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 .
Claims 1 – 6 and 8 – 20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that rationale under In re Japikse to teach the amended claim feature would not be appropriate because such a modification would modify the operation of the device taught by US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0220505 (hereinafter Breakstone). Applicant specifically argues that such a modification would result in a thicker device which would modify the intended operation of Breakstone, which is alleged to allow for compact storage. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that such a modification, while possibly making the device thicker, would not modify the intended operation of the storage drive of Breakstone. The storage drive of Breakstone is embodied as various possible form factors (Breakstone; Paragraph [0027]). Breakstone describes numerous allowable heights of the storage device ranging from 5mm to 19.05mm when embodied as a “2.5 inch drive” form factor defined by SFF-8201 (Breakstone; Paragraph [0027]). Breakstone additionally contemplates utilizing other storage drive form factors, including “3.5 inch form factor drives” defined by SFF-8351 (Breakstone; Paragraph [0027] and “other drive form factors larger or smaller than the 2.5 inch form factor” (Breakstone; Paragraph [0028]). Therefore, the Examiner submits that the thickness of the storage drive of Breakstone is not critical to the intended operation of the device since numerous possible thicknesses and different storage drive form factors are discussed. As such, modifying the teachings of Breakstone to move the connection between the PCB and the storage device to the side of the storage device opposite to the side of the storage device connected to the interface layer would not modify the intended operation of the storage device of Breakstone. Therefore, the Examiner submits that the prior art of record, in combination with rational under In re Japikse, teaches all the limitations of at least amended independent claims 1, 14, and 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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(s) 1 – 4, 8, and 12 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0220505 (hereinafter Breakstone) in view of US Patent No. 7,925,812 (hereinafter Konno).
As per claims 1, 14, and 18, Breakstone teaches a system comprising: a printed circuit board (PCB) (Breakstone; Figure 2 Items 120 and 130); a storage device (Breakstone; Figure 2 Items 140) connected to a first side of the PCB (Breakstone; Figure 2 Item 120 – The top view of circuit board 120, along which memory cards 140 rest when inserted, is equated to the claimed “first side of the PCB.”); a processor (Breakstone; Figure 3 Item 132, Figure 6 Item 620) attached to the PCB at a second side of the PCB; a connector (Breakstone; Figure 3 Item 115) attached to a third side of the PCB; and process data stored in the storage device by the processor (Breakstone; Paragraphs [0047] – [0048]); and a first side of the storage device (Breakstone; Figure 2 Item 140, Figure 4 Item 140 – The top side of each of “memory cards 140” which faces top cover 112 is considered to be the claimed “first side of the storage device.”) is connected to a first interface layer (Breakstone; Figure 1 Item 112, Figure 4 Item 112, Figure 10 Item 1011, Paragraph [0037]) and a second side of the storage device (Breakstone; Figure 2 Item 140 – The end of each of “memory cards 140” which connects to interfaces 121 is equated to the claimed “second side of the storage device.”) is connected to the first side of the PCB (Breakstone; Figure 2 Items 120 and 121 – The memory cards 140 are connected to the top side of circuit board 120 through interface 121.).
Breakstone does not teach wherein the system is configured to operate in a first storage protocol mode and a second storage protocol mode, and wherein based on an instruction received via the connector, the system is configured to: select an operating mode from among the first storage protocol mode and the second storage protocol mode. Additionally, Breakstone may not teach the specific layout of the claimed elements on each “side” of the PCB and the second side of the SSD bring opposite to the first side of the SSD.
However, Konno teaches a system which is configured to operate in a first storage protocol mode (Konno; Figure 6 Item 61) and a second storage protocol mode (Konno; Figure 6 Item 62), and wherein based on an instruction received via the connector (Konno; Figure 6 Item 11), the system is configured to: select an operating mode from among the first storage protocol mode and the second storage protocol mode (Konno; Col 4 Lines 22 – 24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Breakstone to include the mode selection because doing so allows for utilizing a plurality of interfaces for storage device communication (Konno; Col 11 Lines 28 – 32).
Breakstone in combination with Konno may not teach the specific layout of the claimed elements on each “side” of the PCB and the second side of the SSD bring opposite to the first side of the SSD.
However, such a modification is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art as set forth by the following legal precedent; See Shifting Location of Parts – In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 1023, 86 USPQ 70, 73 (CCPA 1950) (See “Response to Arguments” presented above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Breakstone in combination with Konno to include the layout required by the claims because doing so is an ordinary design choice one would encounter when assembling such a system.
As per claims 2 and 15, Breakstone also teaches wherein the storage device is a solid state drive (SSD) (Breakstone; Paragraph [0053]) and the processor is a field programmable gate array (FPGA) (Breakstone; Paragraph [0055]).
As per claim 3, Breakstone also teaches wherein the storage device is a PCIe add-in-card SSD (Breakstone; Paragraphs [0027], [0030], and [0043] – [0045]).
As per claim 4, Breakstone also teaches wherein the first side of the PCB is connected to a second side of the storage device via at least one SSD connector (Breakstone; Figure 2 Items 121 – The memory cards 140 are connected to the top side of circuit board 120 through interface 121.), wherein the at least one SSD connector comprises a first SSD connector and a second SSD connector (Breakstone; Figure 2 Items 121).
As per claim 8, Breakstone also teaches wherein a first side of the processor (Breakstone; Figure 3 Item 132 – The bottom of processor 132 which mounts processor 132 to circuit board 130 is equated to the claimed “first side of the processor.”) is connected to the second side of the PCB (Breakstone; Figure 3 Item 130 – The bottom view of circuit board 130 is equated to the claimed “second side of the PCB.”) and a second side of the processor (Breakstone; Figure 3 Item 132 – The top of processor 132 which faces away from 132 to circuit board 130 is equated to the claimed “second side of the processor.”) is connected to a second interface layer (Breakstone; Figure 4 Item 119, Paragraph [0037]).
As per claim 12, Breakstone also teaches wherein a length of the PCB is equal to or longer than a length of the storage device or a length of the processor (Breakstone; Figure 3).
As per claim 13, Breakstone also teaches wherein the connector is a U.2 connector (Breakstone; Figure 1 Item 115, Paragraph [0026]).
As per claims 16 and 19, Breakstone also teaches wherein the first side of the PCB is connected to a second side of the SSD via the SSD connector (Breakstone; Figure 2 Item 121 – The memory cards 140 are connected to the top side of circuit board 120 through interface 121.), wherein the SSD connector comprises a vertical peripheral component interconnect express (PCIe) edge connector (Breakstone; Figure 6 Items 641, Paragraphs [0030] – [0031] and [0053]), wherein a first side of the vertical PCIe edge connector is attached and electronically connected to the SSD at the second side of the SSD (Breakstone; Figure 2).
As per claims 17 and 20, Breakstone also teaches wherein the SSD connector further comprises a PCIe receptacle connector (Breakstone; Figure 2 Item 121), wherein a second side of the vertical PCIe edge connector is electrically connected and attached to a first side of the PCIe receptacle connector (Breakstone; Figure 2), a second side of the PCIe receptacle connector is electronically connected and attached to the first side of the PCB (Breakstone; Figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, and 9 – 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 5 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest alone or in combination wherein a first side of the vertical PCIe edge connector is attached and electrically connected to the storage device at the second side of the storage device and a second side of the vertical PCIe edge connector is electrically connected and attached to a first side of the second SSD connector, as required by dependent claim 5, in combination with the other claimed limitations (emphasis added). The prior art of record does not teach the specific connection arrangement required by the claims.
Claim 6 would also be allowable because of its dependence upon allowable dependent claim 5.
Claims 9 – 11 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest alone or in combination a first structural support; and a second structural support, wherein the first structural support and the second structural support are located between the second side of the PCB and a first side of the storage device, as required by dependent claim 9, in combination with the other claimed limitations (emphasis added). The prior art of record does not teach the specific structural arrangement required by the claims.
Claims 10 and 11 would also be allowable because of their dependence, either directly or indirectly, upon allowable dependent claim 9.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RICHARD B FRANKLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-0669. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5pm.
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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RICHARD B FRANKLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2181
/IDRISS N ALROBAYE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2181
Prosecution Insights