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 .
Foreign Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 10, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings were received on September 10, 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Appropriate correction is required.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (Figures 1-3 - claims 1-8) in the reply filed on January 20, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-14 are currently withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 20, 2026.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0286527 A1) in view of Inoue et al. (US 5,075,807).
As per claim 1, Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0286527 A1) discloses a disk device (e.g., 1) comprising: a housing (e.g., see Fig. 1) including a base (e.g., 12) with an internal space filled with a first gas (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0026]), and a cover (e.g., 14) attached to the base (12), to close the internal space (i.e., space provided and enclosed by the cover (14) and the base (12)); a holding member (e.g., FPC unit (21) which holds and allows connectivity through the base (12) to an underlying PCB) that is attached to the base (12) in the internal space and holds a flexible printed circuit board ((e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0030]); a moisture absorption unit (e.g. 100) - see Figs. 2-9; see, inter alia, paragraph [0032])), including a moisture absorbent having a composition to adsorb moisture (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraph [0042]), and a case (e.g., casing of (100) as depicted in Figs. 2-9) attached to the cover (14) in the internal space, the case that accommodates the moisture absorbent.
As per claim 1, however, Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0286527 A1) remains silent with respect to providing an adsorption unit including an adsorbent having a composition to adsorb a second gas different from the first gas, the adsorption unit being held by at least one of the holding member and the case outside the case in the internal space, and being exposed to the internal space.
Such features are known in the art.
As just one example, Inoue et al. (US 5,075,807) disclose an analogous disk device (e.g., see Fig. 1), in the same field of endeavor as Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0286527 A1), wherein as per claim 1, an adsorption unit (e.g., portion of case/structure supporting gas adsorbent (6)) including an adsorbent (e.g., 6) having a composition to adsorb a second gas different from a first gas within the enclosure, the adsorption unit (e.g., portion of case/structure supporting gas adsorbent (6)) being held by at least one of a holding member and the case (e.g., the case (4) attached to the cover (see Fig. 1)) outside the case in the internal space, and being exposed to the internal space (e.g., via filter (7) and compartment holding (6)). Additionally, a moisture absorption unit (e.g., case/structure supporting moisture absorbent (6)) - see Fig. 1; see, inter alia, paragraph [0032])), including a moisture absorbent (e.g., silica gel) having a composition to adsorb moisture - e.g., see, inter alia, col. 2, ll. 23-32; col. 4, ll. 33-42, 47-53; col. 5, ll. 11-44 of Inoue et al. (US 5,075,807)).
Additionally, as per claim 2, Inoue et al. (US 5,075,807) further discloses wherein a magnetic disk (e.g., the lowermost magnetic disk as depicted in Fig. 1) is configured to rotate in the internal space, wherein the adsorption unit (e.g., portion of case/structure supporting gas adsorbent (6)) is further apart from the magnetic disk (e.g., the lowermost magnetic disk as depicted in Fig. 1) than the moisture absorbent (6) - see Fig. 1 of Inoue et al. (US 5,075,807).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Inoue et al. (US 5,075,807), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide an adsorption unit including an adsorbent having a composition to adsorb a second gas different from the first gas, the adsorption unit being held by at least one of the holding member and the case outside the case in the internal space, and being exposed to the internal space, to the disk device of Suzuki et al. (US 2020/0286527 A1), as taught by Inoue et al. (US 5,075,807), in order to advantageously provide a corrosion resistant environment in the device to satisfy the life length requirement thereof, and an adsorbent which is "effectively arranged taking into consideration the characteristics of the adsorbent whereby a practical amount of the adsorbent for mounting thereof enables effective adsorption even in the case of rapid temperature elevation and the device has an increased reliability for a long duration." See col. 1, ll. 34-50 of Inoue et al. (US 5,075,807).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 are tentatively objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but, pending an updated search, amendments or arguments presented by the Applicant and considered by the Examiner in reply to this office communication, would be favorably considered if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Citation of Prior or Relevant Art on enclosed PTO-892
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The cited art made of record (see the enclosed PTO-892), not applied to the rejection of the claims, supra, each disclose aspects of the claimed invention, including wherein HDD (hard disk drives) include adsorption and absorption units disposed therein to regulate the moisture/humidity of the disk drives and also mitigate corrosive gases.
The best prior art has been applied to the claimed invention (see the rejection of the claims on the applied prior art, supra). However, if Applicant chooses to amend the claims in a manner to obviate the applied prior art, as noted in the rejection, supra, the Applicant is advised to not only carefully review the applied prior art for all it teaches and/or suggests, but also the cited prior art of record in order to obviate any potential rejections based on potential amendment(s); by doing so, compact prosecution on the merits can be enhanced.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688