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 .
In response to applicant’s filing dated November 19, 2024. The following action is taken:
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No 12,327,577. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention limitation is encompassed within the limitations cited in limitations in claim 1 of the patent as explained below.
Claim 22 of the current applicant.
A data storage device, comprising: one or more disks; at least one actuator mechanism configured to position at least a first head proximate to a first disk surface among the one or more disks and a second head proximate to a second disk surface among the one or more disks;
and one or more processing devices configured, individually or in combination, to: assign one or more logical tracks to physical tracks of two or more of the disk surfaces such that a respective logical track of the logical tracks comprises:
at least a portion of sectors of a primary physical track of the physical tracks, the primary physical track being on the first disk surface; and at least a portion of sectors of a donor physical track of the physical tracks, the donor physical track being on the second disk surface; and perform, using the first head proximate to the first disk surface and the second head proximate to the second disk surface,
a data access operation with at least one of the logical tracks,
wherein the data access operation comprises concurrent access of the primary physical track and access of the donor physical track.
Claim 1 of the patent 12,327,577
A data storage device, comprising: one or more disks; at least one actuator mechanism configured to position at least a first head proximate to a first disk surface among the one or more disks and a second head proximate to a second disk surface among the one or more disks;
and one or more processing devices configured, individually or in combination, to: assign one or more logical tracks to physical tracks of two or more of the disk surfaces such that a respective logical track of the logical tracks comprises:
at least a portion of sectors of a primary physical track of the physical tracks, the primary physical track being on the first disk surface; and at least a portion of sectors of a donor physical track of the physical tracks, the donor physical track being on the second disk surface; and perform, using the first head proximate to the first disk surface and the second head proximate to the second disk surface,
a data access operation with at least one of the logical tracks,
wherein at least a portion of the logical tracks is assigned with constant numbers of sectors per logical track, across a plurality of track radii on the first disk surface and the second disk surface.
Although the Patent 12,327,577 does not disclose a concurrent access of the primary track (first disk surface) and a donor track (second disk surface). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have to access a multiple disks or disks surfaces as the same time. Such modification would increase the data reading capacity by duplicating the data access in the system. Thus, one of skilled in the art would have been motivated to access multiple data disks for the purpose of increasing data capacity reading.
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No 11,862,211. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention is broader in scope and encompassed within the limitation of the claim cited in the patent.
Claim 32 of the application.
A data storage device, comprising: one or more disks; at least one actuator mechanism configured to position at least a first head proximate to a first disk surface among the one or more disks and a second head proximate to a second disk surface among the one or more disks;
and one or more processing devices configured, individually or in combination, to: stripe or bundle integer numbers of physical tracks of two or more of the disk surfaces into one or more logical tracks together,
such that a respective logical track of the logical tracks comprises:
at least a portion of sectors of a primary physical track of the physical tracks, the primary physical track being on the first disk surface; and at least a portion of sectors of a donor physical track of the physical tracks, the donor physical track being on the second disk surface; perform, using together the first head proximate to the first disk surface and the second head proximate to the second disk surface, a data access operation with at least one of the logical tracks;
and integrate an output of multiple bands from the primary physical track and the donor physical track via the first head and the second head.
Claim 15 of the Patent 11,862,211
A data storage device, comprising: one or more disks; at least one actuator mechanism configured to position at least a first head proximate to a first disk surface among the one or more disks and a second head proximate to a second disk surface among the one or more disks, t
he second disk surface being different from the first disk surface;
and one or more processing devices, wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to:assign one or more logical tracks to physical tracks of two or more of the disk surfaces
such that a respective logical track of the logical tracks comprises:
at least a portion of sectors of a primary physical track of the physical tracks, the primary physical track being on the first disk surface; and at least a portion of sectors of a donor physical track of the physical tracks, the donor physical track being on the second disk surface; and perform, using the first head proximate to the first disk surface and the second head proximate to the second disk surface, a data access operation with at least one of the logical tracks, wherein the actuator mechanism further comprises a first actuator arm assembly comprising a first primary actuator and a second actuator arm assembly comprising a second primary actuator, wherein the one or more processing devices are further configured to interleave the logical tracks via both the first actuator arm assembly and the second actuator arm assembly.
Although the patent does not disclose the limitation “integrate”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conclude that integrating limitation cited in the application is encompassed within the “interleaving” limitation cited in the patent, since the data from the first surface and the second surface in the patent are interleaved by a first and second reading actuators which is the same limitation as reading the first surface having a primary address and a second address having donner surface by integrating both reading signals.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 34 is is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DuLaney et al (6775090).
The examiner broadly interprets the claimed limitation as having a logical address assigned to a first disk or surface (primary tracks) and assigning a second logical addresses to a second disk or surface called donner tracks. The claim further drawn to an alternative limitation tandem heads with one or more disks meaning only one disk is to be accessed to meet the claimed invention. The reference shows a data storage device (fig 1 showing a magnetic data device), comprising: one or more disks, each comprising a plurality of physical tracks and a plurality of sectors (see column 5 lines 17-28 and fig 4 showing disks 148 and heads 112); and one or more processing devices (column 4 lines 53-68 disclosing at least one processor element 135) configured, individually or in combination, to: assign one or more logical tracks to the physical tracks of two or more of the disk surfaces of the one or more disks (assigning logical address to physical tracks see column 2 lines 15-21), such that a respective logical track of the logical tracks comprises: at least a portion of sectors of a primary physical track of the physical tracks; and at least a portion of sectors of a donor physical track of the physical tracks (donor track is interpreted as any other portion of the track since the claim does not define what “donor” track is it could be part of a track or sectors or any part of track or sector on a disk); and perform, using in tandem multiple heads associated with the one or more disks (meaning only one disk is reproduced or accessed), a data access operation (reading operation) with at least one of the respective logical track see column 3 lines 8-21 wherein logical address representing a “primary tracks” by the first head is assigned then another logical address is assigned to a different track “donor track” that is represented by an offset value. Such citation meets the examiner’s broad interpretation wherein logical addresses are recorded on different disk surfaces one representing the first head and the other representing an offset value.
Claim Objections
Claims 23-31, 33 and 35-40 are 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.
The cited prior art does not show or teach a single back end channel as in claim 23, The buffer in claim 24, the internal queue depth as in claim 25, a full donor physical track represented by a logical address as in claim 26, interleaving the logical tracks by a first and second transducers as in claim 27, a plurality of logical tracks assigned in pairs as in claims 29 and 39, fitting one integer primary track plus one fraction donor track as in claim 30. Keeping primary tracks associated with a single donor physical track aligned with the logical tracks as in claim 33, the assignment of the number of sectors in the logical tracks as in claim 35, interleaving a single sector from the donor track as in claim 36, a first donor physical track having logical track sectors from a second donor physical track as in claim 37, bundling an integer numbers of physical tracks as in claim 38, the use of multiple back end channels as in claim 40.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL Z HINDI whose telephone number is (571)272-7618. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI from 5:30 AM to 1:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Lim, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/NABIL Z HINDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688