DETAILED ACTION
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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19 and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to one or more non-elected inventions/species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 28 April 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In lines 1-2 of claim 5, “wherein the tape is fixedly threaded to each of the first reel and the second reel” fails to further limit “wherein the tape is fixedly threaded between the first reel and the second reel and is non-removable during operation in the environmentally sealed system housing” set forth in lines 7-8 of independent claim 1. That is, for the tape to be fixedly threaded between the first reel and the second reel and be non-removable during operation in the environmentally sealed system housing, it would be necessary for the tape to be fixedly threaded to each of the first reel and the second reel.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chew (US 10,971,184) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101).
Chew (US 10,971,184) teaches a tape storage system (100/100a/100b, see FIGS. 1A, 1B and 5, for instance) comprising a system housing (includes 175 and 180, see FIG. 1B, for instance) having a housing thickness that is not greater than 3.5 inches (see FIG. 5, for instance, i.e., “26 mm” and “83 mm” are both less than 3.5 inches); a tape movement system (includes 110a and 110b, for instance) that is positioned within the system housing (as shown in FIG. 1A, for instance), wherein the tape movement system includes a first reel (110a) and a second reel (110b), wherein the tape movement system is configured to retain a tape (115) having a tape length (as shown in FIG. 1A, for instance), wherein the system housing is environmentally sealed to isolate an interior tape environment from an external environment (see lines 62-66 in column 7, for instance, i.e., “In one embodiment, the cover 180 is used to hermetically seal the tape embedded drive 100. For example, the drive 100 may be hermetically sealed for environmental control by attaching (e.g., laser welding, adhesive, etc.) the cover to the base 175”), and wherein the tape is fixedly threaded between the first reel and the second reel (as shown in FIG. 1A, for instance) and is non-removable during operation in the environmentally sealed system housing (see lines 62-66 in column 7, for instance, i.e., the tape would necessarily be fixedly threaded and non-removable if provided in a “hermetically sealed” environment); a tape head assembly (130) that is positionable within the system housing (see lines 24-26 in column 5, for instance, i.e., “the first HSA 130 pivots about a pivot point 144 and the head assemblies 131, 134 move across (e.g., up or down) the opposing surfaces of the tape media 115”), wherein the tape head assembly is configured to at least one of write data to and read data from the tape (see lines 17-19 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “the first HSA 130 comprises a first head gimbal assembly (HGA) 132 with a first head assembly 131 having one or more read and write heads”); and an inert gas within the system housing (see lines 66-67 in column 7, for instance, i.e., “drive 100 may be filled by helium, nitrogen, hydrogen or some other typically inert gas”), wherein the inert gas would inherently have the ability to remove humidity from within the system housing [as per claims 1 and 3]; wherein the housing thickness of the system housing is not greater than 1.75 inches (see FIG. 5, for instance, i.e., “26 mm” is less than 1.75 inches) [as per claim 2]; wherein the system housing has a housing width that is not greater than 17.5 inches (see FIG. 5, for instance, i.e., “102 mm” and “150 mm” are both less than 17.5 inches) [as per claim 4]; wherein the tape is fixedly threaded to each of the first reel and the second reel (as shown in FIG. 1A, for instance, see also lines 62-66 in column 7, for instance, i.e., the tape would necessarily be fixedly threaded if provided in a “hermetically sealed” environment) [as per claim 5]; wherein the tape storage system further comprises a tape movement actuator (151) that is configured to selectively move the tape between the first reel and the second reel (see line 2-4 in column 7, for instance, i.e., “Tape reel motors 151 located in the spindles of the tape reels can operate to wind and unwind the tape film in the tape reels”), and control electronics (185/400, see FIGS. 1B and 4, for instance) that are configured to control operation of the tape head assembly and the tape movement actuator (see lines 55-62 in column 10, for instance, i.e., “In some embodiments, a controller on the PCBA 400 controls the read and write operations of the tape embedded drive 100. The controller can engage the tape spool motors and cause the tape spools to wind the tape film forward or backwards. The controller can use the stepping motor and the voice coil motor to control placement of the head(s) over the tape media. The controller can read or write data from the heads of the tape embedded drive 100”); wherein the control electronics are coupled to the system housing (as shown in FIG. 1B, for instance, see lines 65-66 in column 9, for instance, i.e., “As similarly shown in FIG. 1 B, the PCBA 400 can be attached to the bottom surface of the casing”) [as per claim 10]; and wherein the control electronics are positioned outside the system housing (as shown in FIG. 1B, for instance, see lines 65-66 in column 9, for instance, i.e., “As similarly shown in FIG. 1 B, the PCBA 400 can be attached to the bottom surface of the casing”) [as per claim 11].
Chew (US 10,971,184), however, remains silent as to the tape length being “at least 2,000 meters” as per claims 1-5, 10 and 11; and the tape length being “at least 10,000 meters” as per claim 3.
Chew (US 10,971,184) does, however, teach increasing tape length (see lines 35-37 in column 11, for instance, i.e., “For increased capacity, the casing can be lengthened in width and/or length to store longer total tape length”).
Murata (US 2023/0178101) teaches that the total length of the tape is not limited and includes values at least as high as 2500 m (see paragraph [0070], for instance, i.e., “A total length of the magnetic tape that is accommodated… is not particularly limited, and can be in a range of, for example, about 800 m to 2500 m.”
Official notice is taken of the fact that it is notoriously old and well known in the tape storage system art to modify the parameters of tape storage system components during the course of routine optimization/experimentation.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the tape length in Chew (US 10,971,184) be at least 2,000 meters as taught/suggested by Murata (US 2023/0178101); and the tape length of Chew (US 10,971,184) be at least 10,000 meters as suggested by Chew (US 10,971,184) and Murata (US 2023/0178101). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the tape length in Chew (US 10,971,184) be at least 2,000 meters as taught/suggested by Murata (US 2023/0178101) since such a range is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as shown by Murata (US 2023/0178101), and Chew (US 10,971,184) specifically provides motivation for “longer total tape length” for “increased capacity.” Additionally, such a range, absent any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is generally achievable through routine optimization/experimentation, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the tape length of Chew (US 10,971,184) be at least 10,000 meters as suggested by Chew (US 10,971,184) and Murata (US 2023/0178101) since the total length of the magnetic tape is seen to be “not particularly limited” in Murata (US 2023/0178101), and Chew (US 10,971,184) specifically provides motivation for “longer total tape length” for “increased capacity.” Additionally, such a range, absent any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is generally achievable through routine optimization/ experimentation, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 1-6, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101).
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) teaches a tape storage system (100, see FIGS. 1A-1C and 4, for instance) comprising a system housing (includes 145 and 150, see FIG. 1C, for instance) having a housing thickness that is not greater than 3.5 inches (see FIG. 4, for instance, i.e., “26 mm” is less than 3.5 inches); a tape movement system (includes each 110, for instance) that is positioned within the system housing (as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, for instance), wherein the tape movement system includes a first reel (left-most 110) and a second reel (right-most 110), wherein the tape movement system is configured to retain a tape (115) having a tape length (as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, for instance), wherein the system housing is environmentally sealed to isolate an interior tape environment from an external environment (see lines 55-59 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “In one embodiment, the cover 150 is used to hermetically seal the tape embedded drive 100. For example, the drive 100 may be hermetically sealed for environmental control by attaching (e.g., laser welding, adhesive, etc.) the cover to the base 145”), and wherein the tape is fixedly threaded between the first reel and the second reel (as shown in FIG. 1A, for instance) and is non-removable during operation in the environmentally sealed system housing (see lines 55-59 in column 4, for instance, i.e., the tape would necessarily be fixedly threaded and non-removable if provided in a “hermetically sealed” environment); a tape head assembly (130/500, see FIGS. 1B and 5, for instance) that is positionable within the system housing (see lines 1-15 in column 7, for instance, i.e., “FIG. 5 illustrates a head assembly 500 of the tape embedded drive 100, according to certain embodiments. The head assembly 500 comprises a multi-stage actuator for moving the head assembly”), wherein the tape head assembly is configured to at least one of write data to and read data from the tape (see lines 44-45 in column 3, for instance, i.e., “head assembly 130 with one or more read and write heads”); and an inert gas within the system housing (see lines 59-60 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “drive 100 may be filled by helium, nitrogen, hydrogen or some other typically inert gas”), wherein the inert gas would inherently have the ability to remove humidity from within the system housing [as per claims 1 and 3]; wherein the housing thickness of the system housing is not greater than 1.75 inches (see FIG. 4, for instance, i.e., “26 mm” is less than 1.75 inches) [as per claim 2]; wherein the system housing has a housing width that is not greater than 17.5 inches (see FIG. 4, for instance, i.e., “102 mm” is less than 17.5 inches) [as per claim 4]; wherein the tape is fixedly threaded to each of the first reel and the second reel (as shown in FIG. 1A, for instance, see also lines 55-59 in column 4, for instance, i.e., the tape would necessarily be fixedly threaded if provided in a “hermetically sealed” environment) [as per claim 5]; wherein the tape storage system further comprises one or more rollers (135b, for instance) that are configured to guide movement of the tape between the first reel and the second reel (as shown in FIG. 1B, for instance), wherein at least one of the one or more rollers is positioned to contact a back side of the tape (as shown in FIG. 1B, for instance, i.e., relative to a front side of the tape 115 that faces head assembly 130) [as per claim 6]; wherein the tape storage system further comprises a tape movement actuator (140) that is configured to selectively move the tape between the first reel and the second reel (see line 54-56 in column 3, for instance, i.e., “Tape reel motors 140 located in the spindles of the tape reels can operate to wind and unwind the tape film in the tape reels”), and control electronics (155, see FIGS. 1C and 2, for instance) that are configured to control operation of the tape head assembly and the tape movement actuator (see lines 44-50 in column 5, for instance, i.e., “In some embodiments, a controller on the PCBA controls the read and write operations of the tape embedded drive 100. The controller can engage the tape spool motors and cause the tape spools to wind the tape film forward or backwards. The controller can use the stepping motor and the voice coil motor to control placement of the head(s) over the tape film.”); wherein the control electronics are coupled to the system housing (as shown in FIG. 1C, for instance, see lines 41-42 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “PCBA 155 is attached to the bottom, on an external surface of the casing 105”) [as per claim 10]; and wherein the control electronics are positioned outside the system housing (as shown in FIG. 1C, for instance, see lines 41-42 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “PCBA 155 is attached to the bottom, on an external surface of the casing 105”) [as per claim 11].
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390), however, remains silent as to the tape length being “at least 2,000 meters” as per claims 1-6, 10 and 11; the tape length being “at least 10,000 meters” as per claim 3; and the back side of the tape including “a nonmagnetic coating” as per claims 1-6, 10 and 11.
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) does, however, teach increasing tape length (see lines 23-24 in column 6, for instance, i.e., “For increased capacity, the casing can be lengthened in width and/or length to store longer total tape length”).
Murata (US 2023/0178101) teaches that the total length of the tape is not limited and includes values at least as high as 2500 m (see paragraph [0070], for instance, i.e., “A total length of the magnetic tape that is accommodated… is not particularly limited, and can be in a range of, for example, about 800 m to 2500 m.”
Official notice is taken of the fact that it is notoriously old and well known in the tape storage system art to modify the parameters of tape storage system components during the course of routine optimization/experimentation.
Murata (US 2023/0178101) also teaches a back side of a tape including a nonmagnetic coating is a notoriously old and well known tape configuration (see paragraph [0072], for instance, i.e., “The magnetic tape can have… a back coating layer containing nonmagnetic powder on a surface side opposite to a surface side of the nonmagnetic support having the magnetic layer”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the tape length in Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) be at least 2,000 meters as taught/suggested by Murata (US 2023/0178101); the tape length of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) be at least 10,000 meters as suggested by Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) and Murata (US 2023/0178101); and the back side of the tape of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) include a nonmagnetic coating as taught/suggested by Murata (US 2023/0178101). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the tape length in Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) be at least 2,000 meters as taught/suggested by Murata (US 2023/0178101) since such a range is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as shown by Murata (US 2023/0178101), and Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) specifically provides motivation for “longer total tape length” for “increased capacity.” Additionally, such a range, absent any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is generally achievable through routine optimization/experimentation, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the tape length of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) be at least 10,000 meters as suggested by Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) and Murata (US 2023/0178101) since the total length of the magnetic tape is seen to be “not particularly limited” in Murata (US 2023/0178101), and Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) specifically provides motivation for “longer total tape length” for “increased capacity.” Additionally, such a range, absent any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is generally achievable through routine optimization/ experimentation, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the back side of the tape of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) include a nonmagnetic coating as taught/suggested by Murata (US 2023/0178101) since such is a notoriously old and well known tape configuration, and selecting a known tape configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saliba (US 11,887,625).
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) teach/suggest the tape storage system as detailed in paragraph 7, supra.
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101), however, remain silent as to the tape storage system further comprising “a tape cleaning system that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the tape cleaning system is configured to clean the tape.”
Saliba (US 11,887,625) teaches a tape storage system (82, see FIG. 8, for instance) further comprising a tape cleaning system (includes 68, for instance) that is positioned within the system housing (as shown in FIG. 8, for instance), wherein the tape cleaning system is configured to clean the tape in the same field of endeavor to prevent damage to the tape head (see lines 44-46 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “roller member 68 configured to burnish and/or clean the magnetic tape media 80 so as to prevent damage to a tape head”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the tape storage system of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) further comprise a tape cleaning system that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the tape cleaning system is configured to clean the tape, as taught/suggested by Saliba (US 11,887,625). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the tape storage system of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) further comprise a tape cleaning system that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the tape cleaning system is configured to clean the tape, as taught/suggested by Saliba (US 11,887,625) since such would prevent damage to the tape head assembly.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Biskeborn et al. (US 2009/0027806).
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) teach/suggest the tape storage system as detailed in paragraph 7, supra.
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101), however, remain silent as to the tape storage system further comprising “a head cleaning mechanism that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the head cleaning mechanism is configured to clean the tape head assembly” as per claim 8, and “a tape lifter that can be selectively activated to move the tape away from the tape head assembly during movement of the tape between the first reel and the second reel” as per claim 9.
Biskeborn et al. (US 2009/0027806) teach a tape storage system further comprising a head cleaning mechanism (includes 108, see FIG. 1B, for instance), wherein the head cleaning mechanism is configured to clean the tape head assembly (see paragraph [0035], for instance), and a tape lifter (104) that can be selectively activated to move the tape away from the tape head assembly during movement of the tape between the first reel and the second reel (as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, for instance) in the same field of endeavor for the purpose of enabling cleaning of the tape head assembly. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the tape storage system of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) further comprise a head cleaning mechanism that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the head cleaning mechanism is configured to clean the tape head assembly, and a tape lifter that can be selectively activated to move the tape away from the tape head assembly during movement of the tape between the first reel and the second reel, as taught/suggested by Biskeborn et al. (US 2009/0027806). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the tape storage system of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) further comprise a head cleaning mechanism that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the head cleaning mechanism is configured to clean the tape head assembly, and a tape lifter that can be selectively activated to move the tape away from the tape head assembly during movement of the tape between the first reel and the second reel, as taught/suggested by Biskeborn et al. (US 2009/0027806) since such enables cleaning of the tape head assembly.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683).
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) teach/suggest the tape storage system as detailed in paragraph 7, supra.
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101), however, remain silent as to the tape storage system further comprising “a power supply that is coupled to the system housing, wherein the power supply is configured to supply power to the tape head assembly, the tape movement actuator, and the control electronics” as per claim 12, and “a heat dissipation system that is coupled to the system housing, wherein the heat dissipation system is configured to dissipate heat that is generated within the system housing during use of the tape storage system” as per claim 14.
Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683) teach a tape (34) storage system (10, see Fig. 1, for instance) further comprising a power supply (54, see Fig. 4, for instance) that is coupled to the system housing (see paragraph [0025], for instance), wherein the power supply is configured to supply power to the tape head assembly, the tape movement actuator, and the control electronics (as shown in Fig. 4, for instance), and a heat dissipation system (includes 160, see Fig. 5, for instance) that is coupled to the system housing (as shown in Fig. 5, for instance), wherein the heat dissipation system is configured to dissipate heat that is generated within the system housing during use of the tape storage system (as shown in Fig. 5, for instance, see also paragraph [0028], for instance, i.e., “as is illustrated in FIG. 5, a heat-dissipating array, such as heat sink 160 is provided to dissipate heat in the unit”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the tape storage system of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) further comprise a power supply that is coupled to the system housing, wherein the power supply is configured to supply power to the tape head assembly, the tape movement actuator, and the control electronics; and a heat dissipation system that is coupled to the system housing, wherein the heat dissipation system is configured to dissipate heat that is generated within the system housing during use of the tape storage system, as taught/suggested by Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the tape storage system of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) further comprise a power supply that is coupled to the system housing, wherein the power supply is configured to supply power to the tape head assembly, the tape movement actuator, and the control electronics, as taught/suggested by Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683) since such enables the tape storage system to be powered.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the tape storage system of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) further comprise a heat dissipation system that is coupled to the system housing, wherein the heat dissipation system is configured to dissipate heat that is generated within the system housing during use of the tape storage system, as taught/suggested by Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683) since such enables heat dissipation.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Biskeborn et al. (US 2021/0125637).
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) teach/suggest the tape storage system as detailed in paragraph 7, supra.
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101), however, remain silent as to the tape storage system further comprising “a second tape movement system that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the second tape movement system includes a third reel and a fourth reel, wherein the second tape movement system is configured to retain a second tape having a second tape length of at least approximately 2,000 meters; and… a second tape head assembly that is positionable within the system housing, wherein the second tape head assembly is configured to at least one of write data to and read data from the second tape.”
Biskeborn et al. (US 2021/0125637) teach that a tape storage system (1000, see FIG. 13C, for instance) further comprising a second tape movement system that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the second tape movement system includes a third reel (1004a) and a fourth reel (1004b), wherein the second tape movement system is configured to retain a second tape (1007); and a second tape head assembly (1008) that is positionable within the system housing (as shown in FIG. 13C, for instance), wherein the second tape head assembly is configured to at least one of write data to and read data from the second tape (see paragraph [0125], for instance) is a notoriously old and well known tape storage system configuration. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the tape storage system of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) further comprise a second tape movement system that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the second tape movement system includes a third reel and a fourth reel, wherein the second tape movement system is configured to retain a second tape having a second tape length of at least approximately 2,000 meters; and a second tape head assembly that is positionable within the system housing, wherein the second tape head assembly is configured to at least one of write data to and read data from the second tape, as taught/suggested by Biskeborn et al. (US 2021/0125637). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the tape storage system of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) further comprise a second tape movement system that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the second tape movement system includes a third reel and a fourth reel, wherein the second tape movement system is configured to retain a second tape having a second tape length of at least approximately 2,000 meters; and a second tape head assembly that is positionable within the system housing, wherein the second tape head assembly is configured to at least one of write data to and read data from the second tape, as taught/suggested by Biskeborn et al. (US 2021/0125637), since such is a notoriously old and well known tape storage system configuration, and selecting a known tape storage system configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) and Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683).
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) teaches a tape storage system (100, see FIGS. 1A-1C and 4, for instance) comprising a system housing (includes 145 and 150, see FIG. 1C, for instance) having a housing thickness that is not greater than 2 U (see FIG. 4, for instance, i.e., “26 mm” is less than 2 U); a tape movement system (includes each 110, for instance) that is positioned within the system housing (as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, for instance), wherein the tape movement system includes a first reel (left-most 110) and a second reel (right-most 110), wherein the tape movement system is configured to retain a tape (115) having a tape length (as shown in FIGS. 1A and 1B, for instance), wherein the system housing is sealed (see lines 55-59 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “In one embodiment, the cover 150 is used to hermetically seal the tape embedded drive 100. For example, the drive 100 may be hermetically sealed for environmental control by attaching (e.g., laser welding, adhesive, etc.) the cover to the base 145”), and the tape is fixedly threaded between the first reel and the second reel (as shown in FIG. 1A, for instance) and is non-removable during operation in the sealed system housing (see lines 55-59 in column 4, for instance, i.e., the tape would necessarily be fixedly threaded and non-removable if provided in a “hermetically sealed” environment); a tape head assembly (130/500, see FIGS. 1B and 5, for instance) that is positionable within the system housing (see lines 1-15 in column 7, for instance, i.e., “FIG. 5 illustrates a head assembly 500 of the tape embedded drive 100, according to certain embodiments. The head assembly 500 comprises a multi-stage actuator for moving the head assembly”), wherein the tape head assembly is configured to at least one of write data to and read data from the tape (see lines 44-45 in column 3, for instance, i.e., “head assembly 130 with one or more read and write heads”); and an inert gas within the system housing (see lines 59-60 in column 4, for instance, i.e., “drive 100 may be filled by helium, nitrogen, hydrogen or some other typically inert gas”), wherein the inert gas would inherently have the ability to remove humidity from within the system housing [as per claim 16]; wherein the housing thickness of the system housing is not greater than 1 U (see FIG. 4, for instance, i.e., “26 mm” is less than 1 U) [as per claim 17].
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390), however, remains silent as to the tape length being “at least 2,000 meters,” and the tape storage system further comprising “a heat dissipation system coupled to the system housing and configured to dissipate heat that is generated within the system housing during use of the tape storage system.”
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) does, however, teach increasing tape length (see lines 23-24 in column 6, for instance, i.e., “For increased capacity, the casing can be lengthened in width and/or length to store longer total tape length”).
Murata (US 2023/0178101) teaches that the total length of the tape is not limited and includes values at least as high as 2500 m (see paragraph [0070], for instance, i.e., “A total length of the magnetic tape that is accommodated… is not particularly limited, and can be in a range of, for example, about 800 m to 2500 m.”
Official notice is taken of the fact that it is notoriously old and well known in the tape storage system art to modify the parameters of tape storage system components during the course of routine optimization/experimentation.
Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683) teach a tape (34) storage system (10, see Fig. 1, for instance) further comprising a heat dissipation system (includes 160, see Fig. 5, for instance) coupled to the system housing (as shown in Fig. 5, for instance) and configured to dissipate heat that is generated within the system housing during use of the tape storage system (as shown in Fig. 5, for instance, see also paragraph [0028], for instance, i.e., “as is illustrated in FIG. 5, a heat-dissipating array, such as heat sink 160 is provided to dissipate heat in the unit”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the tape length in Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) be at least 2,000 meters as taught/suggested by Murata (US 2023/0178101); and to have had the tape storage system of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) further comprise a heat dissipation system coupled to the system housing and configured to dissipate heat that is generated within the system housing during use of the tape storage system as taught/suggested by Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the tape length in Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) be at least 2,000 meters as taught/suggested by Murata (US 2023/0178101) since such a range is well within the level of ordinary skill in the art as shown by Murata (US 2023/0178101), and Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) specifically provides motivation for “longer total tape length” for “increased capacity.” Additionally, such a range, absent any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), is generally achievable through routine optimization/experimentation, and discovering the optimum or workable ranges, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Moreover, in the absence of any criticality (i.e., unobvious and/or unexpected result(s)), the parameter set forth above would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the tape storage system of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) further comprise a heat dissipation system coupled to the system housing and configured to dissipate heat that is generated within the system housing during use of the tape storage system as taught/suggested by Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683) since such enables heat dissipation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) and Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Biskeborn et al. (US 2021/0125637).
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) and Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683) teach/suggest the tape storage system as detailed in paragraph 12, supra.
Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) and Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683), however, remain silent as to the tape storage system further comprising “a second tape movement system that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the second tape movement system includes a third reel and a fourth reel, wherein the second tape movement system is configured to retain a second tape having a second tape length of at least approximately 2,000 meters; and… a second tape head assembly that is positionable within the system housing, wherein the second tape head assembly is configured to at least one of write data to and read data from the second tape.”
Biskeborn et al. (US 2021/0125637) teach that a tape storage system (1000, see FIG. 13C, for instance) further comprising a second tape movement system that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the second tape movement system includes a third reel (1004a) and a fourth reel (1004b), wherein the second tape movement system is configured to retain a second tape (1007); and a second tape head assembly (1008) that is positionable within the system housing (as shown in FIG. 13C, for instance), wherein the second tape head assembly is configured to at least one of write data to and read data from the second tape (see paragraph [0125], for instance) is a notoriously old and well known tape storage system configuration. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have had the tape storage system of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) and Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683) further comprise a second tape movement system that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the second tape movement system includes a third reel and a fourth reel, wherein the second tape movement system is configured to retain a second tape having a second tape length of at least approximately 2,000 meters; and a second tape head assembly that is positionable within the system housing, wherein the second tape head assembly is configured to at least one of write data to and read data from the second tape, as taught/suggested by Biskeborn et al. (US 2021/0125637). The rationale is as follows:
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have had the tape storage system of Kobayashi (US 10,991,390) in view of Murata (US 2023/0178101) and Gavit et al. (US 2007/0008683) further comprise a second tape movement system that is positioned within the system housing, wherein the second tape movement system includes a third reel and a fourth reel, wherein the second tape movement system is configured to retain a second tape having a second tape length of at least approximately 2,000 meters; and a second tape head assembly that is positionable within the system housing, wherein the second tape head assembly is configured to at least one of write data to and read data from the second tape, as taught/suggested by Biskeborn et al. (US 2021/0125637), since such is a notoriously old and well known tape storage system configuration, and selecting a known tape storage system configuration on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. This includes Uefune et al. (US 10,997,998), Uefune et al. (US 10,998,008), Chew (US 11,081,032), Namihisa et al. (US 11,170,823), Sakagami et al. (US 11,295,771), Schreck et al. (US 11,562,769), and Schreck et al. (US 2023/0386517), which each individually teaches a tape storage system using an inert gas in a hermetically sealed environment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Craig A. Renner whose telephone number is (571) 272-7580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 7:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim can be reached at (571) 270-1210. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CRAIG A. RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688