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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 4, 2026 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the newly added limitation that sets forth "first roller and the second roller include a plurality of grooves within a cylindrical-shaped body," (see claim 1, lines 4-5; claim 15, lines 8-9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 A1) and Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 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), 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 amended claim 1 (and analogously, as per amended claim 15), Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) remains silent with regard to wherein the first roller and the second roller include a plurality of grooves within a cylindrical-shaped body.
However, such features are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 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 Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 A1) discloses a tape head module (e.g., see Fig. 1) and tape guide assembly (e.g., 24), the assembly comprising: a tape head module (e.g., 22, 22 - see paragraph [0011]) that is adapted for reading data from tape (e.g., 12) or writing data to the tape (12) (paragraph [0011]); and a first tape support roller guide (e.g., 24c) and a second tape support roller guide (e.g., 24d) that are positioned on opposite sides of the tape head module (22) and in close proximity to the tape head module (22), wherein, as per amended claims 1 and 15, the first roller (e.g., 24c) and the second roller (e.g., 24d) include a plurality of grooves within a cylindrical-shaped body (e.g., see Figs. 2-4; paragraph [0018]).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 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 the first roller and the second roller so as to include a plurality of grooves within a cylindrical-shaped body, as expressly taught by Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 A1), in order to advantageously provide "traction between the roller body and the tape as the tape passes over the roller body." See paragraph [0004] of Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 A1).
As per claim 1 (and analogously, as per 15), Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1 and/or Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 A1) also 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) and/or Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 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.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) in view of Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 A1) and Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1), as applied to claims 1 and 15, above, and further in view of Hanaoka et al. (US 2022/0415358 A1).
See the description of Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) and/or Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) and/or Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 A1), supra.
As per claim 2 (and analogously, as per claim 16), Haeberle et al. (US 2010/0214689 A1) (and/or Biskeborn (US 2008/0068753 A1) and/or Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 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) and/or Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 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 and/or Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 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 with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes the application of a new reference (i.e., Coburn et al. (US 2015/0009792 A1)), which has been applied in the rejection, as articulated in detail, supra, meeting the newly added claim limitations with a supporting rationale, which has been combined with the previously applied art of record.
Conclusion
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