DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "a marking layer" in line 3 and again in line 6 of the claim. It is unclear if these are the same marking layer or if these are 2 different marking layers. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1-18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa (7,120,029) in further view of Suzuki (2011/0315984).
Regarding Claim 1: Nishizawa teaches a memory card comprising: a case (fig. 3) comprising a first case portion (2b) and a second case portion (2a) that is coupled to the first case portion (fig. 2-3), the case further comprising a recess groove (A1) recessed inward on one side (fig. 3); an integrated circuit package (4) located in the case (fig. 3) and comprising a panel substrate (C2 fig. 4)) and a stacked memory chip (4c1); a marking layer (7b) located in the case (fig. 40); and an adapter (9) comprising an insertion hole (area of 9 where 8b and 8c are inserted from figs. 46-50) into which the case is inserted (figs. 46-50), wherein the case comprises a marking area in the second case portion (fig. 40), but lacks a specific teaching of wherein the second case portion comprises a plurality of through-holes in the marking area, wherein the marking area is disposed adjacent to the marking layer such that the through- holes expose a part of the marking layer.
Suzuki teaches wherein the second case portion (13) comprises a plurality of through-holes (13a in figs. 13a-13b) in the marking area (figs. 13a-13b), wherein the marking area is disposed adjacent to the marking layer (11) such that the through holes (13a) expose a part of the marking layer (fig. 13B)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa by having wherein the second case portion comprises a plurality of through-holes in the marking area, wherein the marking area is disposed adjacent to the marking layer such that the through-holes expose a part of the marking layer as disclosed by Suzuki in order to allow for an easier marking system on the memory components allowing the user to verify which memory device is needed in an easier and faster way which saves time and energy for the user.
Regarding Claim 2: Nishizawa lacks a specific teaching of the marking layer comprises a metal, wherein a color of the marking layer is different from a color of the second case portion, and the marking layer is exposed to an outside through the plurality of through-holes.
Suzuki teaches the marking layer (11) comprises a metal (12), and the marking layer is exposed to an outside through the plurality of through-holes (figs. 13a-13b), but also lacks a specific teaching of wherein a color of the marking layer is different from a color of the second case portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa by having the marking layer comprises a metal, and the marking layer is exposed to an outside through the plurality of through-holes as disclosed by Suzuki in order to allow for an easier marking system on the memory components allowing the user to verify which memory device is needed in an easier and faster way which saves time and energy for the user. It also would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa in view of Suzuki by having a color of the marking layer is different from a color of the second case portion in order to make viewing the marking layer easier for the user and to more distinctly show the marking layer which in turn decreases the chance of user error in using the wrong memory component wherein this would be accomplished merely by choosing the correct material with a specific color to achieve the dynamic and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 3: Nishizawa teaches a memory card comprising: a case (fig. 3) comprising a first case portion (2b) and a second case portion (2a) that is coupled to the first case portion (figs. 2-3); an integrated circuit package (4) located in the case (fig. 3); and a marking layer (7b) located in the case (fig. 40), but lacks a specific teaching of wherein the second case portion comprises a through-hole, wherein the marking layer is exposed to an outside through the through-hole.
Suzuki teaches wherein the second case portion (13) comprises a through-hole (13a), wherein the marking layer (11) is exposed to an outside through the through-hole (fig. 13B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa by having wherein the second case portion comprises a through-hole, wherein the marking layer is exposed to an outside through the through-hole as disclosed by Suzuki in order to allow for an easier marking system on the memory components allowing the user to verify which memory device is needed in an easier and faster way which saves time and energy for the user.
Regarding Claim 4: Nishizawa in view of Suzuki lack a specific teaching of a color of the case and a color of the marking layer are different from each other.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa by having a color of the case and a color of the marking layer are different from each other in order to make viewing the marking layer easier for the user and to more distinctly show the marking layer which in turn decreases the chance of user error in using the wrong memory component wherein this would be accomplished merely by choosing the correct material with a specific color to achieve the dynamic and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 5: Nishizawa lacks a specific teaching of the marking layer comprises a metal.
Suzuki teaches the marking layer comprises a metal (12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa by having the marking layer comprises a metal as disclosed by Suzuki in order to allow for an easier marking system on the memory components allowing the user to verify which memory device is needed in an easier and faster way which saves time and energy for the user.
Regarding Claim 6: Nishizawa in view of Suzuki lacks a specific teaching of the case is green.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa by having the case being green in order to make viewing the marking layer easier for the user and to more distinctly show the marking layer which in turn decreases the chance of user error in using the wrong memory component wherein this would be accomplished merely by choosing the correct material with a specific color to achieve the dynamic and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious engineering choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 7: Nishizawa teaches the integrated circuit package and the marking layer are spaced apart from each other (figs. 3 and 40).
Regarding Claim 8: Nishizawa teaches wherein the case comprises a first case portion edge (figs. 3), a second case portion edge (figs. 3) connected to the first case portion edge (figs. 3), a third case edge (figs. 3) connected to the second case portion edge (figs. 3), and a fourth case edge (figs. 3) connected to the third case edge (figs. 3) and the first case portion edge (figs. 3), wherein the second case portion edge comprises a first recess groove (A1) that is spaced apart from the first case portion edge and is recessed inward (figs. 3).
Regarding Claim 9: Nishizawa teaches wherein the fourth case edge comprises a second recess groove (A2) that is spaced apart from the first case portion edge and is recessed inward (figs. 3).
Regarding Claim 10: Nishizawa lacks a specific teaching of the marking layer is located between the first recess groove and the third case edge.
Suzuki teaches the marking layer is located between the first recess groove and the third case edge (figs. 13a-13b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa by having the marking layer is located between the first recess groove and the third case edge as disclosed by Suzuki in order to allow for an easier marking system on the memory components allowing the user to verify which memory device is needed in an easier and faster way which saves time and energy for the user.
Regarding Claim 11: Nishizawa lacks a specific teaching of the marking layer is spaced apart from the first case portion edge with the integrated circuit package therebetween.
Suzuki teaches the marking layer is spaced apart from the first case portion edge with the integrated circuit package therebetween (figs. 13a-13b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa by having the marking layer is spaced apart from the first case portion edge with the integrated circuit package therebetween as disclosed by Suzuki in order to allow for an easier marking system on the memory components allowing the user to verify which memory device is needed in an easier and faster way which saves time and energy for the user.
Regarding Claim 12: Nishizawa teaches a switch (3) located in the first recess groove (fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 13: Nishizawa teaches a case chamfer (CF1) having an inclined shape (fig. 3) and connected to the first case portion edge and the fourth case edge (fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 14: Nishizawa teaches a memory card (fig. 3) comprising: a first case portion (2b); a second case portion (2a) coupled to the first case portion (fig. 3) and comprising a marking area (7b); an integrated circuit package (4) located between the first case portion and the second case portion (fig. 3); but lacks a specific teaching of a marking layer located between the integrated circuit package and the second case portion, wherein the second case portion comprises a plurality of through-holes in the marking area.
Suzuki teaches a marking layer (11) located between the integrated circuit package (1 and 2) and the second case portion (13), wherein the second case portion comprises a plurality of through-holes (13A) in the marking area (figs. 13a-13b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa by having a marking layer located between the integrated circuit package and the second case portion, wherein the second case portion comprises a plurality of through-holes in the marking area as disclosed by Suzuki in order to allow for an easier marking system on the memory components allowing the user to verify which memory device is needed in an easier and faster way which saves time and energy for the user.
Regarding Claim 15: Nishizawa lacks a specific teaching of the marking layer is exposed to an outside through the plurality of through-holes.
Suzuki teaches the marking layer is exposed to an outside through the plurality of through-holes (13a shown in figs. 13a-13b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa by having the marking layer is exposed to an outside through the plurality of through-holes as disclosed by Suzuki in order to allow for an easier marking system on the memory components allowing the user to verify which memory device is needed in an easier and faster way which saves time and energy for the user.
Regarding Claim 16: Nishizawa lacks a specific teaching of at least some of the plurality of through- holes are arranged to form a two-dimensional (2D) code.
Suzuki teaches at least some of the plurality of through-holes are arranged to form a two-dimensional (2D) code (figs. 13a-13b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa by having at least some of the plurality of through- holes are arranged to form a two-dimensional (2D) code as disclosed by Suzuki in order to allow for an easier marking system on the memory components allowing the user to verify which memory device is needed in an easier and faster way which saves time and energy for the user.
Regarding Claim 17: Nishizawa teaches wherein the integrated circuit package (4) comprises a panel substrate (C2) and a stacked memory chip (4c1), wherein the stacked memory chip is located on a top surface of the panel substrate (fig. 4), but lacks a specific teaching of the marking layer is located on a bottom surface of the panel substrate.
Suzuki teaches the marking layer is located on a bottom surface of the panel substrate (shown in figs. 13a-13b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa by having the marking layer is located on a bottom surface of the panel substrate as disclosed by Suzuki in order to allow for an easier marking system on the memory components allowing the user to verify which memory device is needed in an easier and faster way which saves time and energy for the user.
Regarding Claim 18: Nishizawa teaches an adapter (9) into which the first case portion and the second case portion are inserted (figs. 46-50).
Regarding Claim 20: Nishizawa teaches wherein the first case portion comprises a protrusion (X4) protruding outward from a top surface (fig. 43).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishizawa (7,120,029) in further view of Suzuki (2011/0315984) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Sherry (8,747,162).
Regarding Claim 19: Nishizawa in view of Suzuki lacks a specific teaching of the adapter comprises a switch located on a side of the adapter.
Sherry teaches the adapter (10) comprises a switch (25) located on a side of the adapter (fig. 2 and col. 6 lines 20-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of Nishizawa in view of Suzuki by having the adapter comprises a switch located on a side of the adapter as disclosed by Sherry in order to allow for the adapter to have the same functionality of the memory card device and not have to sacrifice the userability of the apparatus in order to use the adapter and allow the memory device to be inserted in multiple various memory device housings which in turn increases the versatility of the overall device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841