chilukuri, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides means to secured data (see abstract and para 25-26).
Becker doesn’t specifically teach a docking device, wherein said docking device is configured to read and copy said data stored within said e-paper system and ensure encryption of said data.
Hesselink teaches a docking device, wherein said docking device is configured to read and copy said data stored within said e-paper system and ensure encryption of said data (see FIG. 5A-B and at least para 18, 32: teaches a docking device that stores, reads/writes files to a storage device. The docking device has means to encrypt the files through encryption algorithms within the integrated circuits of the docking device).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Hesselink with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides means to secured data for access only by the appropriate users (see para 18).
Beker teaches display data on the device -generate a label (see para 31-32), as taught above, but doesn’t specifically mentions wherein said e-paper driver is configured to dynamically generate and update a label on said e-paper system based on metadata.
Mahmood teaches wherein said e-paper driver is configured to dynamically generate and update a label on said e-paper system based on metadata (see at least: col 15 lines 24-26; col 22 lines 25-28; col 35 lines 5-18: teaches controlling instruction for devices with e-paper display where, its programed to dynamically update data provided on the display. As needed the data can be updated on the label as programmed when a change or when data is updated).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mahmood with the teachings of Becker in order to dynamically update the data provided on the label, since by doing so it enhances the ability to see updated data within the display.
Beker doesn’t specifically teaches said label being operably linked to enforce data encryption and user access policies within the storage unit, and further configurable by a user via a software utility program to define rules for display of selected metadata attributes.
Aktas teaches said label being operably linked to enforce data encryption and user access policies within the storage unit, and further configurable by a user via a software utility program to define rules for display of selected metadata attributes (see para 15, 21, 26, 30-33: teaches securing data by encryption and access policies on a portable device which restrict how/when to provide access to data to trusted application. Para 33: “Policies 144 can limit the access, data, communication etc. to portable secure storage device 104 to help protect portable secure storage device 104 against malware attacks”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Aktas with a reasonable expectation of success, since it would have been motivated because it provides means to secured data for access only by the appropriate users (see abstract and para 32-33).
Beker doesn’t specifically teach an erase control operably linked to said processing unit, configured to selectively erase stored contents and/or displayed information associated with said storage unit.
Barnett teaches an erase control operably linked to said processing unit, configured to selectively erase stored contents and/or displayed information associated with said storage unit (see abstract and at least para 95: teaches encryption devices and security features including destroy/erase data stored on the device upon tampering).
As such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Barnett with the teachings of Becker in order to provide security features when device is tampered with, because it allows for the owner to know that the data is secured in case of unauthorized access to the storage device.
Claims 10-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, Chilukuri, Aktas, Hesselink, Mahmood and Barnett, as provided in claim 9 above, and further in view of “A multi-functional tablet built for backcountry survival” by C.C. Weiss (https://newatlas.com/earl-tablet-backcountry-survival/27446/) published May 10 2013 as available in July 11, 2017 (hereinafter Weiss), and further in view of ATP “What is MVMe SSD and What are the Benefits?” (https://www.atpinc.com/blog/what-is-nvme-pcie-ssd-benefits) published 10-25-2018 (hereinafter ATP).
In regards to claims 10, Becker doesn’t specifically teach wherein said electronic data storage unit is constructed to respond to environmental changes.
Weiss teaches wherein said electronic data storage unit is constructed to respond to environmental changes (see pages 1-3: teaches a display device with an e-ink display built for outdoors: “Earl is a bit more rugged and grizzled than the average tablet. It uses a waterproof case that can hold its breath in 3 feet (91 cm) of water for 30 minutes. It is also dust-, shock- and mud-proof and works in temperatures between 0 and 50ºC (32 to 122ºF) and altitudes as high as land rises (40,000 feet/12,192 m – more than 10,000 feet/3,000 m higher than Everest)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Weiss, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides means to protect the device and allow to operate in many environments even when taken to places with a range of temperatures (see page 2-3).
Becker doesn’t specifically teach utilizing a Non-Volatile Memory Express (NVMe) interface for high-speed data transfer.
ATP teaches utilizes a Non-Volatile Memory Express (NVMe) interface for high-speed data transfer (see pages 1-3 teaches using NVMe over others as provides fast access, less power consumption, acceleration of access of critical data. See “What are the benefits of the NVMe specification?” and “What businesses will benefit most from NVMe?” sections).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of ATP, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides means to access the data quicker and use less power.
In regards to claims 11, Becker doesn’t specifically teach wherein said electronic data storage unit is watertight.
Weiss teaches teach wherein said electronic data storage unit is watertight (see pages 1-3: teaches a display device with an e-ink display built for outdoors: “Earl is a bit more rugged and grizzled than the average tablet. It uses a waterproof case that can hold its breath in 3 feet (91 cm) of water for 30 minutes. It is also dust-, shock- and mud-proof and works in temperatures between 0 and 50ºC (32 to 122ºF) and altitudes as high as land rises (40,000 feet/12,192 m – more than 10,000 feet/3,000 m higher than Everest)”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Weiss, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides means to protect the device and allow to operate in many environments including an accidental drop on water (see page 2-3).
In regards to claims 12, Becker doesn’t specifically teach wherein said electronic data storage unit is hardened to resist external damage.
Weiss teaches teach wherein said electronic data storage unit is hardened to resist external damage (see pages 1-3: teaches a display device with an e-ink display built for outdoors: “Earl is a bit more rugged and grizzled than the average tablet. It uses a waterproof case that can hold its breath in 3 feet (91 cm) of water for 30 minutes. It is also dust-, shock- and mud-proof and works in temperatures between 0 and 50ºC (32 to 122ºF) and altitudes as high as land rises (40,000 feet/12,192 m – more than 10,000 feet/3,000 m higher than Everest)”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Weiss, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides means to protect the device and allow to operate in many environments (see page 2-3).
In regards to claims 14, Becker as modified by ATP teach NVMe as taught above in claim 10, but doesn’t specifically teach wherein said electronic data storage unit is ruggedized.
Weiss teaches wherein said electronic data storage unit is ruggedized (see pages 1-3: teaches a display device with an e-ink display built for outdoors: “Earl is a bit more rugged and grizzled than the average tablet. It uses a waterproof case that can hold its breath in 3 feet (91 cm) of water for 30 minutes. It is also dust-, shock- and mud-proof and works in temperatures between 0 and 50ºC (32 to 122ºF) and altitudes as high as land rises (40,000 feet/12,192 m – more than 10,000 feet/3,000 m higher than Everest)”.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Weiss, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides means to protect the device and allow to operate in many environments (see page 2-3).
Claims 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, Chilukuri, Aktas, Hesselink, Mahmood, Barnett, Weiss and ATP, as provided in claims 10 and 14 above, and further in view Supermicro.com (https://web.archive.org/web/20181227061014/https://www.supermicro.com/en/products/ultra) as available December 27, 2018 (hereinafter Supermicro).
In regards to claim 15, Becker doesn’t specifically teach wherein said NVMe interface is hot-swappable.
Supermicro teaches wherein said NVMe interface is hot-swappable and utilizes a robust cam-action lever (see pages 3-12 teaches many examples of the use of hot-swappable interface for Nvme storage data).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Supermicro, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides a means to allow one to quickly remove and replace a storage device.
In regards to claim 16, Becker doesn’t specifically teach wherein said NVMe interface enables said electronic data storage unit to be replaced without shutting down said system.
Supermicro teaches wherein said NVMe interface enables said electronic data storage unit to be replaced without shutting down said system (see pages 3-12: teaches the use of hot-swappable interface).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Supermicro, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides a means to allow one to quickly remove and replace a storage device easily on powered systems, avoiding having to shut down the system.
Claim 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, Chilukuri, Aktas, Hesselink, Mahmood, Barnett, Weiss and ATP, as provided in claim 10 above, and further in view of Albinali (US 20150057967).
In regards to claim 17, Becker doesn’t teach wherein said electronic data storage unit features an integrated battery backup to power said e-paper display in the instance of a power failure event.
Albinali teaches wherein said electronic data storage unit features an integrated battery backup to power said e-paper display in the instance of a power failure event. (see para 37: using battery backup when first energy source fails).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Albinali, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides means to provide fail safe (see para 37).
Claims 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, Chilukuri, Aktas, Hesselink, Mahmood, Barnett, Weiss and ATP, as provided in claims 10 and 12 above, and further in view of Militaryaerospace.com “Small chassis and enclosures take on the heat”
(https://www.militaryaerospace.com/computers/article/16709838/small-chassis-and-enclosures-take-on-the-heat as available) Feb 1, 2017 by John Keller (hereinafter Keller).
In regards to claim 18, Becker doesn’t specifically teach, wherein said housing that is hardened comprises of a composite material that includes a layer of carbon fiber for enhanced durability and resistance to physical damage.
Keller teaches wherein said housing that is hardened comprises of a composite material that includes a layer of carbon fiber for enhanced durability and resistance to physical damage (see page 3: teaches “uses carbon fiber packaging to cut size and weight from military embedded systems”. Page 8 teaches the use of carbon fiber which provides light weight and make it strong enclosure).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Keller, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides means to reduce weight resulting in a strong enclosure (see page 3 and 8).
Claims 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Becker, Chilukuri, Aktas, Hesselink, Mahmood, Barnett, Weiss, ATP and Keller, as provided in claims 18 above, and further in view of Ricordi et al. (US 20090012806).
In regards to claim 19, Becker doesn’t specifically teach, further comprising of an integrated GPS module within said housing to provide location tracking and geotagging of the data stored within said electronic data storage unit.
Ricordi teaches further comprising of an integrated GPS module within said housing to provide location tracking and geotagging of the data stored within said electronic data storage unit (see para 28-29: teaches using gps for geo-tagging and the use of GPS to retrieve device if its stolen).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Ricordi in order to use GPS and provide Geo-tagging on data, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides means that facilitates the organization of data objects based on location and to locate the device (see para 29).
In regards to claim 20, Becker doesn’t specifically teach, wherein said geotagging and location tracking data is secured and encrypted through said software utility program.
Ricordi teaches wherein said geotagging and location tracking data is secured and encrypted through said software utility program (see para 22, 28-29: teaches using encryption that enables confidentiality of the data).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Becker and the teachings of Ricordi in order to encrypt the capture data, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would have been motivated because it provides means for security of the data (see para 28-29).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F (9:00-6:00pm MT) 11:00am-8:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MARIO M VELEZ-LOPEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 2118
/SCOTT T BADERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2118