DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the application filed on July 19, 2022 in which claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 20 are pending, of which claims 1, 14, and 18 are in independent form.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because step 413 in Fig. 4 contains a typo. The examiner recommends a replacement drawing with step 413 stating ‘determining account benefits.’ 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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 16 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “about 0
˚
C to 50
˚
C” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 0
˚
C to 50
˚
C” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One of ordinary skill would not understand the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. One person of ordinary skill may think that +/- 10
˚
C (anywhere from -10
˚
C to 60
˚
C) meets this language, while another person of ordinary skill may think that +/- 25
˚
C (anywhere from -25
˚
C to 75
˚
C) meets this language.
Claim 19 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "after the step of connecting" in the last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since the independent claim 18 refers to “connecting the portable audio content device to a computing system” and “connecting the portable audio content device to a USB port of a vehicle compartment.” It is unclear which “step of connecting” claim 19 is referring to.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 1 refers to ‘the flash memory’ in the last line of the claim. However, claim 1 only previously refers to ‘a memory.’ The examiner recommends amending claim 1 to state “at least a memory and a memory controller for controlling an operation of the flash memory and a memory controller for controlling an operation of the flash memory,” or the like. Claims 2 – 13 inherit this objection based on their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 – 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 2 refers to ‘a USB drive’ in the last line of the claim, with no further definition for the acronym. The examiner recommends amending claim 2 to state “a Universal Serial Bus (USB) drive.” Claim 3 inherits this objection based on its dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 states “the housing comprises anm anti-microbial material or an anti-viral material.” The examiner recommends amending claim 5 to state “the housing comprises an anti-microbial material or an anti-viral material.”
Claims 14 – 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 14 refers to ‘a USB drive’ in the first line of the claim, with no further definition for the acronym. The examiner recommends amending claim 14 to state “A Universal Serial Bus (USB) drive.” Claims 15 – 17 inherit this objection based on their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 14 – 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 14 starts with “A USB drive comprising: a housing having an interface for connecting the USB drive to a USB port and a cavity.” The wording of this limitation is confusing. It can be read as somehow connecting to a cavity. The examiner recommends amending claim 14 to state “A USB drive comprising: a housing having a cavity and an interface for connecting the USB drive to a USB port. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim 18 refers to ‘a USB port’ in the final limitation of the claim, with no further definition for the acronym. The examiner recommends amending claim 18 to state “a Universal Serial Bus (USB) port.” Claims 19 – 20 inherit this objection based on their dependencies. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Regen et al., U.S. Patent Application 2005/0130468 (hereinafter referred to as Regen).
Referring to claim 1, Regen discloses “A portable audio content device” (Fig. 1A drive 101 and [0045] storage of audio files) “comprising: a housing having a cavity containing a plurality of electrical components” (Figs. 1A, 2, and 3A along with [0031] molded body and [0032] – [0033] components include flash memory, USB, microprocessor); “a slot disposed in a front end of the housing” (Figs. 1A – 1C, port 102 and flap gate 103); “and an interface slidably disposed in the cavity of the housing and movable between a first position and a second position” (Figs. 1A – 1C and [0026] the button is detented in a way that when depressed it may be pushed forward, causing an internal mechanism to translate forward, urging a male USB connector to extend through port 102, and to lock in place as extended), “wherein the plurality of electrical components comprise at least a memory and a memory controller for controlling an operation of the flash memory” ([0032] – [0033] components include flash memory, microprocessor. [0010] internal control elements for managing MP3 player functions for the thumb drive. [0045] additional firmware for internal microprocessor control is provided to manage storage of audio files, such as MP3 files, for songs, and to display and render the songs at a user's command).
As per claim 2, Regen discloses “the portable audio content device is a USB drive” (Figs. 1A – 1C and [0007] thumb drive with USB connector. [0045] additional firmware for internal microprocessor control is provided to manage storage of audio files, such as MP3 files, for songs, and to display and render the songs at a user's command).
As per claim 3, Regen discloses “the USB drive is selected from a group consisting of a Type A drive, a Type B drive, a Type C drive, a Mini A drive, a Mini B drive, a Micro A drive and a Micro B drive” (Figs. 1A – 1C show a Type A USB connector). Further, USB connector types of Type A, Type B, Type C, Mini A, Mini B, Micro A, and Micro B were known in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing. ‘Mini USB vs. Micro USB’ by Patrick Whitener is provided as an evidentiary reference to show that USB drives of all types are known.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regen in view of PCMag’s ‘The Best USB Flash Drives of 2021’ by Stobing et al. (hereinafter referred to as Stobing).
As per claim 4, Regen discloses “the memory has a storage size” of equal to or exceeding 256 Mbytes ([0013]).
Regen does not appear to explicitly disclose “the memory has a storage size selected from a group consisting of a 16 GB, a 32 GB, a 64 GB, a 128 GB, a 256 GB and a 512 GB.”
However, each of Applicant’s claimed capacities (a 16 GB, a 32 GB, a 64 GB, a 128 GB, a 256 GB and a 512 GB) were known in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing. For example, Stobing discloses “the memory has a storage size selected from a group consisting of a 16 GB” (page 8), “a 32 GB” (page 3), “a 64 GB” (page 9), “a 128 GB” (page 2), “a 256 GB” (page 5) “and a 512 GB” (page 5 “It's available in 128GB, 256GB, 512GB, and 1TB capacities).
Regen and Stobing are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is USB thumb drives.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Regen and Stobing before him or her, to modify the teachings of Regen to include the teachings of Stobing so that the memory has a storage size selected from a group consisting of a 16 GB, a 32 GB, a 64 GB, a 128 GB, a 256 GB and a 512 GB.
The motivation for doing so would have been to select an appropriate size for the desired amount of data stored, as well as the price considerations (as described by Stobing in the third paragraph of page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Stobing with Regen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regen in view of Cho, Machine Translation of Korean Patent Application KR 20120015199 A (hereinafter referred to as Cho).
As per claim 5, Regen does not appear to explicitly disclose “the housing comprises an anti-microbial material or an anti-viral material.”
However, Cho discloses “the housing comprises an anti-microbial material or an anti-viral material” (Background-Art 1st paragraph portable devices including MP3 players and Figures showing “an anti-microbial and lustered coating 120.” Also, 1st paragraph on page 3 “An antimicrobial and glossy coating layer 120 is formed on the outer surfaces of the housing 110, for example, the first cover 112 and the second cover 114”).
Regen and Cho are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is portable electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Regen and Cho before him or her, to modify the teachings of Regen to include the teachings of Cho so that the housing comprises an anti-microbial material or an anti-viral material.
The motivation for doing so would have been to the user’s health may be protected from microorganisms (as described by Cho in the 1st paragraph of page 2 and the 1st paragraph of page 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cho with Regen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regen in view of Zorkendorfer et al., Machine Translation of Korean Patent Application KR 20090050098 A (hereinafter referred to as Zorkendorfer).
As per claims 6 – 8, Regen does not appear to explicitly disclose “the housing comprises a light disposed on a back end of the housing, opposite the slot,” “the light indicates an operational status of the portable audio content device,” and “the light indicates a first color when the portable audio content device is operating properly and a second color when the portable audio device is not operating properly.”
However, Zorkendorfer discloses “the housing comprises a light disposed on a back end of the housing, opposite the slot” (page 11 status indicator 220B is located on the opposite side (second end cap) of the housing) “the light indicates an operational status of the portable audio content device,” and “the light indicates a first color when the portable audio content device is operating properly and a second color when the portable audio device is not operating properly” (pages 10 – 11 “Media device 200 does not include a display, but includes one or more indicators 220 that display events associated with media device 200. In exemplary embodiments, the event may relate to a signal, a situation, or a state of the media device 200.” “In general, indicator 220 may also be referred to as a status indicator or a media device status indicator.” “Indicator 220 may be configured to illuminate a portion of the housing such that housing 202 changes its appearance (ie, changes its color). For example, the change in color may represent a change in state of the media device 200.” “In any of the examples given above, indicator 220 may be implemented with one or more LEDs. If more than one LED is used, the one or more LEDs can have different colors to indicate different media device status. One or more of the LEDs are located close to each other and may appear to the user as a single indicator that changes color as the media device status changes”).
Also note that as learned from In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), modifying the position of a feature of a device is obvious, if it would not have modified the operation of the device. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to design a light to be on any surface of the housing. The status indication (as described by Zorkendorfer) would not be modified.
Regen and Zorkendorfer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is portable electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Regen and Zorkendorfer before him or her, to modify the teachings of Regen to include the teachings of Zorkendorfer so that the portable audio content device includes a light in the housing that indicates an operational status of the device based on its color.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide status information or feedback to the user (as described by Zorkendorfer in the last paragraph of page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Zorkendorfer with Regen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regen in view of Collantes et al., U.S. Patent Application 2008/0045056 (hereinafter referred to as Collantes).
As per claim 9, Regen does not appear to explicitly disclose “the plurality of electronic components further comprise a silicone package and a connector.”
From Applicant’s specification at [0034] The integrated silicon package 206 can be in the form of an integrated circuit board.
Collantes discloses another USB drive with a retractable connection (Figs. 1 and 3A-3B) wherein “the plurality of electronic components further comprise a silicone package and a connector” (Fig. 2 PCB 205 with USB connector 103 and [0019], [0022]).
Regen and Collantes are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is USB portable electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Regen and Collantes before him or her, to modify the teachings of Regen to include the teachings of Collantes so that the portable audio content device housing includes a silicone package and a connector.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide for a sturdier and more resilient device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Collantes with Regen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regen in view of Pomerantz et al., U.S. Patent Application 2011/0090277 (hereinafter referred to as Pomerantz).
As per claim 10, Regen does not appear to explicitly disclose “the housing further comprises an external surface having an art cover.”
However, Pomerantz discloses “the housing further comprises an external surface having an art cover” ([0040] memory device may be USB flash drive, [0043] "graphical content" refers to any indicia that can be printed onto a memory device and “the graphical content can be album art of an album stored in the memory device.” Fig. 13B "Jazz").
Regen and Pomerantz are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is USB portable electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Regen and Pomerantz before him or her, to modify the teachings of Regen to include the teachings of Pomerantz so that the housing further comprises an external surface having an art cover.
The motivation for doing so would have been to visually assist the user in organizing digital content, to entice a user, etc. (as stated by Pomerantz at [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pomerantz with Regen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Referring to claim 14, Regen discloses “A USB drive comprising: a housing having an interface for connecting the USB drive to a USB port and a cavity” (Figs. 1a – 1c), “wherein the interface is contained within the cavity and is repositionable between a first position and a second position, and further wherein the interface extends outwardly from the housing” (Figs. 1a – 1c and [0026] the button is detented in a way that when depressed it may be pushed forward, causing an internal mechanism to translate forward, urging a male USB connector to extend through port 102, and to lock in place as extended); “a plurality of electrical components disposed within the cavity and comprising a memory, a controller and a connector” ([0032] – [0033] components include flash memory, microprocessor. [0010] internal control elements for managing MP3 player functions for the thumb drive. [0045] additional firmware for internal microprocessor control is provided to manage storage of audio files, such as MP3 files, for songs, and to display and render the songs at a user's command); “an audio content stored in the memory and including at least one of a song, an album, a compilation, a performance score and an audio book” ([0014] selecting and playing songs. [0045] mp3 player, download, control to manage storage of audio files and to render the songs at a user's command).
Regen does not appear to explicitly disclose “an art cover positioned on an exterior surface of the housing.”
However, Pomerantz discloses “an art cover positioned on an exterior surface of the housing” ([0040] memory device may be USB flash drive, [0043] "graphical content" refers to any indicia that can be printed onto a memory device and “the graphical content can be album art of an album stored in the memory device.” Fig. 13B "Jazz").
Regen and Pomerantz are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is USB portable electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Regen and Pomerantz before him or her, to modify the teachings of Regen to include the teachings of Pomerantz so that the housing further comprises an external surface having an art cover.
The motivation for doing so would have been to visually assist the user in organizing digital content, to entice a user, etc. (as stated by Pomerantz at [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pomerantz with Regen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regen in view of Park, U.S. Patent Application 2016/0092391 (hereinafter referred to as Park).
As per claim 11, Regen does not appear to explicitly disclose “the portable audio content device connects via the interface to a USB port in a passenger compartment of a vehicle.”
However, Park discloses a “the portable audio content device connects via the interface to a USB port in a passenger compartment of a vehicle” (Fig. 3 and [0052] a port part 320 to which a USB port of an external device allowing USB communications is connected. Also [0006] Particularly, a user can connect a MPEG audio layer-3 (MP3) player, a Universal Serial Bus (USB) storage device, a mobile communication terminal, etc. to a multimedia player in a vehicle to reproduce data stored in the connected apparatus through the multimedia player. In order to reproduce the data stored in the connected apparatus, the multimedia player further includes an interface apparatus with a USB terminal or an auxiliary (AUX) terminal).
Regen and Park are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is USB portable electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Regen and Park before him or her, to modify the teachings of Regen to include the teachings of Park so that the portable audio content device connects via the interface to a USB port in a passenger compartment of a vehicle.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means for the audio files of Regen to be played via a vehicle’s multimedia player and speakers. This would provide for a more enjoyable driving experience for the user, who can bring their music and not have to rely on wireless streaming connections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Park with Regen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regen in view of Kindig, U.S. Patent Application 2007/0088727 (hereinafter referred to as Kindig).
As per claim 12, Regen discloses “the controller controls a playing, a pausing, a replaying, a shuffling, a playback speed, and a moving forward and back-ward of an audio content stored in the memory” ([0045] “the thumb drive is controlled in the same manner that is done in the art for MP3 players and the like” and “ internal microprocessor control is provided to manage storage of audio files, such as MP3 files, for songs, and to display and render the songs at a user's command”).
Standard controls of portable music players include “a playing, a pausing, a replaying, a shuffling, a playback speed, and a moving forward and back-ward of an audio content.” For example, Kindig teaches “a playing, a pausing, a replaying, a shuffling, a playback speed, and a moving forward and back-ward of an audio content” (Figs. 18 – 20c and [0161] – [0163] user input on the device’s user interface for fast forward, rewind, pause, play, stop, small skip, big skip, playback, etc.).
Regen and Kindig are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is portable electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Regen and Kindig before him or her, to modify the teachings of Regen to include the teachings of Kindig so that the controller controls a playing, a pausing, a replaying, a shuffling, a playback speed, and a moving forward and back-ward of an audio content stored in the memory.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a user with full control over selection and playback of the audio data (as described by Kindig at [0162]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kindig with Regen to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As per claim 13, Regen discloses “the audio content includes at least one of a song, an album, a compilation, a performance score and an audio book” ([0014] selecting and playing songs. [0045] mp3 player, download, control to manage storage of audio files and to render the songs at a user's command).
Also, Kindig discloses “the audio content includes at least one of a song, an album, a compilation, a performance score and an audio book” ([0002] MP3s of albums, [0005] portable media devices with thousands of songs, [0058] playlist is stored on portable device).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regen in view of Pomerantz, further in view of Cho, and further in view of Zorkendorfer.
As per claim 15, Regen discloses “the exterior surface of the housing” and “a slot for the interface” (Figs. 1a-1c).
Neither Regen nor Pomerantz appears to explicitly disclose “the exterior surface of the housing comprises at least one of anti-viral material or an anti-microbial material and a light disposed on the exterior surface of the housing opposite a slot for the interface.”
However, Cho discloses “the exterior surface of the housing comprises at least one of anti-viral material or an anti-microbial material” (Background-Art 1st paragraph portable devices including MP3 players and Figures showing “an anti-microbial and lustered coating 120.” Also, 1st paragraph on page 3 “An antimicrobial and glossy coating layer 120 is formed on the outer surfaces of the housing 110, for example, the first cover 112 and the second cover 114”).
Further, Zorkendorfer discloses “the exterior surface of the housing comprises” “a light disposed on the exterior surface of the housing opposite a slot for the interface” (page 11 status indicator 220B is located on the opposite side (second end cap) of the housing).
Also note that as learned from In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950), modifying the position of a feature of a device is obvious, if it would not have modified the operation of the device. In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing to design a light to be on any surface of the housing. The status indication (as described by Zorkendorfer) would not be modified.
Regen, Pomerantz, Cho, and Zorkendorfer are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is portable electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Regen, Pomerantz, Cho, and Zorkendorfer before him or her, to modify the teachings of Regen and Pomerantz to include the teachings of Cho and Zorkendorfer so that the housing comprises an anti-microbial material or an anti-viral material and the housing includes a light on the exterior surface.
The motivation for doing so would have been to the user’s health may be protected from microorganisms (as described by Cho in the 1st paragraph of page 2 and the 1st paragraph of page 4) and to provide status information or feedback to the user (as described by Zorkendorfer in the last paragraph of page 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Cho and Zorkendorfer with Regen and Pomerantz to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regen in view of Pomerantz, further in view of Delkin Blog “Comparing Commercial Grade and Industrial Grade Flash Memory” (hereinafter referred to as Delkin).
As per claim 16, neither Regen nor Pomerantz appears to explicitly disclose “the USB drive has an operating temperature of about 0° C to 50° C.”
However, Delkin discloses “the USB drive has an operating temperature of about 0° C to 50° C” (Temperature Ranges on page 1 commercial flash memory typically support operating temperatures ranging from Oto 70 degrees C. This is because most commercial applications are not used in extreme conditions).
Regen, Pomerantz, and Delkin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is USB portable electronic devices with flash memory. Delkin details aspects of flash memory.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Regen, Pomerantz, and Delkin before him or her, to modify the teachings of Regen and Pomerantz to include the teachings of Delkin so that the USB drive has an operating temperature of about 0° C to 50° C.
The motivation for doing so would have been to utilize flash that is expected to operate in “normal” (not extreme) conditions (as stated by Delkin in ‘Temperature Ranges’ section on page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Delkin with Regen and Pomerantz to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Regen in view of Pomerantz, further in view of Stobing.
As per claim 17, Regen discloses “the USB drive has a storage capacity” equal to or exceeding 256 Mbytes ([0013]).
Neither Regen nor Pomerantz appears to explicitly disclose “the USB drive has a storage capacity that is selected from a group consisting of a 16 GB, a 32 GB, a 64 GB, a 128 GB, a 256 GB and a 512 GB.”
However, each of Applicant’s claimed capacities (a 16 GB, a 32 GB, a 64 GB, a 128 GB, a 256 GB and a 512 GB) were known in the art at the time of Applicant’s filing. For example, Stobing discloses “the USB drive has a storage capacity that is selected from a group consisting of a 16 GB” (page 8), “a 32 GB” (page 3), “a 64 GB” (page 9), “a 128 GB” (page 2), “a 256 GB” (page 5) “and a 512 GB” (page 5 “It's available in 128GB, 256GB, 512GB, and 1TB capacities).
Regen, Pomerantz, and Stobing are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is USB flash drives.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Regen, Pomerantz, and Stobing before him or her, to modify the teachings of Regen and Pomerantz to include the teachings of Stobing so that the memory has a storage size selected from a group consisting of a 16 GB, a 32 GB, a 64 GB, a 128 GB, a 256 GB and a 512 GB.
The motivation for doing so would have been to select an appropriate size for the desired amount of data stored, as well as the price considerations (as described by Stobing in the third paragraph of page 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Stobing with Regen and Pomerantz to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimber, U.S. Application 2009/0056525 (hereinafter referred to as Oppenheimber) in view of Park.
Referring to claim 18, Oppenheimber discloses “A method of using a portable audio content device”, “the method comprising the steps of: providing a portable audio content device having a housing; connecting the portable audio content device to a computing system having a database of audio content; accessing the database of audio content; adding at least a portion of the database of audio content to the portable audio content device” (Fig. 1 and [0058] “The consumer typically uses a PC 10 to access the server 2 through the Internet 4, although direct connections may be offered. Song playlists downloaded to the consumer PC 10 may be side loaded to the consumer's MP3 player (or iPod.TM.) 12. Direct download of song playlists from the Internet 4 may also be provided to the MP3 player 12.” [0059] the database stored in server 2. Note that the MP3 player/iPod of Oppenheimber inherently includes “a housing”).
Oppenheimber does not appear to explicitly disclose “using a portable audio content device in a vehicle” and “connecting the portable audio content device to a USB port of a vehicle compartment.”
However, Park discloses a “using a portable audio content device in a vehicle” and “connecting the portable audio content device to a USB port of a vehicle compartment” (Fig. 3 and [0052] a port part 320 to which a USB port of an external device allowing USB communications is connected. Also [0006] Particularly, a user can connect a MPEG audio layer-3 (MP3) player, a Universal Serial Bus (USB) storage device, a mobile communication terminal, etc. to a multimedia player in a vehicle to reproduce data stored in the connected apparatus through the multimedia player. In order to reproduce the data stored in the connected apparatus, the multimedia player further includes an interface apparatus with a USB terminal or an auxiliary (AUX) terminal).
Oppenheimber and Park are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is portable electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oppenheimber and Park before him or her, to modify the teachings of Oppenheimber to include the teachings of Park so that the portable audio content device connects via the interface to a USB port in a passenger compartment of a vehicle.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means for the audio files of Oppenheimber to be played via a vehicle’s multimedia player and speakers. This would provide for a more enjoyable driving experience for the user, who can bring their music and not have to rely on wireless streaming connections.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Park with Oppenheimber to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimber in view of Park, further in view of Kidron, U.S. Patent Application 2015/0195315 (hereinafter referred to as Kidron).
As per claim 19, neither Oppenheimber nor Park appears to explicitly disclose “a step of creating a user account and a step of determining account privileges for a user after the step of connecting.”
However, Kidron discloses “a step of creating a user account and a step of determining account privileges for a user after the step of connecting” ([0033] “an account is maintained (e.g., at database 150) for each user, and a user may login to her account using any licensed mobile device 110 on which application 250 is stored” and “An authentication engine or API 160 operably coupled to server 130 may be used to support login authentication.” [0034] “Digital rights management (DRM) technology may be used to enforce the rule that only licensed devices 110 are authorized to play audio files obtained from server 130 in accordance with certain embodiments. The DRM technology is designed to support the usage rules that only devices 110 associated with registered user accounts can download and only licensed devices 110 can playback. The catalog of music available to a user for download will depend on the territory according to music licensing rights and restrictions. For example, the available catalog of audio files for a particular territory is only viewable and downloadable by devices 110 authorized for that territory”).
Oppenheimber, Park, and Kidron are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is portable electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oppenheimber, Park, and Kidron before him or her, to modify the teachings of Oppenheimber and Park to include the teachings of Kidron so that the method includes a step of creating a user account and a step of determining account privileges for a user after the step of connecting.
The motivation for doing so would have been to provide a means for ensuring that a user is allowed to view/download certain music based on digital rights and location. This prevents piracy of content.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kidron with Oppenheimber and Park to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimber in view of Park, further in view of Pomerantz.
As per claim 20, neither Oppenheimber nor Park appears to explicitly disclose “a step of obtaining an art cover for placement on an exterior surface of the housing.”
However, Pomerantz discloses “a step of obtaining an art cover for placement on an exterior surface of the housing” ([0040] memory device may be USB flash drive, [0043] "graphical content" refers to any indicia that can be printed onto a memory device and “the graphical content can be album art of an album stored in the memory device.” Fig. 13B "Jazz").
Oppenheimber, Park, and Pomerantz are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, which is portable electronic devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Oppenheimber, Park, and Pomerantz before him or her, to modify the teachings of Oppenheimber and Park to include the teachings of Pomerantz so that the method includes obtaining an art cover for placement on an exterior surface of the housing.
The motivation for doing so would have been to visually assist the user in organizing digital content, to entice a user, etc. (as stated by Pomerantz at [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Pomerantz with Oppenheimber and Park to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Applications 20060089171, 20150366093 and Patents 6567273, 7412259, 7581967 teach a device with an extendible USB connector protected by a housing when not extended.
U.S. Patent Application 20170315945 teaches integrating USB Type-C into automotive audio and video systems.
U.S. Patent Application 20120185488 and Patents 7985911, 8502056 teach mp3 player devices and downloading of content to the devices.
U.S. Patent Application 20080125889 teaches mp3 players and their controls (skip, rewind, play, pause, etc.).
Machine Translation of Korean Patent Application KR 20100126948 A teaches a slide-out USB connector of an MP3 player.
‘Mini USB vs. Micro USB’ by Patrick Whitener, August 2021 shows that USB drives of all types are known.
SolidMerch ‘Custom Printed USB Flash Drives’ archived from August 2021 shows USB flash drives of different shapes, styles, and capacities that can be printed with custom pictures on the housing.
SanDisk Datasheet “SanDisk Ultra Dual USB Drive 3.0” teaches a flash drive of
16GB, 32GB, 64GB, 128GB, or 256GB capacity, a 0
˚
– 35
˚
C operating temperature, and utilizing a micro USB connector.
‘Thumb Drive Sizes: How to Pick a Right One?” by Partition Wizard archived on April 8, 2021 teaches USB thumb drives with capacity of 1GB, 2GB, 4GB, 8GB, 16GB, 32GB, 64GB, 128GB, 256GB, 512GB, 1T, and 2TB.
“Custom USB Flash Drives” by cdbaby archived July 28, 2021 teaches personalized printed flash drives including USB Music Cards.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN G SNYDER whose telephone number is (571)270-1971. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00am-4:30pm (flexible).
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, Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. 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.
/STEVEN G SNYDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184