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 (Figures 1, 2A, 2B, 4) in the reply filed on August 21, 2025.
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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.
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, 4-7, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) in view of and Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) and Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1).
As per claim 1 (and analogously, as per claim 15), Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) discloses a moveable tape support assembly (e.g., see Figs. 4-6), the assembly comprising: a frame (e.g., 18) that is moveable; and at least a first roller (e.g., one of the guide rollers (140 and/or 210) as depicted in Figs. 4-6; see, inter alia, paragraph [0023]) and a second roller (e.g., the other one of the guide rollers (140 and/or 210) as depicted in Figs. 4-6) are attached to the frame (18) and are each free to rotate about an axis (e.g., axel), and the first roller is in close proximity to the second roller (e.g. see Figs. 4-6), and the first roller and the second roller are configured to guide a tape (e.g. see paragraphs [0023, 0031]), wherein the frame (18) is adapted to be moveable towards a tape (e.g., 30) in order for the first roller (e.g., 140/210) and the second roller (e.g., 140/210) to come into contact with a first side (e.g., the bottom-side as depicted in Figs. 4-6) of the tape (e.g., 30) and move the tape (30) in order to have a second side (e.g., top-side of tape as depicted in Figs. 4-6) of the tape (30) to contact a head (e.g. 34) that is adapted for reading data from the tape or writing data to the tape (30) - see, inter alia, paragraphs [0030-0031].
As per claim 4 (as well as claim 18), wherein the frame (18) - with the rollers mounted on the portion of the frame - and the head (34) are located on opposite sides of the tape (30) - see Figs. 4-6.
As per claim 5 (as well as claim 19), wherein the frame (18) is moveable in order to move the first roller (140/210) and the second roller (140/210) into a path of the tape (30).
As per claim 6 (as well as claim 20), wherein the first roller (140/210) and the second roller (140/210) are arranged to ensure that when the first roller (140/210) and the second roller (140/210) contact the first side (e.g., the bottom-side as depicted in Figs. 4-6) of the tape (30) , the tape (30) includes a short and stiff span near the head (34) in order to achieve a stable head/tape interface.
As per claim 7, wherein the frame (18) is attached to an actuator (e.g., 50) and the actuator (50) is controlled in order to move the frame (18) (see, inter alia, paragraph [0023]).
As per claim 1 (and analogously, as per 15), Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein a distance between the first roller and the second roller is in a range of 0.1 mm to 2.0 mm - essentially, wherein the two tape guide rollers are spaced very close to each other.
Additionally, as per claim 15, Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) discloses the features of the claimed tape drive system, but remains silent with regard to a plurality of rollers rotatable and adapted to move the tape (or tape media) past the moveable tape support assembly.
However, such features are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) discloses an analogous tape drive system and/or tape head module and tape guide assembly, in the same field of endeavor as Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1), wherein Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) discloses a tape head module (e.g., 26) and tape guide assembly (e.g. 40/42), the assembly comprising: a tape head module (e.g., 26) that is adapted for reading data from tape (e.g., 28) or writing data to the tape (28); and a first tape support roller guide (e.g., 40) and a second tape support roller guide (e.g., 42) that are positioned on opposite sides of the tape head module (28) 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) and provide a stable interface between the tape head module (26) and the tape (28), due to their very close proximity of each tape guide roller to each other - see, inter alia, Fig. 5. A distance between the first roller (e.g. 40) and the second roller (e.g., 42) is in a range of 0.1 mm to 2.0 mm (e.g., see paragraph [0038] of Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1)). That is, as per cited paragraph [0038], "the primary rollers 40 and 42 may be placed in nearly contacting relationship. By way of example only, a 1 mm separation gap." Emphasis added.
Additionally, as per claim 15, 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).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 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 Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) as providing wherein a distance between the first roller and the second roller is in a range of 0.1 mm to 2.0 mm, as expressly taught by Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1), and the plurality of rollers rotatable and adapted to move the tape (or tape media) past the moveable tape support assembly, in order to advantageously provide first and second rollers which may be large and closely spaced, with the second tape guide roller being spaced from the first roller at a roller diameter/center-to-center spacing ratio of between approximately 1:1-1:2 while still accommodating the transducing head therebetween - see abstract of Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 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.
Additionally, as per amended claims 1 and 15, Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) (and/or Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1)), remains silent with regard to wherein the head is a mini head, that does not span a full width of the tape.
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 Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) (and/or Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1)) wherein, as per amended claims 1 and 15, a mini head is provided that does not span a full width of the 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 Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1)/Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1)) as providing a width of the tape head module being less than a width of the tape (i.e., a mini head), 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.
The Applicant opines as follows:
Applicant traverses the § 103 rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 15 and 18-20 because the Office Action's alleged reason is rendered invalid because the proposed modification undermines: the principle of operation of the embodiment taught by Haeberle; and/or the stated purpose of the primary reference. M.P.E.P. § 2143.01 explains the long-standing principle that a § 103 rejection cannot be maintained when the asserted modification undermines the purpose of the primary reference or when an asserted combination would render the relied-upon embodiment of the primary reference inoperable (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984), and explaining that when a modification of the primary reference causes it not to operate for its intended purpose, the rejection is improper). For example, the purpose of the Haeberle reference is to include "high wrap angles" in order to result in "reducing lateral motion" (Para. 4). "The higher angular wrap is beneficial for tape guiding after the tape has started moving as it helps to control lateral motion." (Para. 29). The Office Action proposes to modify this reference to include teachings from Hanaoka. Particularly, the Office Action proposes to modify Haeberle by taking the "smaller head" of Hanaoka (Para. 85-86; Fig. 8) and substituting the tape head of Haeberle with the smaller head. However, the suggested modification of including the smaller head of Hanaoka in Haeberle would result in undesired lateral motion of the tape. In fact, in Hanaoka, the smaller head of Hanaoka is described as being used with "two tape guides 815" that "are located on both sides of the tape assembly. The tape guides limit the movement of the tape and provide better stability when the head assembly is moving over the tape film." (Para. 87). Therefore, the modification of Haeberle with the "smaller head" of Hanaoka undermines the purpose of Haeberle and violates M.P.E.P. § 2143.01. As such, the rejection cannot be maintained.
See pp. 7-8 of the Applicant's Response.
The Examiner disagrees. More concretely, Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1), discloses a movable structure with a tape guide device positioned within the movable structure, such that a tape passes over the tape guide device and between a tape reading head and the tape guide device (Abstract of Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1)).
Moreover, Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) teaches providing such a tape guide movable structure to advantageously "provide a system and method for threading a tape through a magnetic tape data storage drive from a data cartridge when the drive includes a mechanism to control lateral motion of the tape. There is a further need for the system and method to be cost efficient, including manufacturing costs and labor costs. Additionally, there is a need for a system and method to thread the tape through the storage drive without causing undesirable frictional forces on the tape during threading and during operation with frequent stopping and starting of the tape." See paragraph [0007] of Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1).
Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) does not remotely disclose or suggest that a magnetic head must be equal to or greater than the width of the magnetic tape, as it pertains to wrap angles, as is implied by the Applicant, let alone teach away from a mini head (in which the width the of magnetic tape media is larger than the width of the magnetic tape).
In this regard, the argument is also unpersuasive as Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) does not in any manner discourage or discredit such a use of the claimed mini head. See Gurley, 27 F.3d at 553; see also, Para-Ordnance Manufacturing v. SGS Importers International Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1090 (Fed Cir. 1995) (a warning against use of an element, rather than omission of mention of the element, is required to find teaching away).
The Applicant has failed to adequately show that Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) teaches away from the use of a mini head.
As such, as set forth in the rejection, supra, as per amended claims 1 and 15, Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) (and/or Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1)), remains silent with regard to wherein the head is a mini head, that does not span a full width of the tape.
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 Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) (and/or Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1)) wherein, as per claims 2 and 16, a mini head is provided that does not span a full width of the 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 Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1)/ Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1)) as providing a width of the tape head module being less than a width of the tape (i.e., a mini head), 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.
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