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
Applicant's arguments, see page 6, filed on June 26, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC § 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunt et al. US Patent Application Publication Number US20160118077A1 (hereinafter Lunt) in view of NPL documents - THE LUNAR LIBRARY ™ Genesis Mission SpaceIL Beresheet Lander By Nova Spivack (hereinafter Spivack).
Regarding Claim 1: Lunt discloses a storage device, the device comprising: an optical tape having a plurality of layers (Fig. 2A i.e., 200 optical tape; paragraph [0021] i.e., optical tape), including: a substrate layer ( Fig. 2A i.e., 202 substrate; paragraph [0021] i.e., substrate 202); and a recording stack layer (Fig. 2A i.e., 204 recording layer; paragraph [0021] i.e., recording layer 204) but remains silent as to the recording stack layer includes human language characters inscribed on the recording stack layer as human readable human language characters, the human language characters occupying 100 nanometers of the recording stack layer per character.
In analogous art, Spivack teaches the recording stack layer includes human language characters inscribed on the recording stack layer (page 29, para. 2 i.e., etchings… etched..) as human readable human language characters (page. 4 Caption, i.e., 25 layer set ...naked-eye readable to anyone who finds it...).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the reference Lunt, would also have recognized the desirability of reducing the size of the holes formed in the recording layer to increase information storage density.
Spivack teaches the content is etched by laser into the glass at 300,000 dpi (dots-per-inch). (page. 35, Caption. 2 i.e., …300,000 dpi...). A 300,000 dpi pattern corresponds to an approximately 84.66 nanometers spacing between adjacent dots, calculated by dividing one inch by 300,000. Spivack teaches that 84.66 nanometers is one of a finite number of spacing between adjacent dots known to be useful for forming spacing between adjacent dots. Furthermore, Spivack discloses the glass master is written at high speed using a patented polar-raster method, by NanoArchival at Stamper Technology (page. 35, Caption).
Since the characters are formed by the dots, the character size can be inferred to be approximately 84.67 nanometers based on the 300,000 dpi as taught by Spivack.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the 300,000 dpi of Reference Spivack in an attempt to use various spacing variation between adjacent dots, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because 100 nanometers of the recording stack layer per character as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious that the human language characters occupying 100 nanometers of the recording stack layer per character (page. 66, para. 2 i.e., ...etched into glass as 300,000 dpi...).
Regarding Claim 2: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the storage device of claim 1 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the storage device further comprising an adhesion promotion layer (Fig. 2A i.e., 206 adhesion promotion layer; paragraph [0021] i.e., adhesion promotion layer 206).
Regarding Claim 3: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the storage device of claim 2 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the storage device wherein the adhesion promotion layer is disposed on the substrate layer (Fig. 2A; paragraph [0021] i.e., …adhesion promotion layer 206 between the substrate 202 and the recording layer 204.)
Regarding Claim 4: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the storage device of claim 3 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the storage device wherein the recording stack layer is disposed on the adhesion promotion layer (Fig. 2A; The recording layer 204 is disposed on the adhesion promotion layer 206.).
Regarding Claim 5: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the storage device of claim 1 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the storage device wherein the recording stack layer is disposed on the substrate layer (Fig. 2A; The recording layer 204 is disposed on the substrate layer 202.).
Regarding Claim 6: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the storage device of claim 1 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the storage device further comprising a lubricant layer disposed on the recording stack layer (Fig. 2A i.e., 208 lubricant layer; paragraph [0021] i.e., lubricant layer 208; The lubricant layer 208 is disposed on the recording layer 204.).
Regarding Claim 7: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the storage device of claim 1 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the storage device wherein the recording stack layer includes at least one sub-layer (paragraph [0007] i.e., the recording layer may comprise a Tellurium, Selenium, Bismuth (TSB) layer).
Regarding Claim 8: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the storage device of claim 7 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the storage device wherein the at least one sub-layer is a metal layer (paragraph [0007] i.e.,The recording layer may comprise a metal…).
Regarding Claim 9: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the storage device of claim 7 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the storage device wherein the at least one sub-layer is a metal alloy layer (paragraph [0007] i.e.,The recording layer may comprise … a metal alloy…).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunt in view of Spivack as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Carson U.S. Patent Publication Number US20160055878A1(hereinafter Carson).
Regarding Claim 10: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the storage device of claim 1 as discussed above but remains silent as to the recording stack layer is exposed to one of an electron beam and a focused ion beam to receive the human language characters on the recording stack layer.
In an analogous art, Carson teaches the recording stack layer is exposed to one of an electron beam and a focused ion beam to receive the human language characters on the recording stack layer (paragraph [0075] i.e., written using an electron beam recorder (EBR) type writing device.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply human language characters of Reference Carson to the optical tape device in order to ensure future recoverability regardless of the obsolescence of current generation computer systems and storage formats (Carson, para. 29).
Claim(s) 11-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunt in view of Spivack.
Regarding Claim 11: Lunt discloses an optical tape device, the device comprising: a substrate layer ( Fig. 2A i.e., 202 substrate; paragraph [0021] i.e., substrate 202); and a recording stack layer (Fig. 2A i.e., 204 recording layer; paragraph [0021] i.e., recording layer 204) but remains silent as to the recording stack layer includes human language characters inscribed on the recording stack layer as human readable human language characters the human language characters occupying 100 nanometers of the recording stack layer per character.
In analogous art, Spivack teaches the recording stack layer includes human language characters inscribed on the recording stack layer (page 29, para. 2 i.e., etchings… etched..) as human readable human language characters (page. 4 Caption, i.e., 25 layer set ...naked-eye readable to anyone who finds it...).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading the reference Lunt, would also have recognized the desirability of reducing the size of the holes formed in the recording layer to increase information storage density.
Spivack teaches the content is etched by laser into the glass at 300,000 dpi (dots-per-inch). (page 35, Caption. 2 i.e., …300,000 dpi...). A 300,000 dpi pattern corresponds to an approximately 84.66 nanometers spacing between adjacent dots, calculated by dividing one inch by 300,000. Spivack teaches that 84.66 nanometers is one of a finite number of spacing between adjacent dots known to be useful for forming spacing between adjacent dots. Furthermore, Spivack discloses the glass master is written at high speed using a patented polar-raster method, by NanoArchival at Stamper Technology (page. 35, Caption).
Since the characters are formed by the dots, the character size can be inferred to be approximately 84.67 nanometers based on the 300,000 dpi as taught by Spivack.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try the 300,000 dpi of Reference Spivack in an attempt to use various spacing variation between adjacent dots, as a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In turn, because 100 nanometers of the recording stack layer per character as claimed has the properties predicted by the prior art, it would have been obvious that the human language characters occupying 100 nanometers of the recording stack layer per character (page. 66, para. 2 i.e., ...etched into glass as 300,000 dpi...).
Regarding Claim 12: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the optical tape device of claim 11 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the optical tape device further comprising an adhesion promotion layer (Fig. 2A i.e., 206 adhesion promotion layer; paragraph [0021] i.e., adhesion promotion layer 206).
Regarding Claim 13: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the optical tape device of claim 12 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the optical tape device wherein the adhesion promotion layer is disposed on the substrate layer (Fig. 2A; paragraph [0021] i.e., …adhesion promotion layer 206 between the substrate 202 and the recording layer 204.).
Regarding Claim 14: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the optical tape device of claim 13 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the optical tape device wherein the recording stack layer is disposed on the adhesion promotion layer(Fig. 2A; The recording layer 204 is disposed on the adhesion promotion layer 206.).
Regarding Claim 15: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the optical tape device of claim 11 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the optical tape device wherein the recording stack layer is disposed on the substrate layer (Fig. 2A; The recording layer 204 is disposed on the substrate layer 202.).
Regarding Claim 16: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the optical tape device of claim 11 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the optical tape device further comprising a lubricant layer disposed on the recording stack layer (Fig. 2A i.e., 208 lubricant layer; paragraph [0021] i.e., lubricant layer 208; The lubricant layer 208 is disposed on the recording layer 204.).
Regarding Claim 17: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the optical tape device of claim 11 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the optical tape device wherein the recording stack layer includes at least one sub-layer (paragraph [0007] i.e., the recording layer may comprise a Tellurium, Selenium, Bismuth (TSB) layer).
Regarding Claim 18: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the optical tape device of claim 17 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the optical tape device wherein the at least one sub-layer is a metal layer (paragraph [0007] i.e.,The recording layer may comprise a metal…).
Regarding Claim 19: Lunt as modified by Spivack discloses the optical tape device of claim 17 as discussed above. Lunt further discloses the optical tape device wherein the at least one sub-layer is a metal alloy layer (paragraph [0007] i.e.,The recording layer may comprise … a metal alloy…).
Regarding Claim 20: Lunt as modified Spivack teaches the optical tape device of claim 11 as discussed above but remains silent as to the recording stack layer is physically inscribed with human-readable information by force applied to the recording stack layer by one of an atomic force microscope and an atomic tunneling microscope tip.
In an analogous art, Spivack teaches the recording stack layer is physically inscribed (page. 66, para. 2 i.e., ...etched into glass as 300,000 dpi...) with human-readable information (page. 4 Caption, i.e., 25 layer set ...naked-eye readable to anyone who finds it...) by force applied to the recording stack layer by one of an atomic force microscope (page 45, Caption i.e., generated by an atomic force microscope) and an atomic tunneling microscope tip.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an atomic force microscope into the optical tape device, as taught by Spivack, in order to improve quality test for surface defects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 11am-5pm.
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.
/MICHELLE J. KIM/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688
