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 .
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.
Claims 9-10 are 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.
The term “about” in claims 8 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In order to expedite prosecution, the term “about” is construed as how it might be interpreted by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
The Examiner respectfully suggests that removing the term “about” from the claims will traverse this rejection.
Furthermore, claim 9 recites: “The tape drive cable of claim 8, wherein adjacent pairs of write traces are between about 100 microns and about 200 microns.”
It is not clear what attribute of the traces are between about 100 microns and about 200 microns.
In order to expedite prosecution, in view of paragraph [0135] of Applicant’s specification, claim 9 is construed as: “The tape drive cable of claim 8, wherein adjacent pairs of write traces [[are]] each have a width between about 100 microns and about 200 microns.”
Claim 10 is rejected under 112 because it depends from a rejected parent 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Western Digital” (CN 114730575A. Examiner’s note: the citations refer to the English translation of Western Digital.) in view of “Huazhong” (CN 106324454A. Examiner’s note: the citations refer to the English translation of Huazhong.).
Regarding claim 1, Western Digital discloses 1. A tape drive cable, comprising: a connector (Figs. 2-4, page 4-top, page 4-bottom; the tape drive cable 146 comprising a connector 205);
a bond region (Figs. 2-4, page 4-top, page 4-bottom; the tape drive cable 146 comprising a bond region on the opposite side of the connector 205);
read and write lines that that include traces and that extend from the bond region to the connector (Figs. 2-4, page 4-middle; the tape drive cable 146 comprising read and write lines that that include traces and that extend from the bond region to the connector).
Western Digital does not disclose at least one Faraday cage that surrounds the write and/or read lines on all four sides of the respective traces.
Huazhong discloses at least one Faraday cage that surrounds the write and/or read lines on all four sides of the respective traces (Page 3-top; the cross linked polyethylene cable is placed in a Faraday cage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Western Digital’s tape drive cable with Huazhong’s Faraday cage in order to solve the problem of the influences of electric field interference, magnetic field interference, and surface leakage, as suggested by Huazhong at Abstract.
Regarding claim 2, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Western Digital discloses 2. The tape drive cable of claim 1, wherein the connector is configured to physically couple the traces to a controller (Figs. 2-4, page 4-top, page 4-bottom; the connector 205 is connected to a printed circuit board which includes control circuitry).
Regarding claim 3, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Western Digital discloses 3. The tape drive cable of claim 1, wherein the bond region is configured to enable physical coupling of the traces to electrical connections of a tape module (Figs. 2-4, page 4-top, page 4-bottom; the bond region physically couples the traces of the tape drive cable 146 to the voice control motor VCM 142).
Regarding claim 4, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 3, above.
Western Digital discloses 4. The tape drive cable of claim 3, wherein each of the electrical connections corresponds to a transducer on the tape module (Figs. 2-4, page 4-top, page 4-bottom; the voice control motor VCM 142 includes a coil and a permanent magnet that establishes a magnetic field, which is a transducer on the tape module).
Regarding claim 5, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Huazhong discloses 5. The tape drive cable of claim 1, wherein the Faraday cage is embedded as a top layer, a bottom layer, and side layers that extends through layers of the tape drive cable (Abstract, Page 3-bottom; the cross linked polyethylene cable is supported in the Faraday cage by using an insulating support).
Regarding claim 6, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Huazhong discloses 6. The tape drive cable of claim 1, wherein the at least one Faraday cage includes Faraday cages that surround each of the respective write and read lines on all four sides of the respective traces (Abstract, Page 3-bottom; the cross linked polyethylene cable is supported in the Faraday cage by using an insulating support that surrounds the conductive traces).
Regarding claim 7, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 7.
Huazhong discloses 7. The tape drive cable of claim 1, wherein the at least one Faraday cage includes: Faraday cages that surround each of the respective write lines on all four sides of the respective traces (Abstract, Page 3-bottom; the cross linked polyethylene cable is supported in the Faraday cage by using an insulating support that surrounds the conductive traces).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Huazhong’s Faraday cage in a plurality of cages, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 16, Western Digital discloses 16. A tape drive cable, comprising: a connector (Figs. 2-4, page 4-top, page 4-bottom; the tape drive cable 146 comprising a connector 205);
a bond region (Figs. 2-4, page 4-top, page 4-bottom; the tape drive cable 146 comprising a bond region on the opposite side of the connector 205);
read and write lines that that include traces and that extend from the bond region to the connector (Figs. 2-4, page 4-middle; the tape drive cable 146 comprising read and write lines that that include traces and that extend from the bond region to the connector).
Western Digital does not disclose Faraday cages that surround each of the write lines on all four sides of the respective traces.
Huazhong discloses Faraday cages that surround each of the write lines on all four sides of the respective traces (Page 3-top; the cross linked polyethylene cable is placed in a Faraday cage).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Western Digital’s tape drive cable with Huazhong’s Faraday cage in order to solve the problem of the influences of electric field interference, magnetic field interference, and surface leakage, as suggested by Huazhong at Abstract, and since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP 2144.04.
Claims 8, 11-12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Western Digital in view of Huazhong and “Kwong” (US 6,444,922).
Regarding claim 8, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 7, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 8.
Kwong discloses 8. The tape drive cable of claim 7, wherein each Faraday cage includes a plurality of electromagnetic interference (EMI) shields extending through layers of the respective write line, wherein each of the EMI shields extends between adjacent pairs of write traces (Figs. 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b; the plurality of EMI shields 8, 38 extends through layers and between adjacent pairs of the traces 6, 7, 36, 37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Western Digital’s tape drive cable, as modified by Huazhong, with Kwong’s EMI shield in order to isolate the signal from radiating any energy or interference to neighboring signal lines, thereby eliminating any potential crosstalk, as suggested by Kwong at Abstract.
Regarding claim 11, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 7, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 11.
Kwong discloses 11. The tape drive cable of claim 7, wherein each Faraday cage includes an EMI layer positioned between the write traces in each respective pair (Figs. 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b; the plurality of EMI shields 8, 38 are positioned between the pairs of the traces 6, 7, 36, 37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Western Digital’s tape drive cable, as modified by Huazhong, with Kwong’s EMI shield in order to isolate the signal from radiating any energy or interference to neighboring signal lines, thereby eliminating any potential crosstalk, as suggested by Kwong at Abstract.
Regarding claim 12, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 11, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 12.
Kwong discloses 12. The tape drive cable of claim 11, wherein each of the EMI shields extends along a respective EMI shield plane, wherein the EMI layer extends along a plane that is perpendicular to each of the EMI shield planes taken along a cross-section of the respective Faraday cage (Figs. 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b; each of the plurality of EMI shields 8, 38 extends along a plane that is perpendicular to the EMI layer along a cross section).
Regarding claim 17, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 16, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 17.
Kwong discloses 17. The tape drive cable of claim 16, wherein each Faraday cage includes a plurality of electromagnetic interference (EMI) shields extending through the layers of the respective write line, wherein each of the EMI shields extends between adjacent pairs of write traces (Figs. 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b; the plurality of EMI shields 8, 38 extends through layers and between adjacent pairs of the traces 6, 7, 36, 37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Western Digital’s tape drive cable, as modified by Huazhong, with Kwong’s EMI shield in order to isolate the signal from radiating any energy or interference to neighboring signal lines, thereby eliminating any potential crosstalk, as suggested by Kwong at Abstract.
Regarding claim 18, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 16, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 18.
Kwong discloses 18. The tape drive cable of claim 16, wherein each Faraday cage includes an EMI layer positioned between the write traces in each respective pair, wherein each of the EMI shields extends along a respective plane, wherein the EMI layer extends along a plane that is perpendicular to each of the EMI shield planes taken along a cross-section of the respective Faraday cage (Figs. 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b; the plurality of EMI shields 8, 38 is positioned between adjacent pairs of the traces 6, 7, 36, 37, each of the plurality of EMI shields 8, 38 extends along a plane that is perpendicular to the EMI shield planes1 along a cross section).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Western Digital’s tape drive cable, as modified by Huazhong, with Kwong’s EMI shield in order to isolate the signal from radiating any energy or interference to neighboring signal lines, thereby eliminating any potential crosstalk, as suggested by Kwong at Abstract.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Western Digital in view of Huazhong, Kwong and “Marinis” (US 2021/0028346).
Regarding claim 9, Western Digital in view of Huazhong and Kwong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 8, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 9.
Marinis discloses 9. The tape drive cable of claim 8, wherein adjacent pairs of write traces are between about 100 microns and about 200 microns (Figs. 2-3, [0044]; The width of each conductive trace 204 may be 100 μm. Examiner’s note: see the 112 rejection above for the construction of this claim.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Western Digital’s tape drive cable, as modified by Huazhong and Kwong, with Marinis’ trace thickness in order to provide a predetermined impedance to reduce signal reflections from a load, as suggested by Marinis at [0044].
Regarding claim 10, Western Digital in view of Huazhong, Kwong and Martinis discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 9, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 10.
Marinis discloses 10. The tape drive cable of claim 9, wherein each pair of write traces includes a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion has a width of between about 10 microns and about 50 microns, wherein the second portion has a width of between about 30 microns and about 80 microns (Figs. 2-3, [0044]; The width of each conductive trace 204 may be 30 μm or 50 μm, depending on the predetermined impedance. Examiner’s note: see the 112 rejection above for the construction of this claim.).
Claims 13-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Western Digital in view of Huazhong and “Biskeborn” (US 10,902,867).
Regarding claim 13, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 13.
Biskeborn discloses 13. The tape drive cable of claim 1, wherein the read and write lines form an array having at least 32 different channels (Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 45-47, col. 6, lines 23-25; the flex cable 140 and lines 18 form an array having at least 32 different channels).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Western Digital’s tape drive cable, as modified by Huazhong, with Biskeborn’s flex cable and lines in order to provide finer lines, finer spaces, and more dense interconnect pads on the multichannel tape recording head module, as suggested by Biskeborn at col. 2, lines 50-52.
Regarding claim 14, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 14.
Biskeborn discloses 14. The tape drive cable of claim 1, wherein the read and write lines form an array having at least 64 different channels (Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 45-47, col. 6, lines 23-25; the flex cable 140 and lines 18 form an array having at least 64 different channels).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Western Digital’s tape drive cable, as modified by Huazhong, with Biskeborn’s flex cable and lines in order to provide finer lines, finer spaces, and more dense interconnect pads on the multichannel tape recording head module, as suggested by Biskeborn at col. 2, lines 50-52.
Regarding claim 15, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 1, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 15.
Biskeborn discloses 15. The tape drive cable of claim 1, wherein the read and write lines form an array having at least 128 different channels (Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 45-47, col. 6, lines 23-25; the flex cable 140 and lines 18 form an array having at least 128 different channels).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Western Digital’s tape drive cable, as modified by Huazhong, with Biskeborn’s flex cable and lines in order to provide finer lines, finer spaces, and more dense interconnect pads on the multichannel tape recording head module, as suggested by Biskeborn at col. 2, lines 50-52.
Regarding claim 19, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 16, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 19.
Biskeborn discloses 19. The tape drive cable of claim 16, wherein the read and write lines form an array having at least 64 different channels (Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 45-47, col. 6, lines 23-25; the flex cable 140 and lines 18 form an array having at least 64 different channels).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Western Digital’s tape drive cable, as modified by Huazhong, with Biskeborn’s flex cable and lines in order to provide finer lines, finer spaces, and more dense interconnect pads on the multichannel tape recording head module, as suggested by Biskeborn at col. 2, lines 50-52.
Regarding claim 20, Western Digital in view of Huazhong discloses the claimed invention as applied to claim 16, above.
Western Digital does not disclose the limitations of claim 20.
Biskeborn discloses 20. The tape drive cable of claim 16, wherein the read and write lines form an array having at least 128 different channels (Fig. 2, col. 5, lines 45-47, col. 6, lines 23-25; the flex cable 140 and lines 18 form an array having at least 128 different channels).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have constructed Western Digital’s tape drive cable, as modified by Huazhong, with Biskeborn’s flex cable and lines in order to provide finer lines, finer spaces, and more dense interconnect pads on the multichannel tape recording head module, as suggested by Biskeborn at col. 2, lines 50-52.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STANLEY TSO whose telephone number is (571)270-0723. The examiner can normally be reached Tu-Thurs 6am-6pm, alt M 6am-2pm.
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, Tim Thompson can be reached at 571-272-2342. 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.
/STANLEY TSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2847
Prosecution Insights