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 .
This office action is in response to the communication filed on 08/19/2025. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicants made one main argument.
It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner has cited no portion of the Biskeborn01 reference teaching or suggesting “wherein the array of NE transducer elements [for a single data band of a tape] extends over most of the tape width Wtape,” as required by claim 15, for example. It is noted that the Examiner has cited the Biskeborn01 reference as describing “an array of many Ne transducers 214/216 carried on the substrate 204A.” However, the Biskeborn01 reference describes the array 206 (FIG. 2A) of writers 214, readers 216 and servo readers 212 (FIG. 2B) as being positioned to specific track positions within one of data 4-22 data bands. Biskeborn01, column 6, lines 19-43. It is respectfully submitted that the Examiner has cited no portion of the Biskeborn01 reference teaching or suggesting that the array of 206 of readers and/or writers expends over most of the tape width of the tape 208. Accordingly, it is clear that the Examiner has cited no portion of the Biskeborn01 reference teaching or suggesting “wherein the array of NE transducer elements [for a single data band of a tape] extends over most of the tape width Wtape;” as required by claim 15, for example. It is respectfully submitted that the deficiencies of the Examiner’s citations to the Bisborn01 reference are not met by the Examiner’s citations to the Biskeborn02 reference. The Examiner has cited that the Biskeborn02 as describing a “tape head 100 having many read/write transducers 102 to read and write data on a tape having a single data band (see section [0005]).” It is noted that the cited section merely states: “The tape may have a single data band, or many data bands, and each band may have one or more servo tracks.” Biskeborn02, [0005]. Accordingly, it is clear that the Examiner’s citations to the Biskeborn01 and Biskeborn02 references, considered alone or in combination, having no teaching or suggestion of “wherein the array of NE transducer elements [for a single data band of a tape] extends over most of the tape width Wtape;”, as required by claim 15, for example. Independent claims 1 and 9 may be distinguished in a similar fashion.
This argument is not persuasive. As clearly shown in the figures 2A/2B and column 6 lines 14-67 of Biskeborn01, between the longitudinal edges of the tape 208, there are an array of transducers 214/216 extending over. Even more specific disclosed that, module 204 of magnetic tape head 200 comprising the array of readers/writers 206 includes, for example, 16 writers/transducers 214, 16 readers/transducers 216 and two servo readers/transducers 212. And Biskeborn02 specifically teaches that a tape may have a single data band or many data bands, the teaching satisfied the claimed limitation of a single data band. Biskeborn01 and Biskeborn02 are combinable because they from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Bisbeborn01 by including the teaching from Biskeborn02 in order to increase data storage density for a tape (see Biskeborn02, sections [0003], [0004]).
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, 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biskeborn et al (USPN 9,218,838), hereinafter as Biskeborn01, in view of Biskeborn (US 2007/0291408), hereinafter as Biskeborn02.
RE claims 1, 9 and 15, Biskeborn01 discloses the invention substantially as claimed.
Biskeborn01 discloses that a tape head and its method for writing tracks of data on magnetic tape having a plurality of servo bands and a tape width Wtape extending between longitudinal edges of the tape (see figures 2/2A and column 5 lines 49-64, column 6 lines 1-29; i.e., tape head 200 for writing tracks of data on magnetic tape 208 having a plurality of servo tracks 210 and a tape width Wtape of ½ inch extending between longitudinal edges of the tape 208), comprising: a module having a substrate, an array of Ne transducer elements carried on the substrate (see figures 2/2A/2B/2C and column 5 lines 49-67, column 6 lines 54-67; i.e., module 204 having a substrate 204A, an array of many Ne transducers 214/216 carried on the substrate 204A) and configured to one of 1) write to, and 2) read from a single band of data on the tape (see figures 2/2A/2B/2C and column 6 lines 24-67; i.e., write transducers 214 positioned to specific tracks within one of the data bands and writing to the data band, and read transducers 216 positioned to specific tracks within one of the data bands and reading from the data band); and an array of four servo transducer elements carried on the substrate for each servo band of the tape for a total of eight servo transducer elements on the tape head module (see figures 2/2C and column 7 lines 18-27; i.e., two pairs of servo transducers 212 carried on substrate 204A resulted with four servo transducers and eight servo transducers on the tape head modules 204), processor (see column 5 lines 4-8; i.e., processor included in controller 128), a controller (see column 5 lines 4-8; i.e., controller 128).
However, Biskeborn01 does not specifically disclose that the tape having a single data band width Wdb wherein the Ne transducer element array and the single data band width Wdb each extend over most of the tape width Wtape.
From the same field of endeavor, Biskeborn02 teaches that a tape head 100 having many read/write transducers 102 to read and write data on a tape having a single data band (see section [0005]). The motivation of Biskeborn02 is to increase data storage density for a tape (see sections [0003], [0004]).
Biskeborn01 and Biskeborn02 are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Biskeborn01 by including the teaching from Biskeborn02 in order to increase data storage density for a tape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10-14, 16-20 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.
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 from the examiner should be directed to FRED TZENG whose telephone number is 571-272-7565. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays from 2:0 pm to 10:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Boddie can be reached on 571-272-0666. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-7565 for After Final communications.
Informal 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/docs 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 (IN USA).
/FRED TZENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
FFT
November 20, 2025