DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
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, 3-5, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai et al (U.S. Pat. No. 6754437 B1, hereinafter Hirai) in view of Myer et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2020/0080901 A1, hereinafter Myer).
As per claim 1, Hirai teaches the limitations substantially as claimed, including an event time recording method, applicable to a data storage device, with the data storage device adapted to coordinate with a host computer (Figure 1), the event time recording method comprising the steps of:
receiving, after the data storage device has been powered on, an absolute time information sent from the host computer (Col. 3, Lines 5-25); and
storing, by the data storage device, the absolute time information in a specific storage area in the data storage device (Col. 3, Lines 5-25).
Hirai does not expressly teach storing an event log file in a specific storage area in the data storage device.
However, Myer teaches storing an event log file in a specific storage area in the data storage device (Paragraph [0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Myer with those of Hirai in order to allow for Hirai’s method to keep records of events such that they can later be referred to for potential corrective action, which could increase the usefulness of the method, thereby potentially increasing user buy-in.
As per claim 3, Myer teaches that record information of the event log file comprises an interface connection state, bad block position, bad block type, read failure, write failure, temperature, number of power-on hours, unrepairable position and/or error-correcting code (Paragraph [0081]).
As per claim 4, Hirai teaches that the data storage device regularly performs the step of storing the absolute time information and an event log file in a specific storage area in the data storage device (Col. 3, Lines 5-25).
As per claim 5, Myer teaches that the data storage device performs the step of storing the absolute time information and an event log file in a specific storage area in the data storage device only if a specific event occurs (Paragraph [0081]).
As per claims 6 and 8-10, they are device claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirai and Myer, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lenny et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2002/0060868 A1, hereinafter Lenny).
As per claim 2, Hirai and Myer do not expressly teach that the host computer uses an Advanced Technology Attachment (ATA) command to send the absolute time information to the data storage device.
However, Lenny teaches that the host computer uses an Advanced Technology Attachment (ATA) command to send the absolute time information to the data storage device (Paragraph [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Lenny with those of Hirai and Myer in order to allow for Hirai’s and Myer’s method to take advantage of known technologies and solutions, which could increase trust among prospective users, thereby potentially increasing buy-in.
As per claim 7, it is a device claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571)272-3338. 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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights