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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed November 7th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-8, 10, 13-17, 19, 21-22, and 25-27 remain pending in the application. The amendment to claim 13 has not overcome the 112(b) rejection, as explained below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 7th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 13 has overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008) (precedential) and Ex parte Brummer, 12 USPQ2d 1653 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989). The claim, as amended, has still not been given any structural limitations and is not a standardized unit, rendering the claim as indefinite, as the height of said corresponding disk drive enclosure may change. In Brummer, the Board held that a limitation in a claim to a bicycle that recited "said front and rear wheels so spaced as to give a wheelbase that is between 58 percent and 75 percent of the height of the rider that the bicycle was designed for" was indefinite because the relationship of parts was not based on any known standard for sizing a bicycle to a rider, but on a rider of unspecified build. Brummer, 12 USPQ2d at 1655. See MPEP § 2173.05(b)(II). For these reasons, the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been maintained.
Applicant argues that Azarian fails to teach wherein the filter assembly “lacks adhesive.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although Azarian does teach embodiments in which an adhesive is used as an attachment mechanism, Azarian additionally teaches embodiments with alternative attachment mechanisms that do not require adhesive. Azarian teaches that the filter 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.” (Col. 10, lines 18-21). Applicant additionally points to the optional use of adhesive “for other purposes.” While this is true, Azarian further teaches that the use of adhesive is again optional, explicitly stating “The diffusion tube can alternatively be enclosed within the filter … In this case, no adhesive is need to close off a side of the tube.” (Col. 15, lines 28-31)
Applicant argues against the Examiner’s position that the specific dimensional relationship, in regards to claim 13, is a matter of routine design choice or mere optimization, further arguing that the limitation “wherein the height of the porous flow face is configured to extend at least 75% of a depth of a corresponding disk drive enclosure” recites a dimension that is critical and results in improved collection efficiency. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Firstly, as explained above, the Examiner maintains that the recited limitation renders the claim indefinite and is therefore rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Regardless of this rejection, the Examiner does not believe the Applicant has met the burden of providing evidence that the exact proportions of the porous flow face are critical as long as the other limitations are met. The Applicant cites paragraphs [0061]-[0062] as teaching that the height of the porous flow face extending along a specific depth of the disk drive enclosure is a parameter that improves filtration efficiency. However, paragraph [0062] of the instant specification states “It has been discovered that a porous flow face 310 that extends a minimum distance relative to the depth d of the enclosure 222 has improved collection efficiency. The height hp of the porous flow face 310 is generally greater than 30% of the depth d of the corresponding enclosure 222.” The specification merely states that improved collection efficiency has been show with a minimum distance but does not explicitly state what said minimum distance is. At best, the specification implies that the minimum is 30%, considerably lower than the claimed 75%. While the specification teaches embodiments wherein the height of the flow face is 75% of the depth of the corresponding enclosure, this does not teach that the limitation is critical.
Applicant argues that Ou-Yang in view of Azarian does not teach or suggest the limitation of claim 14 “wherein the porous flow face has a height that is at least 60% 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.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant acknowledges that Ou-Yang teaches wherein the filter housing extends between the disk drive base and the cover but argues that the language of “extends between” merely indicates that the housing is positioned somewhere in the region between the base and the cover but does not indicate that it spans the entire distance. However, Ou-Yang teaches that “Preferably, the filter housing 72 extends between the disk drive base 16 and the cover 18. Such configuration is contemplated to avoid airflow from undesirably flowing between the filter component 66 and the cover 18.” (Col. 4, lines 38-42). If the purpose of such a configuration is to prevent airflow between the cover of the electronic enclosure and the filter component, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that no gap should be present between the filter component and the cover. Ou-Yang therefore teaches that the porous flow face has a height that is close to 100% of the depth of the enclosure, spanning between the base of the disk drive enclosure to the cover.
Applicant argues that the porous flow face as taught by Ou-Yang does not define a plane. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Although Applicant is correct in asserting that the filter element as taught by Ou-Yang is curved, this does not disqualify the porous flow face as reading on the limitation “wherein the porous flow face defines a plane” as required by claim 17. As can be seen in the annotated figure below, the porous flow face of Ou-Yang comprises a three-dimensional structure comprising a front, a back, a top, a bottom, and two sides. Although the front and back of the porous flow face are curved, the sides of the porous flow face define a planar (i.e., flat) structure. Ou-Yang therefore reads on the limitation of “wherein the porous flow face defines a plane.”
PNG
media_image1.png
367
360
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that Ou-Yang does not teach the limitation of claim 22 “wherein the adsorbent has a height that spans at least 75% of the enclosure depth,” again citing the language of “extends between” not sufficiently teaching a proportional relationship between the depth of the enclosure and the height of the adsorbent. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ou-Yang teaches that “Preferably, the filter housing 72 extends between the disk drive base 16 and the cover 18. Such configuration is contemplated to avoid airflow from undesirably flowing between the filter component 66 and the cover 18.” (Col. 4, lines 38-42). If the purpose of such a configuration is to prevent airflow between the cover of the electronic enclosure and the filter component, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that no gap should be present between the filter component and the cover. Ou-Yang therefore teaches that the porous flow face has a height that is close to 100% (well above the required 75%) of the depth of the enclosure, spanning between the base of the disk drive enclosure to the cover.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the height of the porous flow face is configured to extend at least 75% of a depth of a corresponding disk drive enclosure in which the filter assembly is configured to be installed.” The claimed “corresponding disk drive enclosure” has not been given any structural limitations and is not a standardized unit, rendering the claim indefinite, as the height of said corresponding disk drive enclosure may change. As is such, it is unclear when infringement may occur.
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, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6238467 to Azarian et al. (hereinafter referred to as Azarian), and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 7280311 to Ou-Yang et al. (hereinafter referred to as Ou-Yang).
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 around the cavity (see annotated figure below);
PNG
media_image2.png
620
1371
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.”); and an adsorbent disposed in the cavity (Fig. 1, adsorbent media 6), 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.”). Azarian does not teach wherein the porous flow face arcs between the first side edge surface and the second side edge surface and that the porous flow face has a height from the bottom edge to the top edge that is greater than 14 mm.
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_image3.png
1114
2182
media_image3.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).
Regarding claim 4, Azarian and Ou-Yang 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 5, Azarian and Ou-Yang teach the filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Azarian further teaches wherein the porous flow face comprises a microporous membrane (Col. 12, lines 41-42 “The inlet 9 in the chamber 16 is covered by a microporous particulate filtration media 12”).
Regarding claim 6, Azarian and Ou-Yang teach the filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Azarian further teaches wherein the body is impermeable (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.”).
Regarding claim 7, Azarian and Ou-Yang teach the filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Azarian further teaches wherein the porous flow face defines an inlet of the filter assembly (Fig. 2b depicts airflow entering the filter assembly through the porous flow face). 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, reading on the limitation “wherein the porous flow face defines both an inlet and an outlet of the filter assembly” of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Azarian and Ou-Yang teach the filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Azarian and Ou-Yang 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 and Ou-Yang 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 13, Azarian and Ou-Yang teach the filter assembly as applied to claim 1 above. Azarian further teaches an extension of the opening (Fig. 2a, extension 13) that contains an extension of the porous flow face (Fig. 1, microporous filtration media 14). Azarian discloses that the height of the opening is 11 mm in total (Col. 22, lines 52-55 “This face was divided into three primary areas extending across the entire width of the frame, these being, first, an upper opening of 5.0 mm height, second, a lower opening of 6.0 mm height”). Azarian does not disclose the dimensions of a corresponding disk drive enclosure, specifically the depth of such an enclosure. However, there is no evidence that the exact proportions 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.
Claims 14-17, 19, 21-22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ou-Yang, and further in view of Azarian.
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_image4.png
776
1669
media_image4.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); 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). 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.
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).
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.
Regarding claim 15, Ou-Yang and Azarian 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 and Azarian 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 and Azarian 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 and Azarian 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 21, Ou-Yang and Azarian teach the electronics enclosure as applied to claim 14 above. Ou-Yang further teaches wherein the porous flow face defines an inlet and an outlet of the filter assembly (Col. 5, lines 1-3 “In addition, as the filter housing 72 is characterized by having a single opening, the first opening 82” ; See also Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 22, Ou-Yang and Azarian 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 and Azarian 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_image5.png
742
1515
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 26, Ou-Yang and Azarian 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_image6.png
675
1823
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 27, Ou-Yang and Azarian 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_image7.png
742
1438
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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