UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.goV
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`F ING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONF {MATION NO.
`
`12/891,443
`
`09/27/2010
`
`Michael Tasler
`
`0757- 1 13 189
`
`1408
`
`04/27/2012
`
`24628
`7590
`Husch Blackwell LLP
`Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz
`120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA
`22ND FLOOR
`CHICAGO, IL 60606
`
`LEE, CHUN KUAN
`
`2181
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`04/27/2012
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL_90A (Rev_ 04/07)
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`1
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`1
`
`

`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Application No.
`
`App|icant(s)
`
`12/891,443
`
`Examiner
`Chun—Kuan Lee
`
`TASLER, MICHAEL
`
`A“ Unit
`2181
`
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTH(S) OR THIRTY (30) DAYS,
`WHICHEVER IS LONGER, FROM THE MAILING DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1.136(a).
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`—
`— Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1)IXl Responsive to communication(s) filed on 28 December 2011.
`
`2a)IXl This action is FINAL.
`
`2b)I:I This action is non—final.
`
`3)I:l An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)I:l Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims
`
`5)IZl Claim(s) 2-_.3’6 is/are pending in the application.
`
`5a) Of the above claim(s) 14 1723 25 26 28 29 33 and 34 is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)I:l Claim(s) j is/are allowed.
`
`7)IXl Claim(s) 2-13 15 16 18-22 24 27 30-32 35 and 36 is/are rejected.
`
`8)I:l Claim(s) j is/are objected to.
`
`9)I:l Claim(s) j are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:I The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`
`11)|X| The drawing(s) filed on 27 September 2010 is/are: a)IX| accepted or b)I:I objected to by the Examiner.
`
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`12)I:I The oath or declaration is objected to by the Examiner. Note the attached Office Action or form PTO-152.
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`13)|Z| Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`a)lXI All
`
`b)I:l Some * c)I:I None of:
`
`1.|:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`
`2.|:I Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No. _.
`
`3.|:I Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1) El Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`2) D Notice of Draftsperson's Patent Drawing Review (PTO-948)
`3) |:| Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`4) El Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper N°(5)/II/Ia" DaIe- E -
`5) I:I Notice of informal Patent Application
`6) D Other:
`.
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 03-11)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20120423
`Olympus et al. 1119
`2
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`2
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/891,443
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2181
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
`
`1.
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 12/28/2011 have been fully considered but they are
`
`not persuasive. Currently, claims 14, 17, 23, 25, 26, 28-29 and 33-34 are withdrawn and
`
`claims 2-13, 15-16, 18-22, 24, 27, 30-32 and 35-36 are pending for examination.
`
`2.
`
`In response to applicant’s comment with regard to the telephone interview
`
`conducted on July 12, 2011 that Applicant respectfully disagrees with the summary of
`
`the interview particularly the attempt to reduce the claims to the "inventive concept".
`
`The summary states that Applicant indicated an inventive concept with regard to claims
`
`of another application. However, these claims are not believed to be relevant as they
`
`concern another application and invention. Applicant would like to clarify that much of
`
`the interview was merely a discussion to help the understanding of the examiner, but
`
`that applicant still relies on the claims as written and as a whole, and does not agree
`
`with reducing the claim to an inventive concept. The summary also refers to "the
`
`informing for such file transfer characteristics...". Applicant does not understand this
`
`statement and therefore disagrees. In addition, the summary states that agreement was
`
`reached with regard to "the inventive concept for the instant application." Applicant
`
`respectfully disagrees. Applicant did not and does not agree with recharaterizing the
`
`claims to an inventive concept ot the summary's indications of invention concepts. It is
`
`Applicant's position that the claims as they are set out define the invention, and that it is
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`3
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`3
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/891,443
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2181
`
`these claims which should be examined. Thus, Applicant respectfully requests that each
`
`claim of this application be examined as written and as a whole.
`
`As indicated in the interview summary,
`
`the inventive concept for the instant
`
`application is the claims
`
`and the explanation with regard to the function of the
`
`inventive concept in the interview summary is a clear exemplary interpretation regarding
`
`on how the claims can be envisioned; therefore, the examiner is examining each claims
`
`as written and as a whole based on the examiner’s best understanding on how the
`
`claims can be interpreted. If the interpretation is erroneous in any way, the examiner
`
`welcomes the applicant's clarification in the subsequent response, as the applicant
`
`currently do not offer how the examiner's interpretation of the claims are inaccurate and
`
`what is the correct interpretation of the claims.
`
`Additionally, the examiner clearly understood that the summary for the inventive
`
`concept regarding to claims of another application (11/467,092) is relevant to the instant
`
`application as the examiner did inquire as to how this application differ from the
`
`copending application 11/467,092, wherein the applicant indicted that the claims for the
`
`instant application are broader as the independent claims for the instant do not require
`
`the multiple parallel channels and that the instant application is basically the same
`
`concept as the copending application 11/467,092. Furthermore, this was part of the
`
`examiner’s rational for the double patenting rejection between the instant application
`
`and the copending application 11/467,092.
`
`Additionally, with regard to the
`
`file transfer characteristic
`
`applicant’s was
`
`trying to explain the difference in limitation between the co-pending application
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`4
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`4
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/891,443
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2181
`
`11/467,092 and the instant application, wherein the
`
`file transfer characteristic
`
`is
`
`a claimed limitation of the co-pending application 11/467,092 and not in the instant
`
`application. Furthermore, to further clarify, based on the applicant’s clarification during
`
`the interview conducted on July 12, 2011,
`
`the information for such file transfer
`
`characteristic
`
`is part of the process for the host to recognize the connected as a
`
`hard drive but it is not necessary/require step, wherein this is one of the embodiments
`
`described in the specification.
`
`3.
`
`In response to applicant’s plurality of arguments with regard to the independent
`
`claims 2, 32 and 35 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) that the resulting combination of
`
`the references does not teach/suggest applicant’s inventive concept because of the
`
`following:
`
`— Hashimoto does not describe execution of an instruction set to establish
`
`communication with the host computer as claimed because Hashimoto merely
`
`describes a process for detection by the camera of an active connection by
`
`monitoring for a signal from the interface, and not the process claimed which is
`
`a process in which the analog device processor executes instructions to cause
`
`a class identifying parameter (mis-indicative of the class of the device) to be
`
`sent to the host computer (i.e. automatically sends mis-identifying information
`
`to the host computer);
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`5
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`5
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/891,443
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2181
`
`— there is no description anywhere in Hashimoto of the claimed process of
`
`executing a set of instructions that sends a class identifying parameter to the
`
`host computer;
`
`— at the time of the Hashimoto disclosure, the user would load software and input
`
`information into the host computer to identify the camera and there was no
`
`requirement for the camera CPU to be involved in a process to identify itself to
`
`the host computer;
`
`— neither Hashimoto nor any of the other cited references disclose a processor in
`
`the peripheral device involved in automatically sending a mis-identifying class
`
`parameter/information to the host computer because host computer in Smith’s
`
`Plug and Play functionality assigns an identifying number rather than the
`
`peripheral processor automatically sending identification information; therefore
`
`J do not disclose automatic sending of identification (i.e. a host computer
`
`resource allocation process concerned with allocation of the resources of the
`
`host computer to avoid conflicts between resources within the host and not
`
`device recognition process), J does not mention of identification
`
`information being read or sent and J does not even mention a peripheral
`
`processor automatically providing identification information to the host
`
`computer
`
`— J also does not describe a peripheral having a processor involved in the
`
`Plug and Play process;
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`6
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`6
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/891,443
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2181
`
`— the Plug and Play functionality of Smith is functionality which is primarily located
`
`in the host computer not the peripheral. The Plug and Play compatibility as
`
`implemented in the peripheral in J is merely a set of logic gates and
`
`registers (not a processor) to give the peripheral compatibility with the Plug and
`
`Play functionality of the host computer. Plug and Play functionality calls for the
`
`host computer to configure its resources according to the needs of all the
`
`peripherals attached to it and thus primarily concerns software or firmware
`
`supplied functions located in the host computer. Thus, it would not make sense
`
`to one skilled in the art to put these Plug and Play functions into the peripheral
`
`device which would have no use for them. The peripheral device is only going
`
`to connect to a host computer and thus does not need to allocate its resources
`
`to handle multiple Plug and Play devices;
`
`— J expressly teaches the contrary, that a device driver must be loaded once
`
`the peripherals have been set up and host computer resources assigned (see
`
`e.g., Smith, Fig. 2, ref. 126 and Col. 4 lines 32-33);
`
`— Ristelhueber do not describes a peripheral device whereby there is no
`
`requirement for any user-loaded file transfer software to be loaded on the
`
`computer in addition to the operating system because Ristelhueber is a non-
`
`technical buyer magazine article which generically describes a future Plug and
`
`Play standard with an enthusiastic description of the future (''In about a year the
`
`key standard and specifications will be in place to make PnP a reality", p. 1,
`
`paragraph 3); thus, Ristelhueber is not enabling prior art; Ristelhueber is not
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`7
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`7
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/891,443
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2181
`
`describing recognizing what peripheral is attached, only whether there is a
`
`peripheral attached to the port; further, there is no enabling disclosure of how
`
`such recognition would one day be implemented; the description in
`
`Ristelhueber is just an over enthusiastic prediction of the hoped for goals for
`
`PnP, which is to detect when a new device is attached (i.e. identifying presence
`
`not what it is), configure the host computer resources to accommodate it, and
`
`then activate the device; however, Ristelhueber nowhere discusses or even
`
`mentions device drivers, or what will happen after a device is configured and
`
`activated. The J reference and the PnP Standards Specification make
`
`clear that a device driver is still needed after the peripheral has been detected,
`
`assigned resources and activated in accordance with Plug and Play;
`
`furthermore, there is no teaching in Ristelhueber to relieve the user from having
`
`to load a device driver, there is no mention of a processor on the peripheral,
`
`and there is no mention of the need or lack of need for user loaded software on
`
`the host computer;
`
`— the environment and functionality, and the problems to be resolved in
`
`Shinohara are completely different to Hashimoto; therefore, it would not be
`
`obvious to combine the Shinohara's flash disk drive features with Hashimoto
`
`because of these fundamental differences; Shinohara does not teach or even
`
`mention that there is no need for user interaction to set up a file system, or that
`
`the device is not identified as an analog data generating and processing device
`
`and is identified instead as a digital mass storage device; Shinohara is merely a
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`8
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`8
`
`

`
`Application/Control Number: 12/891,443
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2181
`
`mass storage device acting as a mass storage device; further, the data
`
`structure set up would require software on the host computer to perform these
`
`set-up functions; thus, additional software must be added to the host computer
`
`to set up the data structure for the flash drive; further, since Shinohara is
`
`merely a hard disk emulator connected to a computer, it cannot cause an
`
`acquired file of digitized analog data acquired from a analog source to be
`
`transferred (i.e., there is only digital data stored by the host computer); and the
`
`teaching of Shinohara does not suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art the
`
`operation and identification of an analog data acquisition device as an entirely
`
`different type of device, i.e. a mass storage device, and does not suggest a
`
`device which sends an identifying parameter to the host computer identifying
`
`the device as a device of dramatically different type than what it actually is;
`
`— Shinohara merely describes an approach to extending the life of the flash
`
`memory in a flash disk drive, and there is no mention of device drivers or no
`
`mention of not needing to load file transfer enabling software by Shinohara;
`
`nowhere in Shinohara is there any mention of transferring a file of digitized
`
`analog data (Shinohara is a disk driver, as such, it cannot acquire and digitize
`
`analog data and therefore cannot transfer it), or any data, without requiring any
`
`user loaded file transfer enabling software; rather, the detailed description cited
`
`calls for the host computer to perform unique file management functions (Col.
`
`4, lines 34-49) which would require data transfer software in the host computer
`
`to set up the disk emulation; further, there is no teaching or mention of the
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`9
`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`9
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`10
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`11
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`12
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`13
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`14
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`15
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`16
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`17
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`18
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`19
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`20
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`21
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`22
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`23
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`24
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`25
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`26
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`27
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`28
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`29
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`30
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`31
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`32
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`33
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`34
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`35
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`36
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`37
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`38
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`39
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`40
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`41
`
`

`
`Olympus et al. 1119
`42