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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2, 4, and 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on October 29, 2025.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isozaki et al. (2019/0236032) in view of Vanslette (2020/0090553).
Regarding claim 1, Isozaki discloses a data storage apparatus disposed within a PC case (which constitutes a chassis), wherein a label is attached to the data storage apparatus, and the label has a Physical Security ID (PSID) printed on it. See paragraph 0058. However, Isozaki does not disclose a tamper evident portion that at least partially covers the PSID. Vanslette teaches using scratchable ink to removably cover sensitive information on a substrate. See paragraph 0034. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a scratchable ink over the PSID disclosed by Isozaki, as taught by Vanslette, in order to make it obvious when the information in the PSID has been exposed.
Regarding claim 3, the tamper evident portion disclosed by Vanslette is a scratchable ink. (See paragraph 0034).
Regarding claim 5, the device disclosed by Isozaki is a data storage drive. (see paragraph 0058).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Isozaki teaches away from using a PSID. But Isozaki is a base reference, not a teaching reference. In other words, Isozaki is not cited to “teach” anything one way or another. Rather, it is cited as anticipating certain features of the claimed invention. From there, Vanslette is cited as a teaching reference because it suggests modifications to the invention disclosed by Isozaki.
Regarding Isozaki, though, It has been held that a reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it. Thus, the question whether a reference “teaches away” from the invention is inapplicable to an anticipation analysis. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Ben Venue Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2d 1508 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
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 GARY C HOGE whose telephone number is (571)272-6645. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8227. 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.
/GARY C HOGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3631
Prosecution Insights