DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Specification
Claim Objections
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 appears to mistakenly depend from claim 7 instead of base claim 8.
In the interests of compact prosecution, Examiner has examined the claims as if claim 9 depends from base claim 8.
Appropriate correction, however, to correct the claim dependency is still required.
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 of this title, 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 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostwald et al. (“Ostwald”)(US 7,230,791) in view of Dimitri et al. (“Dimitri”)(US 5,970,030).
Ostwald teaches a media library system comprising:
(re: certain elements of claims 1, 8) a frame (fig. 1, 4 and col 7, ln. 4-28 teaching storage library 10 comprising a frame 12);
a media storage portion supported by the frame, the media storage portion comprising a plurality of storage magazines each having multiple media storage slots configured to hold at least one media cartridge (col. 7, ln. 62-col. 9, ln. 48 teaching storage library configured with vertical panel assemblies/columns 28 that include a plurality of media elements/cartridges 45 and that also include a plurality of drives 40—media drive portion--operable to read and write data to said cartridges);
a media drive portion supported by the frame, the media drive portion comprising a plurality of moveable drives arranged in two or more columns of drives, each particular drive of one or more of the plurality of moveable drives being configured to read data from a media cartridge when the media cartridge is inserted into the particular drive the plurality of moveable drives comprising:
a first set of moveable drives are arranged in a first column (fig. 4 showing multiple sets of drives 40 and col. 9 teaching that columns 28 may be configured with only cartridges or only drives or a mixture of both in order to expand the capacity of the storage library, thus drives can be regarded as moveable; see also fig. 11 and 12 and col. 12, ln. 42-64 teaching different configurations of drives and cartridges); and
a second set of moveable drives are arranged in a second column, wherein moveable drives in the plurality of moveable drives are configured to be moved among multiple positions in the media drive portion (Id.); and
a robotic picker device (26, 32) configured to selectively retrieve a media cartridge from a storage slot in the media storage portion and place the media cartridge into one of the plurality of moveable drives in the first position (col. 8, ln. 18-58 teaching robotic picker 26, 32 configured to retrieve cartridge from a storage location and inset said cartridge into a drive or another cell of the media library);
(re: claims 5, 14) wherein the frame has a front end and a back end, and wherein the frame has a plurality of magazine openings extending from the front end to the back end configured to receive respective storage magazines of the plurality of storage magazines, at least some of the storage magazines having dual-cartridge storage slots configured to hold two media cartridges (fig. 1 showing that vertical panels are configured as stacks of storage magazines 28 wherein each magazine has multiple cartridge storage slots, i.e., storage slots capable of holding at least two media cartridges).
(re: claims 16-20) The claimed method steps are performed in the normal operation of the combined device described below.
Ostwald as set forth above teaches all that is claimed except for expressly teaching
(re: claims 2, 9) a controller configured to:
identify one or more moveable drives in the first set to be moved;
cause movement of the one or more identified moveable drives out of the first column to provide a space in the first column; and
cause movement of one or more moveable drives in the second set out of the second column and into the space in the first column;
(re: claims 3, 10) wherein the identified one or more moveable drives consists of one moveable drive in the first set, consists of a subset of the moveable drives in the first set, or consists of all of the moveable drives in the first set;
(re: claims 4, 11) at least one movement apparatus for moving one or more of the moveable drives;
(re: claims 6, 12) one or more of a stepper motor, moveable belt, or mechanical pusher configured to move one or more of the moveable drives;
(re: claims 7, 15) wherein the media cartridges are tape cartridges and the moveable drives are tape drives configured to read data from the tape cartridges.
Further, under an alternative interpretation (re: certain elements of claims 1, 8) the drives may be interpreted as not moveable.
Dimitri, however, teaches that it is well-known in the media library arts
(re: claims 1-4, 6 and 9-12)
-to integrate moveable drives as well as a library controller configured to identify and replace certain moveable drives to allow failed drives to be replaced with spare drives expeditiously and automatically (fig. 1, 2 showing read/write elements 18, 19 and accessor 16, 17 and col. 1, ln. 55-65 and col. 7, ln. 43-col. 8, ln. 62 teaching library controller 24/25 that operate accessors 16/17 to load spare drive into slot device area 18 or 19 that has been vacated, wherein a mechanical pusher is inherent in teaching of actuator that connects via insertion force); and
(re: claims 7, 15)
- to configure said media cartridges and moveable drives with a tape medium (col. 1, ln. 15-32 teaching that it is well-known to configure automated data storage libraries with tape to allow cost effective access to large quantities of data).
It would thus be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the base reference with these prior art teachings—with a reasonable expectation of success—to arrive at the claimed invention. The rationale for this obviousness determination can be found in the prior art itself as cited above and from an analysis of the prior art teachings that demonstrates that the modification to arrive at the claimed invention would merely involve the substitution/addition of well-known elements (e.g., movable tape drives) with no change in their respective functions. Moreover, the use of prior art elements according to their known functions is a predictable variation that would yield predictable results (e.g., benefit produced by known function), and thus cannot be regarded as a non-obvious modification when the modification is already commonly implemented in the relevant prior art. See also MPEP 2143.I (teaching that simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is known to one with ordinary skill in the art); 2144.06, 2144.07 (teaching as obvious the use of art recognized equivalences). Further, the prior art discussed and cited demonstrates the level of sophistication of one with ordinary skill in the art and that these modifications are predictable variations that would be within this skill level. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Ostwald for the reasons set forth above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner further notes that the intervening dependency of claim 9 (of which claim 13 depends) must also be corrected.
Conclusion
Any references not explicitly discussed above but made of record are regarded as helpful in establishing the state of the prior art and are thus considered relevant to the prosecution of the instant application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is 571-272-3692 (M-F, 9 am – 6 pm, PST). The Supervisory Examiner is MICHAEL MCCULLOUGH, 571-272-7805.
Alternatively, to contact the examiner, send an E-mail communication to Joseph.Rodriguez@uspto.gov. Such E-mail communication should be in accordance with provisions of the MPEP (see e.g., 502.03 & 713.04; see also Patent Internet Usage Policy Article 5). E-mail communication must begin with a statement authorizing the E-mail communication and acknowledging that such communication is not secure and may be made of record. Please note that any communications with regards to the merits of an application will be made of record. A suggested format for such authorization is as follows: "Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with me concerning any subject matter of this application by electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file”.
Information regarding the status of an application may also be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/
/JOSEPH C RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3655
Jcr
---
July 27, 2026
Prosecution Insights