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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on May 27th, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed May 27th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 14-17, 19, 22, 25-27, and 29-35 remain pending in the application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection as previously set forth in the Office Action mailed March 5th, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed May 27th, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 4, 8, 10, 14-17, 19, 22, and 25-27 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Azarian and Ou-Yang, and further in view of McGaughey, A. L., et al. Hydrophobicity versus Pore Size: Polymer Coatings to Improve Membrane Wetting Resistance for Membrane Distillation, ACS Applied Polymer Materials, Vol. 2 (February 2020), pp. 1256-1267.
Although the rejection set forth in the Final Office Action mailed March 5th, 2026 has been withdrawn, in order to promote compact prosecution, the Examiner will address certain arguments that may still be applicable to the new grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues that Azarian does not teach or suggest “a microporous membrane defining both an inlet and an outlet of the filter assembly.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant asserts “amended claim 1 does not recite mere capability of backflow through a porous material. Rather, amended claim 1 clearly requires that the porous flow face comprises a microporous membrane defining both an inlet and an outlet of the filter assembly.” (See Pg. 2 of Applicant Arguments/Remarks, filed May 27th, 2026) In response to applicant's argument, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. As explained in the Final Office Action mailed March 5th, 2027, the microporous membrane of Azarian is capable of functioning as both an inlet and an outlet and Azarian therefore meets the claim.
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, 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, 4, 8, 10, 29-31, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. US 6238467 B1 to Azarian et al. (hereinafter referred to as Azarian) and U.S. Patent Publication No. US 7280311 B1 to Ou-Yang et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ou-Yang), and further in view of McGaughey, A. L., et al. Hydrophobicity versus Pore Size: Polymer Coatings to Improve Membrane Wetting Resistance for Membrane Distillation, ACS Applied Polymer Materials, Vol. 2 (February 2020), pp. 1256-1267 (hereinafter referred to as McGaughey).
Regarding claim 1, Azarian teaches a filter assembly (Fig. 1, filter 1) comprising: a body (Fig. 1, frame 5) defining a cavity (Fig. 1, chamber 16) and having a first side edge surface, a second side edge surface, a top edge surface, and a bottom edge surface forming a perimeter surface around the cavity (see annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image1.png
408
914
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein the body is impermeable to air flow (Claim 7 “wherein said rigid frame comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of polycarbonate, polypropylene, acrylic, epoxy resin, aluminum, stainless steel, brass, alumina, glass and reinforced epoxy resin.”); a porous flow face extending across the cavity and coupled to the perimeter surface (Fig. 1, microporous particulate filtration media 8; Col. 12, lines 48-51 “The second open end (not shown) of the chamber 16 similarly has a second layer of fibrous electret particulate filtration media 7 and a second layer of microporous particulate filtration media 8 affixed thereto.”), wherein the porous flow face comprises a microporous membrane (Fig. 1, microporous particulate filtration media 8) defining an inlet of the filter assembly (Fig. 2b depicts airflow entering the filter assembly through the porous flow face), wherein the microporous membrane is impermeable to liquid water (Col. 9, lines 57-60 “By covering the carbon layer with the expanded PTFE membrane, it makes the final part waterproof so that deionized water can come into contact with the part and not penetrate the adsorbent.”); and an adsorbent disposed in the cavity (Fig. 1, adsorbent media 6). Although Azarian does not explicitly teach wherein the porous flow face also defines an outlet of the filter assembly, the porosity of the filtration media allows for the porous flow face to function as both an inlet and an outlet. More specifically, there are no components preventing backflow through the porous flow face and it is therefore capable of functioning as an outlet. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP § 2114 and § 2173.05(g). Azarian does not teach wherein the porous flow face arcs between the first side edge surface and the second side edge surface, that the porous flow face has a height from the bottom edge to the top edge that is greater than 14 mm, and that the microporous membrane has a pore size ranging from 0.05 to 5.0 microns.
However, Ou-Yang teaches a filter element for use in a disk drive enclosure (Abstract “The disk drive further includes a filter component.”), wherein said filter is positioned in the corner of said disk drive enclosure (Fig. 2, filter component 66 sits inside cavity 80) and said filter has a first side edge surface and a second side edge surface (see annotated figure below),
PNG
media_image2.png
520
1059
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein a flow face arcs between the first side edge surface and the second side edge surface (Fig. 4, filter element 74).
Azarian and Ou-Yang are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filter assemblies for use in electronic enclosures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter assembly as taught by Azarian to include the filter shape as taught by Ou-Yang in order to minimize the amount of space that the filter assembly requires when placed inside of a disk drive enclosure. As to the height of the porous flow face, there is no evidence that the exact dimensions of the porous flow face is critical as long as the other limitations are met. It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose or optimize the height of the porous flow face in order for the filter assembly to fit inside of a disk drive. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chose dimensions or upon another variable recited in the claim, applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical, see In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 and MPEP §2144.05(I).
As to the pore size of the microporous membrane, McGaughey teaches that reduced pore size of PTFE membranes increases resistance of membrane wetting and reduces water flux (Abstract ; Section 1.2). McGaughey further teaches that the tested PTFE membranes have a pore size of 0.2 µm (Section 2.1).
Azarian, Ou-Yang, and McGaughey are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of membrane separation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pore size of the microporous membrane as taught by Azarian within the filter assembly as taught by Azarian and Ou-Yang to be 0.2 µm as taught by McGaughey. The reduced pore size would increase the resistance of membrane wetting and reduce water flux within the filter assembly.
Regarding claim 4, Azarian, Ou-Yang, and McGaughey teach the filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. As previously discussed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the filter assembly as taught by Azarian to incorporate the filter shape as taught by Ou-Yang. With such a modification, the porous flow face as taught by Azarian would define a portion of an inner cylindrical surface (Ou-Yang, Fig. 4, filter element 74).
Regarding claim 8, Azarian, Ou-Yang, and McGaughey teach the filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Azarian, Ou-Yang, and McGaughey do not disclose that the porous flow face defines a radius ranging from 47mm to 51mm. However, there is no evidence that the exact dimensions of the porous flow face is critical as long as it is formed in the shape desired. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose or optimize the height and width of the porous flow face in order for the filter assembly to fit inside of a disk drive. Where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen dimensions or upon another variable recited in the claim, the applicant must show that the chosen dimensions are critical, see In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934 and MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 10, Azarian, Ou-Yang, and McGaughey teach the filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Azarian further teaches wherein the body is rigid (Col. 13, line 65 “Fig. 2b shows a side view of the rigid frame 5”).
Regarding claim 29, Azarian, Ou-Yang, and McGaughey teach the filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Azarian further teaches wherein the microporous membrane comprises expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (Col. 9, lines 57-60 “By covering the carbon layer with the expanded PTFE membrane, it makes the final part waterproof so that deionized water can come into contact with the part and not penetrate the adsorbent.”).
Regarding claim 30, Azarian, Ou-Yang, and McGaughey teach the filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Azarian does not disclose the porosity of the microporous membrane. However, McGaughey teaches the commercial availability of PTFE membranes that have a porosity of greater than 50% (Section 2.1 discloses two commercially available PTFE membranes with bulk porosity of 84% and 55%). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the commercially available PTFE membrane as taught by McGaughey which has a porosity of greater than 50%. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (filtration within the filter assembly) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 31, Azarian, Ou-Yang, and McGaughey teach the filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Azarian further teaches wherein the filter assembly lacks adhesive (Col. 10, lines 18-21 “The multi-functional filter of the present invention may be mounted to the disk drive in any suitable manner which provides a good attachment to the drive housing, such as adhesion, welding, mechanical locking, pressure fit, etc.”).
Regarding claim 35, Azarian, Ou-Yang, and McGaughey teach the filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Azarian further teaches wherein the porous flow face defines a flat plane (Fig. 1, microporous particulate filtration media 8 is shown to have a flat, rectangular shape that defines a plane). Furthermore, even with the modification of Ou-Yang wherein the porous flow face is arcs between the first side edge surface and the second side edge surface, the porous flow face would still define a flat plane (Fig. 4 of Ou-Yang shows that the filter element 74 has a height and width and therefore defines a plane).
Claims 14-17, 19, 22, 25-27, and 32-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou-Yang, and further in view of Azarian and McGaughey.
Regarding claim 14, Ou-Yang teaches an electronics enclosure (Fig. 2, disk drive 10) comprising: a housing comprising a base plate, a cover (Col. 3, lines 26-27 “The head disk assembly 12 includes a housing which may include a disk drive base 16 and a cover 18”), a filter receptacle (Fig. 2, cavity 80), and a sidewall extending from the base plate to the cover (see annotated figure below)
PNG
media_image3.png
776
1669
media_image3.png
Greyscale
to define an enclosure having a depth (Fig. 2, cavity 96); and a filter assembly disposed in the filter receptacle (Fig. 2, filter component 66), the filter assembly comprising: a body defining a cavity and a perimeter surface about the cavity (Fig. 4, filter housing 72 and opening 82), wherein the body is impermeable to air flow (Col. 4, lines 55-56 “the filter housing 72 may be formed of a molded plastic material for example.” ; Col. 4. lines 65-67 “the filter housing 72 only has a single opening, airflow entering into filter element 74 tends to leave via passing through the fine section 78.”); a porous flow face extending across the cavity and coupled to the perimeter surface (Fig. 4, filter element 74), wherein the porous flow face has a height that is at least 60% of the depth of the enclosure (Col. 4, lines 38-40 “Preferably, the filter housing 72 extends between the disk drive base 16 and the cover 18.” ; Therefore, the porous flow face has a height that is close to 100% of the depth of the enclosure) and wherein the porous flow face has a height that is at least 80% of the height of the body (Fig. 2, it can be seen that filter element 74 has a height that spans the entire height of the housing 72), wherein the porous flow face defines both an inlet and an outlet (Col. 4. lines 65-67 “the filter housing 72 only has a single opening”). Ou-Yang further teaches that contaminants filtered by the porous flow face may become trapped within the filter housing (Col. 5, lines 3-5 “it is contemplated that contaminants filtered by the filter element 74 may tend to become “trapped” and collected by the filter housing 72 itself”). Ou-Yang does not teach an adsorbent enclosed between the body and the porous flow face nor does Ou-Yang explicitly teach wherein the porous flow face comprises a microporous membrane defining a pore size ranging from 0.5 to 5.0 microns and wherein the microporous membrane is impermeable to liquid water.
However, Azarian teaches a filter for use in an electronics enclosure (Fig. 1, multifunctional filter 1) that has a porous flow face (Fig. 1, microporous particulate filtration media 8) and an adsorbent enclosed between the body and the porous flow face (Fig. 1, adsorbent media 6). Azarian further teaches wherein the porous flow face comprises a microporous membrane (Fig. 1, microporous particulate filtration media 8) and wherein the microporous membrane is impermeable to liquid water (Col. 9, lines 57-60 “By covering the carbon layer with the expanded PTFE membrane, it makes the final part waterproof so that deionized water can come into contact with the part and not penetrate the adsorbent.”).
Ou-Yang and Azarian are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of filter assemblies for use in electronic enclosures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter assembly of the electronics enclosure as taught by Ou-Yang to further include the internal adsorbent media as taught by Azarian to collect contaminants that become “trapped” in the filter housing as disclosed by Ou-Yang. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the electronics enclosure as taught by Ou-Yang to incorporate the microporous membrane as taught by Azarian. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (filtration within the electronics enclosure) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
As to the pore size of the microporous membrane, McGaughey teaches that reduced pore size of PTFE membranes increases resistance of membrane wetting and reduces water flux (Abstract ; Section 1.2). McGaughey further teaches that the tested PTFE membranes have a pore size of 0.2 µm (Section 2.1).
Ou-Yang, Azarian, and McGaughey are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of membrane separation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pore size of the microporous membrane as taught by Azarian within the electronics enclosure as taught by Ou-Yang and Azarian to be 0.2 µm as taught by McGaughey. The reduced pore size would increase the resistance of membrane wetting and reduce water flux within the filter assembly.
Regarding claim 15, Ou-Yang, Azarian, and McGaughey teach the electronics enclosure as applied to claim 14 above. Ou-Yang further teaches wherein the porous flow face defines a portion of an inner cylindrical surface across the filter receptacle (Col. 4, lines 48-49 “The filter housing 72 and the filter element 74 at the first opening 82 are curved”).
Regarding claim 16, Ou-Yang, Azarian, and McGaughey teach the electronics enclosure as applied to claim 14 above. Ou-Yang further teaches wherein a top edge of the filter assembly abuts the cover and a bottom edge of the filter assembly abuts the base plate (Col. 4, lines 38-40 “Preferably, the filter housing 72 extends between the disk drive base 16 and the cover 18.”).
Regarding claim 17, Ou-Yang, Azarian, and McGaughey teach the electronics enclosure as applied to claim 14 above. Ou-Yang further teaches wherein the porous flow face defines a plane (Fig. 4 shows that the filter element 74 has a height and width and therefore defines a plane).
Regarding claim 19, Ou-Yang, Azarian, and McGaughey teach the electronics enclosure as applied to claim 14 above. Ou-Yang further teaches wherein the porous flow face is configured to be concentric to a disk in the housing (Col. 4, lines 48-52 “The filter housing 72 and the filter element 74 at the first opening 82 are curved so as to smoothly transition to the adjoining base shroud surface 86 … as well as to conform to the shape of the adjacent disk edge 84.”).
Regarding claim 22, Ou-Yang, Azarian, and McGaughey teach the electronics enclosure as applied to claim 14 above. Ou-Yang further teaches wherein the filter assembly spans the entire depth of the disk drive enclosure (Col. 4, lines 38-40 “Preferably, the filter housing 72 extends between the disk drive base 16 and the cover 18.” ; Therefore, the porous flow face has a height that is close to 100% of the depth of the enclosure). Azarian teaches an adsorbent to be placed within a cavity, between a body and a porous flow face (Fig. 1, adsorbent media 6), wherein the adsorbent fills the cavity completely (Col. 14, lines 52-53 “Moreover, the adsorbent media 87 may fill the chamber 86 completely”). As previously explained, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the filter assembly of the electronics enclosure as taught by Ou-Yang to further include the internal adsorbent media as taught by Azarian. With such a modification, it would have been obvious for the adsorbent media as taught by Azarian to be made compatible with the enclosure and filter assembly as taught by Ou-Yang (and therefore the adsorbent may similarly fill the entire assembly as taught by Azarian). With the adsorbent filling the assembly as taught by Azarian, it would therefore read on the limitation “wherein the adsorbent has a height that spans at least 75% of the enclosure depth”, as Ou-Yang teaches that the filter assembly spans the entire height of the electronic enclosure.
Regarding claim 25, Ou-Yang, Azarian, and McGaughey teach the electronics enclosure as applied to claim 14 above. Ou-Yang further teaches wherein the sidewall defines an inner cylindrical surface (Fig. 3, sidewalls define portion of the inner cylindrical surface where the porous flow face arcs across; see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image4.png
448
941
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Ou-Yang, Azarian, and McGaughey teach the electronics enclosure as applied to claim 14 above. Ou-Yang further teaches wherein the sidewall defines the filter receptacle (Fig. 3, the sidewalls define an opening where the filter assembly 66 sits; see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image5.png
338
1001
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Ou-Yang, Azarian, and McGaughey teach the electronics enclosure as applied to claim 25 above. Ou-Yang further teaches wherein the filter receptacle is recessed from the inner cylindrical surface (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image6.png
390
823
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 32, Ou-Yang, Azarian, and McGaughey teach the electronics enclosure as applied to claim 14 above. Azarian further teaches wherein the microporous membrane comprises expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) (Col. 9, lines 57-60 “By covering the carbon layer with the expanded PTFE membrane, it makes the final part waterproof so that deionized water can come into contact with the part and not penetrate the adsorbent.”).
Regarding claim 33, Ou-Yang, Azarian, and McGaughey teach the electronics enclosure as applied to claim 14 above. Ou-Yang and Azarian do not disclose the porosity of the microporous membrane. However, McGaughey teaches the commercial availability of PTFE membranes that have a porosity of greater than 50% (Section 2.1 discloses two commercially available PTFE membranes with bulk porosity of 84% and 55%). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to utilize the commercially available PTFE membrane as taught by McGaughey which has a porosity of greater than 50%. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (filtration within the filter assembly) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Regarding claim 34, Ou-Yang, Azarian, and McGaughey teach the electronics enclosure as applied to claim 14 above. Ou-Yang further teaches wherein the filter assembly lacks adhesive (Col. 5, lines 26-30 “the filter element 74 may be directly attached to the filter housing 72, such as with an adhesive. Alternatively, the filter element 74 may be simply held in place by the surrounding filter housing 72.”). Furthermore, Ou-Yang teaches that the filter housing is coupled to the disk drive but does not disclose the coupling mechanism. However, Azarian teaches that a filter may be mounted to a disk drive “in any suitable manner which provides a good attachment to the drive housing, such as adhesion, welding, mechanical locking, pressure fit, etc.” (Col. 10, lines 18-21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the filter assembly of Ou-Yang could be coupled to the electronics enclosure through welding, mechanical locking, or pressure fit as taught by Azarian, all of which lack adhesive. A simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (securing the filter housing to the electronics enclosure) supports a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY whose telephone number is (571)272-0188. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/RACHEL MARIE SLAUGOVSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
