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
Applicant elected, without traverse, Species I, Sub-species A (Figures 1-4, 8) in the reply filed on August 21, 2025.
Claims 3, 4, 7-12, 15, 16, 18, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 21, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to claim 13 (line 6), the term "a tape" should be changed to the term --the tape media-- to maintain proper antecedence and previous/subsequent claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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.
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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) in view of Bui et al. (US 10,332,554 B1) and Tollefson et al. (US 5,074,451).
As per claim 1 (and analogously, as per claim 13), Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) discloses a tape head module (e.g., 26) and tape guide assembly (e.g. 40/42) (see Fig. 6), the assembly comprising: a tape head module (e.g., 26) located on a first side of a tape (e.g., 28) (see Fig. 6), wherein the tape head module (26) is adapted for reading data from the tape (e.g., 28) or writing data to the tape (28); and a first tape support guide (e.g., 40) and a second tape support guide (e.g., 42) that are positioned on opposite sides of the tape head module (26), on the first side of the tape (i.e., same side as facing the tape (28) as the module facing the tape - see Fig. 6), and in close proximity to the tape head module (26) and adapted to provide a short and stiff portion of the tape (28) located near the tape head module (26), are positioned a close distance apart having a spacing that defines a short unsupported tape span between the first tape guide support (e.g., 40) and the second tape guide support (e.g., 42) (Figs. 3, 6), are positioned immediately before and after the tape head module (28) (see Fig. 6) and on a same side of tape (28) as the tape head module (26) in order to ensure that the tape (28) is adequately supported as it passes over the tape head module (26) (see Fig. 6), and are and provide a stable interface between the tape head module (26) and the tape (28) - see, inter alia, Figs. 3, 6, etc.
Additionally, as per claim 13, Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) further discloses a tape drive system (e.g. 10) comprising: the tape media (e.g., 28) adapted to store data; at least one reel (e.g., 30 and/or 32) adapted to unroll the tape media (28) therefrom or roll the tape media (28) thereto; and a plurality of rollers (e.g., 44, 46) rotatable about an axis and adapted to move the tape media past the tape head module (26) and tape guide assembly (e.g. 40/42).
As per amended claim 1, Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) does indeed appear to disclose, based on inferences drawn from a positional relationship between the first and second tape guide support diameters, and their respective distance between each other, in the drawings, wherein the corresponding first tape support guide and second tape support guide have a diameter that is less than a distance between the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide (as well as per claim 13), wherein further, as per amended claim 1, such that the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide are positioned such that a distance (d) between the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide satisfies d = w +2t, where w is a width of the tape head module and t is a tolerance between the first tape support guide and the tape head module and between the second tape support guide and the tape head module. Note the formula as presented in claim 13, is merely a quantitative description of the spacing between the tape support guides, the head module, and their diameters of the tape support guides, i.e. that formula does not add any numeric limitations or ranges to the relationship. See Fig. 3 of Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1).
Assuming arguendo, however, that Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) does not fairly show such a feature (as per claims 1 and 13), simply positioning the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide, such that the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide have a diameter that is less than a distance between the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide (including the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide are positioned such that a distance (d) between the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide satisfies d = w +2t, where w is a width of the tape head module and t is a tolerance between the first tape support guide and the tape head module and between the second tape support guide and the tape head module), is well-known in the art.
As just one example, Bui et al. (US 10,332,554 B1), discloses an analogous tape head module and tape guide assembly (e.g., 100 - see Fig. 1), wherein, as per claims 1 and 13, Bui et al. (US 10,332,554 B1) discloses a first tape support guide (e.g., 112A) and a second tape support guide (e.g., 112B) have a diameter that is less than a distance between the first tape support guide (112A) and the second tape support guide (112B) - see Fig. 1; moreover, as is clearly evident, the first tape support guide(112A) and the second tape support guide (112B) are positioned such that a distance (d) between the first tape support guide (112A) and the second tape support guide (112B) satisfies d = w +2t, where w is a width of the tape head module (e.g., 104) and t is a tolerance between the first tape support guide (112A) and the tape head module (104) and between the second tape support guide (112B) and the tape head module (104).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Given the well-known knowledge about the spacing/diameters relationship between first/.second tape support guides positioned on opposite sides of tape head modules, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the tape drive system of Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) (assuming that Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) does not already depict such a feature) with the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide have a diameter that is less than a distance between the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide, in order to support the tape over a broader length prior to engagement with a tape head, thus reducing friction, as is well-known in the art, evidenced by Bui et al. (US 10,332,554 B1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Additionally, as per claims 1 and 13, Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide are guideposts that are stationary and non-rotatable relative to a supporting structure.
However, such features are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Tollefson et al. (US 5,074,451) discloses an analogous tape drive system and/or tape head module and tape guide assembly, in the same field of endeavor as Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) wherein, as per amended claims 1 and 13, corresponding first tape support guide and the second tape support guide are guideposts which are stationary (e.g. 12 12) and non-rotatable relative to a supporting structure (e.g., the base om which the stationary guides are supported and affixed).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Tollefson et al. (US 5,074,451), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the tape drive system of Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) as comprising the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide are guideposts, as taught and suggested by Tollefson et al. (US 5,074,451), in order to advantageously provide a "tape guide having improved durability and excellent tape tracking characteristics." See abstract of Tollefson et al. (US 5,074,451).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) in view of Bui et al. (US 10,332,554 B1) and Tollefson et al. (US 5,074,451), as applied to claims 1 and 13, and further in view of Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1).
See the description of Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1)/Bui et al. (US 10,332,554 B1)/ Tollefson et al. (US 5,074,451), supra.
As per claim 2 (and claim 14), Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) in view of Bui et al. (US 10,332,554 B1)/Tollefson et al. (US 5,074,451), remains silent with regard to wherein a width of the tape head module is less than a width of the tape (or tape media).
However, such features are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1) discloses an analogous tape drive system and/or tape head module and tape guide assembly, in the same field of endeavor as Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) wherein, as per claims 2 and 14, a width of a corresponding tape head module is less than a width of a magnetic tape - see, inter alia, Fig. 8 and paragraphs [0085-0086] of Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the tape drive system of Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) in view of Bui et al. (US 10,332,554 B1)/Tollefson et al. (US 5,074,451) as providing a width of the tape head module being less than a width of the tape. in order to advantageously provide a smaller and shorter tape head module and corresponding less mass, such that the tape head module can be moved up and down by PZT for ultra-fine actuation." See paragraph [0085] of Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 1, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant opines as follows:
None of the references teaches "...guideposts that are stationary and non-rotatable relative to a supporting structure, are positioned a close distance apart having a spacing that defines a short unsupported tape span between the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide, are positioned immediately before and after the tape head module and on a same side of tape as the tape head module in order to ensure that the tape is adequately supported as it passes over the tape head module...." In particular, one advantage of the claim features added by amendment is that "... [t]he first guide 811A and the second guide 811B can be positioned closely to the tape head module 812 in order to ensure a short or stiff span of the tape 806 that can achieve a stable interface between the tape head module 812 and the tape 806." (Para. 70).
In addition, none of the references teaches "...the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide are positioned such that a distance (d) between the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide satisfies d = w + 2t, where w is a width of the tape head module and t is a tolerance between the first tape support guide and the tape head module and between the second tape support guide and the tape head module." In particular, one advantage of the claim features added by amendment is that "...a tape head module that has reduced friction between the tape head module and tape, which can result from the tape head module not spanning the whole width of the tape." (Para. 34).
See Applicant's remarks at pp. 8-9 of the Response filed on July 1, 2026.
The Examiner disagrees.
As noted in the rejection, supra, Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide are guideposts that are stationary and non-rotatable relative to a supporting structure.
However, such features are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Tollefson et al. (US 5,074,451) discloses an analogous tape drive system and/or tape head module and tape guide assembly, in the same field of endeavor as Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) wherein, as per amended claims 1 and 13, corresponding first tape support guide and the second tape support guide are guideposts which are stationary (e.g. 12 12) and non-rotatable relative to a supporting structure (e.g., the base om which the stationary guides are supported and affixed).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Tollefson et al. (US 5,074,451), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the tape drive system of Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) as comprising the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide are guideposts, as taught and suggested by Tollefson et al. (US 5,074,451), in order to advantageously provide a "tape guide having improved durability and excellent tape tracking characteristics." See abstract of Tollefson et al. (US 5,074,451).
Additionally, assuming arguendo, that Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) does not fairly show such a feature (as per claims 1 and/or 13), simply positioning the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide, such that the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide have a diameter that is less than a distance between the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide (including the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide are positioned such that a distance (d) between the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide satisfies d = w +2t, where w is a width of the tape head module and t is a tolerance between the first tape support guide and the tape head module and between the second tape support guide and the tape head module), is well-known in the art.
As just one example, Bui et al. (US 10,332,554 B1), discloses an analogous tape head module and tape guide assembly (e.g., 100 - see Fig. 1), wherein, as per claims 1 and 13, Bui et al. (US 10,332,554 B1) discloses a first tape support guide (e.g., 112A) and a second tape support guide (e.g., 112B) have a diameter that is less than a distance between the first tape support guide (112A) and the second tape support guide (112B) - see Fig. 1; moreover, as is clearly evident, the first tape support guide(112A) and the second tape support guide (112B) are positioned such that a distance (d) between the first tape support guide (112A) and the second tape support guide (112B) satisfies d = w +2t, where w is a width of the tape head module (e.g., 104) and t is a tolerance between the first tape support guide (112A) and the tape head module (104) and between the second tape support guide (112B) and the tape head module (104).
PNG
media_image1.png
406
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Given the well-known knowledge about the spacing/diameters relationship between first/.second tape support guides positioned on opposite sides of tape head modules, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the tape drive system of Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) (assuming that Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) does not already depict such a feature) with the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide have a diameter that is less than a distance between the first tape support guide and the second tape support guide, in order to support the tape over a broader length prior to engagement with a tape head, thus reducing friction, as is well-known in the art, evidenced by Bui et al. (US 10,332,554 B1).
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 William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights