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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed November 26, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-16 remain pending, but stand rejected for the reasons detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duncan (US Patent No. 5590028).
Regarding claim 1, Duncan discloses a memory device (see Figures 1-2) comprising: a housing (comprised of frame 76 and covers 10, 12) configured to fit within a computing device (device configured to connect with receptacle 24); a primary portion (printed wiring board 14) positioned within the housing (10, 12, 76), the primary portion (14) comprising a planar card structure (see Figure 2) having at least one memory element (see col. 1-3) thereon, the planar card structure (see Figure 2) forming a partial polygon circumference (see Figure 2); and a detachable portion (battery retaining member 90) selectively coupled to the primary portion (14) such that when coupled a complete polygon circumference is formed (see Figure 2), and when coupled to the primary portion (14), the detachable portion (90) is positioned within the housing (10, 12, 76), and when the detachable portion (90) is detached from the primary portion (14), the detachable portion (90) may be removed from the housing (10, 12, 76).
Regarding claim 2, Duncan discloses the memory device of claim 1, further comprising an energy source module (ESM) (battery 70) positioned on the detachable portion (90).
Regarding claim 3, Duncan discloses the memory device of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the ESM (70) comprises a battery (see col. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Duncan discloses the memory device of claim 2, and further discloses wherein the housing (10, 12, 76) comprises a face (face of front bar 82) through which the detachable portion (90) may be removed (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Duncan discloses the memory device of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the primary portion (14) extends across part of a lateral axis (left-right direction) of the face (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Duncan discloses the memory device of claim 8, and further discloses wherein the detachable portion (14) extends across substantially all of a lateral axis (up-down direction) of the face (see Figures 1-6) and extends across part of a longitudinal axis (left-right direction) of the housing (see Figures 1-6).
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.
In the event Applicant disagrees with Examiner’s interpretation of Duncan, claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (US Patent No. 5590028) in view of Ryu (US Publication No. 2021/0345489) and Harase (US Patent No. 5155663).
Regarding claim 1, Duncan discloses a memory device (see Figures 1-2) comprising: a housing (comprised of frame 76 and covers 10, 12) configured to fit within a computing device (device configured to connect with receptacle 24); a primary portion (printed wiring board 14) positioned within the housing (10, 12, 76), the primary portion (14) comprising a planar card structure (see Figure 2) having at least one memory element (see col. 1-3) thereon, the planar card structure (see Figure 2) forming a partial polygon circumference (see Figure 2); and a detachable portion (battery retaining member 90) selectively coupled to the primary portion (14) such that when coupled a complete polygon circumference is formed (see Figure 2), and when coupled to the primary portion (14), the detachable portion (90) is positioned within the housing (10, 12, 76), and when the detachable portion (90) is detached from the primary portion (14), the detachable portion (90) may be removed from the housing (10, 12, 76).
While Duncan suggests the primary portion comprises a planar card structure having at least one memory element, Ryu explicitly teaches the primary portion (Figures 1-10, PCB) comprising a planar card structure (see Figures 1-10) having at least one memory element (see Paragraph [0003]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the memory elements of Ryu to the PCB of Duncan. Doing so would have provided the memory PCB with hardware necessary to store memory (see Paragraph [0003] in Ryu).
While Duncan in view of Ryu suggests the housing is configured to fit within a computing device, Harase explicitly teaches a housing configured to fit within a computing device (Figure 4, apparatus 40). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the computing device of Harase with the memory device of Duncan. Doing so would have provided a computing device configured to read or write image data into or from the memory device (see col. 4, ln. 1-5 in Harase).
Regarding claim 2, Duncan in view of Ryu and Harase teaches the memory device of claim 1, further comprising (in Duncan) an energy source module (ESM) (battery 70) positioned on the detachable portion (90).
Regarding claim 3, Duncan in view of Ryu and Harase teaches the memory device of claim 2, and further teaches (in Duncan) wherein the ESM (70) comprises a battery (see col. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Duncan in view of Ryu and Harase teaches the memory device of claim 2, and further teaches (in Duncan) wherein the housing comprises a face (face of front bar 82) through which the detachable portion (90) may be removed (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 9, Duncan in view of Ryu and Harase teaches the memory device of claim 8, and further teaches (in Duncan) wherein the primary portion (14) extends across part of a lateral axis (left-right direction) of the face (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 10, Duncan in view of Ryu and Harase teaches the memory device of claim 8, and further teaches (in Duncan) wherein the detachable portion (14) extends across substantially all of a lateral axis (up-down direction) of the face (see Figures 1-6) and extends across part of a longitudinal axis (left-right direction) of the housing (see Figures 1-6).
Regarding claim 15, Duncan in view of Ryu and Harase teaches the memory device of claim 2, and further teaches (in Ryu) a detachable portion (capacitor module 100) comprising an energy source module (ESM) (capacitor 110) positioned on the detachable portion (case 120 of 100), wherein the ESM (110) comprises either a capacitor or a hybrid capacitor (see Paragraph [0025]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the ESM of Duncan for the ESM of Ryu according to known methods to yield the predictable results of supplying power to a memory PCB (see col. 1-2 in Duncan; see Paragraph [0032] in Ryu).
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (US Patent No. 5590028), Ryu (US Publication No. 2021/0345489), Harase (US Patent No. 5155663), and in further view of Chen (US Publication No. 2021/0367360).
Regarding claim 4, Duncan in view of Ryu and Harase teaches the memory device of claim 2, and further teaches (in Duncan) wherein the primary portion (14) comprises a first connector (terminal 38, 40) mounted on the planar card structure (14), but does not teach the detachable portion comprises a second connector, the first connector, and the second connector configured to mate and form electrical connections therethrough.
However, Chen teaches a primary portion (PCB 310) and a detachable portion (340), the primary portion (310) comprises a first connector (connector 810) mounted on the planar card structure (substrate of 310) and the detachable portion (340) comprises a second connector (connector 820), the first connector (810), and the second connector (820) configured to mate and form electrical connections therethrough (see Paragraphs [0048]-[0050]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the detachable portion and connectors of Duncan as modified by Ryu and Harase for the detachable portion and connectors of Chen, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of connecting a power supply to a memory PCB (see col. 1-2 in Duncan; see Paragraphs [0046]-[0056] in Chen).
Regarding claim 5, Duncan in view of Ryu, Harase, and Chen teaches the memory device of claim 4, and further teaches (in Duncan and Chen) wherein the primary portion (14 in Duncan; 310 in Chen) is L-shaped (see Figure 2 in Duncan; see Figures 8A, 8C in Chen), and the detachable portion (90 in Duncan; 340 in Chen) is shaped to fit within an angle of the L (see Figure 2 in Duncan; see Figures 8A, 8C in Chen).
Regarding claim 6, Duncan in view of Ryu, Harase, and Chen teaches the memory device of claim 5, and further teaches (in Chen) wherein the first connector (Figure 8A in Chen, 810) is on a short side of the L (see Figure 8A).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have arranged the first connector of Duncan as modified by Ryu, Harase, and Chen on a short side of the L, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C)), and considering a change in shape has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
Regarding claim 7, Duncan in view of Ryu, Harase, and Chen teaches the memory device of claim 5, and further teaches (in Chen) wherein the first connector (Figure 8A in Chen, 810) is on a long side of the L (see Figure 8C).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have arranged the first connector of Duncan as modified by Ryu, Harase, and Chen on a long side of the L, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950); MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C)), and considering a change in shape has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art, absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed feature is significant. See MPEP § 2144.04 and In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.)
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (US Patent No. 5590028), Ryu (US Publication No. 2021/0345489), Harase (US Patent No. 5155663), and in further view of Kano (US Publication No. 2015/0022718).
Regarding claim 11, Duncan in view of Ryu and Harase teaches the memory device of claim 2, but does not teach a lever coupled to the detachable portion, wherein the lever is configured to open and provide a handle with which to detach the detachable portion from the primary portion.
However, Kano teaches a lever (battery locking lever 65) coupled to the detachable portion (battery 60), wherein the lever (65) is configured to open and provide a handle (see Paragraphs [0158]-[0161]) with which to detach the detachable portion (60) from the primary portion (main board unit 3).
Because Duncan also teaches a similar latching mechanism (slide lock 100), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the slide latch of Duncan as modified by Ryu and Harase for the rotating latch/lever of Kano according to known methods to yield the predictable results of locking/latching a battery module within a housing (see col. 2 in Duncan; see Paragraphs [0158]-[0161] in Kano).
Regarding claim 12, Duncan in view of Ryu and Harase teaches the memory device of claim 2, but does not teach a spring mechanism to eject the detachable portion.
However, Kano teaches a spring mechanism (ejection spring 66) to eject the detachable portion (battery 60).
Because Duncan also teaches a similar latching mechanism (slide lock 100), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the ejection spring of Kano to the housing and detachable portion of Duncan as modified by Ryu and Harase. Doing so would have provided an ejection functionality to the housing, allowing for a user to more easily remove the battery from the housing (see Paragraphs [0156]-[0161] in Kano).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (US Patent No. 5590028), Ryu (US Publication No. 2021/0345489), Harase (US Patent No. 5155663), and in further view of Douglas (US Patent No. 7414854).
Regarding claim 13, Duncan in view of Ryu and Harase teaches the memory device of claim 2, but does not teach a button coupled to a lever configured to push the detachable portion out of the housing.
However, Douglas teaches a button (Figures 3-4, col. 9, ln. 45-67, col. 10, ln. 1-9, release button 416) coupled to a lever (Figures 3-4, col. 8, ln. 27-50, col. 9, ln. 45-67, col. 10, ln. 1-9, release button 332/416 is coupled to the ejection arm 338) configured to push the detachable portion (battery module 450) out of the housing (Figures 3-4, col. 8, ln. 27-50, col. 9, ln. 45-67, col. 10, ln. 1-9, when the release button 332/416 is pressed, the ejection arm ejects the battery module 450 out of the case).
Because Duncan also teaches a similar latching mechanism (slide lock 100), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the slide latch of Duncan as modified by Ryu and Harase for the button latch/lever of Douglas according to known methods to yield the predictable results of locking/latching a battery module within a housing (see col. 2 in Duncan; see col. 8, ln. 27-50, col. 9, ln. 45-67, col. 10, ln. 1-9 in Douglas). Doing so would have also provided an ejection functionality to the housing, allowing for a user to more easily remove the battery from the housing. Id.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duncan (US Patent No. 5590028), Ryu (US Publication No. 2021/0345489), Harase (US Patent No. 5155663), and in further view of Ikeda (US Publication No. 2016/0131721).
Regarding claim 14, Duncan in view of Ryu and Harase teaches the memory device of claim 2, but does not teach a light-emitting diode (LED) coupled to the ESM and configured to provide an indication of ESM health.
However, Ikeda teaches further comprising a light-emitting diode (LED) (indicator 40) coupled to the ESM (power supply 24) and configured to provide an indication of ESM health (Figures 1-3 and Paragraph [0035], indicator 40, which can be an LED, is configured to provide the state of the internal power supply 24).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the light-emitting diode (LED) in Ikeda to the ESM and housing of Duncan as modified by Ryu and Harase. Doing so would have notified a user of the status of the energy source module, and allowed the user to perform preventative maintenance (see Paragraph [0128] in Ikeda).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harase (US Publication No. 5155663) in view of Duncan (US Patent No. 5590028) and Ryu (US Publication No. 2021/0345489).
Regarding claim 16, Harase teaches a computing device (Figure 4, apparatus 40) comprising: a computer housing (housing of 40) delimiting one or more bays (loading bay 46) on a first face (see Figure 4); a memory device (memory 41; see also adapter 2 and memory 3) comprising: a memory housing (housing of 41) configured to comply with a published form factor (see col. 3, line 1-10) and fit within the one or more bays (46) of the computer housing (housing of 40).
Harase does not disclose a primary portion positioned within the memory housing, the primary portion comprising a planar card structure having at least one memory element thereon, the planar card structure forming a partial polygon circumference; and a detachable portion selectively coupled to the primary portion and when coupled to the primary portion, the detachable portion forms a complete polygon circumference and is positioned within the memory housing and when the detachable portion is detached from the primary portion, the detachable portion may be removed from the memory housing.
However, Duncan teaches a memory device (see Figures 1-2) comprising: a memory housing (comprised of frame 76 and covers 10, 12); a primary portion (printed wiring board 14) positioned within the memory housing (10, 12, 76), the primary portion (14) comprising a planar card structure (see Figure 2) having at least one memory element (see col. 1-3) thereon, the planar card structure (see Figure 2) forming a partial polygon circumference (see Figure 2); and a detachable portion (battery retaining member 90) selectively coupled to the primary portion (14) and when coupled to the primary portion (14), the detachable portion (90) forms a complete polygon circumference (see Figure 2) and is positioned within the memory housing (10, 12, 76) and when the detachable portion (90) is detached from the primary portion (14), the detachable portion (90) may be removed from the memory housing (10, 12, 76).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have substituted the memory device of Ryu for the memory device of Duncan, according to known methods to yield the predictable results of providing a computing system with a device configured to store memory (see col. 1-2 in Duncan; see col. 4, ln. 1-5 in Harase).
While Duncan suggests the primary portion comprises a planar card structure having at least one memory element, Ryu explicitly teaches a primary portion (Figures 1-10, PCB) comprising a planar card structure (see Figures 1-10) having at least one memory element (see Paragraph [0003]). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective file date of the claimed invention to have combined the memory elements of Ryu to the PCB of Harase as modified by Duncan. Doing so would have provided the memory PCB with hardware necessary to store memory (see Paragraph [0003] in Ryu).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heyd (US Publication No. 2024/0107671) discloses a memory device (expansion card 105) comprising: a housing (comprised of structural chassis members 135, 145) configured to fit within a computing device (see Paragraph [0016]); a primary portion (circuit board assembly 120) positioned within the housing (135, 145), the primary portion (120) comprising a planar card structure (see Figures 4 and 6) having at least one memory element (storage drive moules 134, 144) thereon, the planar card structure (120) forming a partial polygon circumference (see Figures 4 and 6); and a detachable portion (circuit board assembly 110) selectively coupled to the primary portion (120) such that when coupled a complete polygon circumference is formed (see Figures 4-6), and when coupled to the primary portion (110), the detachable portion (110) is positioned within the housing (135, 145), and when the detachable portion (110) is detached from the primary portion (120), the detachable portion may be removed from the housing (135, 145).
Janniere (US Publication No. 5402095) discloses an element of claim 10.
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 GAGE STEPHEN CRUM whose telephone number is (571)272-3373. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/GAGE CRUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841
gsc
Prosecution Insights