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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant elected, without traverse, Group I (claims 1-11 and 20) in the reply filed on February 16, 2026 is acknowledged. The Examiner had withdrawn the Election of Species requirement.
Claims 12-19 (directed to non-traversed, Group I) are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on February 16, 2026.
As noted in the restriction requirement (mailed December 18, 2025), there exists a restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
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 1-5, 9-11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1) in view of Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A).
As per independent claim 1 (and analogously, as per independent claim 20), Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1) discloses a data storage device (e.g., 12, 200), comprising: a sealed inner enclosure (e.g., 40, 240 - see, inter alia, col. 4, ll. 64-66; col. 2, ll. 10-11; col. 3, ll. 7-17), wherein a gaseous environment inside of the sealed inner enclosure differs from a standard air environment (e.g., see, inter alia, col. 2, l. 59 through col. 3, l. 2; col. 3, ll. 7-17); an outer cover (e.g., 205) situated over and coupled to at least a portion of the sealed inner enclosure (e.g., which includes the sealed inner enclosure of the process (inner) cover (e.g., 30, 206)); and an environment-controlling substance (e.g., solid reactants provided within container (350); see, inter alia, abstract; col. 1, l. 64 through col. 2, l. 14; col. 6, ll. 1-19), wherein the sealed inner enclosure comprises at least one membrane (e.g., 11, ll. 7-12) to allow the environment-controlling substance to affect the gaseous environment inside of the sealed inner enclosure.
Additionally, as claim 20, Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1) discloses a means for providing an environment-controlling substance (e.g., solid reactants provided within container (350); see, inter alia, abstract; col. 1, l. 64 through col. 2, l. 14; col. 6, ll. 1-19), wherein such a means for providing an environment-controlling substance is considered to be the structure of a container (e.g., 350) housing and supporting the environment-controlling substance
(which corresponds to the container (135) in the Applicant's specification, and equivalents thereof); wherein the sealed inner enclosure comprises means for allowing the environment- controlling substance to affect the gaseous environment inside of the sealed inner enclosure, wherein the means for allowing the environment- controlling substance to affect the gaseous environment inside of the sealed inner enclosure is considered to be the permeable membrane (e.g., 352) that allows the release of the gaseous oxidizing agent (which corresponds to the permeable nature of the container (135) in the Applicant's specification, and equivalents thereof).
As per claim 2, wherein the environment-controlling substance comprises a gas-releasing substance configured to release a gas (e.g., including oxygen; see, inter alia, col. 4, ll. 17-27) .
As per claim 3, wherein the gas-releasing substance comprises at least one of: a metal-organic framework (MOF), a chemical compound, KMnO4, KClO3, MnO2, AgMnO4, Na2CO3.1.5H202, Cu-BTC, or MIL 101 composite - see col. 6, ll. 1-19.
As per claim 4, wherein the environment-controlling substance comprises a water-absorbing substance (e.g., see, inter alia, col. 8, ll. 1-18 and ll. 19-35).
As per claim 5, a water-absorbing substance can be a component of solid carrier affecting the environment within the sealed enclosure, wherein such a component includes Zeolite or silica gel (e.g., see, inter alia, col. 8, ll. 1-18 and ll. 19-35) .
As per claim 10, wherein a quantity of the environment-controlling substance (e.g., solid reactants provided within container (350)) is sufficient to: release an amount of a gas expected to be consumed during a period of operation of the data storage device, and/or absorb an expected amount of excess humidity during the period of operation of the data storage device - see, inter alia, col. 4, ll. 28-39.
As per claim 11, wherein the period of operation is a warranty period, an expected lifetime ("service life"), or a specified number of hours - see, inter alia, col. 4, ll. 28-39.
As per claim 1 and 20, however, Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1) does not expressly disclose wherein the environment-controlling substance is situated between the sealed inner enclosure and the outer cover, in the manner set forth by amended claims 1 and 20.
Such structure is known in the art.
As an example, Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A) discloses an analogous data storage device, in the same field of endeavor as Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1), wherein, as per claims 1 and 20, Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A) discloses a data storage device ("magnetic disk device" - abstract; see also Figs. 1, 2), comprising: a sealed inner enclosure (e.g., see paragraph [0009] of the enclosed English-machine translation; see also paragraph [0017] of the enclosed English-machine translation); an outer cover (e.g., the uppermost portion of (6) facing the exterior of the disk drive, as depicted in Figs. 1, 2) situated over and coupled to at least a portion of the sealed inner enclosure (e.g., which includes the lowermost portion of (6) facing the sealed interior of the disk drive); and an environment-controlling substance (e.g., 10, 11 and/or 12 - e.g. see paragraphs [0009, 0012, 0016] of the enclosed English-machine translation) situated between the sealed inner enclosure and the outer cover - see Figs. 1, 2, wherein the sealed inner enclosure comprises at least one membrane (e.g., 14) situated between an interior of the sealed inner enclosure (that is, the portion between of the enclosure between the cover and the disk drive components, below the environment-controlling substance (e.g., 10, 11 and/or 12)) and the environment-controlling substance (e.g., 10, 11 and/or 12), the at least one membrane configured to allow the environment-controlling substance (e.g., 10, 11, 12) to affect the gaseous environment inside of the sealed inner enclosure (e.g., reduce humidity levels), while maintaining a seal of the sealed inner enclosure (e.g., see paragraph [0009] of the enclosed English-machine translation; see also paragraph [0017] of the enclosed English-machine translation, wherein in some embodiments, the disk drive device is hermetically sealed from the external environment). The means for providing the environment-controlling substance is provided in a gap, the gap being external to the sealed inner enclosure (that is, the portion between of the enclosure between the cover and the disk drive components, below the environment-controlling substance (e.g., 10, 11 and/or 12)).
As per claim 4, Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A) further discloses wherein the environment-controlling substance comprises a water-absorbing substance (e.g., see, inter alia, paragraphs [0004, 0007, 0009, 012] of the enclosed English-machine translation).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the environment-controlling substance of Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1), as being situated between a sealed inner enclosure and an outer cover, as applied to Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1), as taught and suggested by Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A), in order to advantageously reduce interior space constraints associated with the internal placement of an environment-controlling substance - see paragraph [0004] of the enclosed English-machine translation of Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A) - the space constraint limitations are overcome by placing the environment-controlling substance between an innermost cover and an outermost cover of a data storage device, in lieu of the conventional approach as seen in Fig. 3 of Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A).
As per claim 9, the combination of Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1) and Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A), yields wherein the environment-controlling substance is included in: (a) a solid form (e.g., see Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1)) situated in a volume of space between the sealed inner enclosure and the outer cover (as taught/suggested by Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A)), or (b) a paste situated between the sealed inner enclosure and the outer cover.
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1) in view of Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Macchi et al. (US 2014/0070140 A1).
See the description of Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1) in view of Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A), supra.
As per claim 6, Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1) further discloses wherein a permeable container (e.g., 350) is provided, wherein the environment-controlling substance is situated inside of the permeable container.
As per claim 7, Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1) further discloses wherein at least a portion of the permeable (which includes the membrane) container (350) is malleable. See col. 9, ll. 16-42, which includes malleable materials such as rubber and/or elastomers.
As per claim 8, Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1) further wherein the permeable container comprises at least one of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), polyethylene (PE),polypropylene (PP), polyurethane (PU), ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA),polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), silicone rubber, cellulose acetate, polysulfone (PSU),or polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF). See col. 9, ll. 16-42.
However, as per claim 6 (from which claims 7 and 8 depend), Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1) (in view of Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A)) remains silent with regard to wherein the environment-controlling substance is in a powder form.
Such environment-controlling substances provided in a powder form, are well-known in the art.
As just one example, Macchi et al. (US 2014/0070140 A1) discloses an analogous electronic device, in the same field of endeavor as Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1)/ Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A), wherein an environmental-controlling substance is in a powder form. See, inter alia, abstract of Macchi et al. (US 2014/0070140 A1).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Macchi et al. (US 2014/0070140 A1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the environment-controlling substance of Zhang et al. (US 11,270,739 B1) (in combination with Aoyanagi (JP 05-109261 A)), as being in powder form, in order to advantageously "achieve the final absorption properties that make it suitable for use in electronic devices and easily usable within their manufacturing processes." See paragraph [0007] as well as paragraph [0008] of Macchi et al. (US 2014/0070140 A1).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant states:
First, Aoyanagi does not teach a "sealed inner enclosure" with a "non-standard air environment." Aoyanagi's device has respiration holes communicating with the external atmosphere. Aoyanagi, p. 2 (Overview). The device is not sealed and does not contain helium or any non-standard air environment. The fundamental premise of the Office's combination, applying Aoyanagi's spatial teaching to Zhang's hermetically sealed helium device, ignores that Aoyanagi's entire design philosophy is predicated on atmospheric breathing, not hermetic sealing. See, e.g., id. at ¶¶ [0007], [0013], claim 3.
See p. 6-7 of Applicants Response.
The Examiner disagrees. Aoyanagi explicitly and expressly discloses, in one embodiment, a hermetically-sealed inner enclosure. The Examiner directs the Applicants attention to, inter alia, paragraph [0017] and Fig. 1 of Aoyanagi. That is, a prior art reference (such as Aoyanagi ) must be reviewed for all it discloses, and not select passages and/or embodiments that ostensibly favor the Applicant's position, when such a reference clearly teaches alternatives.
The Applicant alleges that Aoyanagi does not teach the environment-controlling substance as being between a sealed inner enclosure and an outer cover, but instead discloses a hollow interior in which the control substance is placed, and alleges that "Zhang's emphasis on maintaining hermetic seal integrity arguably teaches against introducing a permeable membrane in the sealed enclosure wall to communicate with an externally-placed substance." See p. 7 of Applicant's Response.
As noted, supra, Aoyanagi already discloses providing a permeable membrane (e.g., 14) that connects the environment-controlling substance to a hermetically-sealed environment. Although Aoyanagi appears to remain silent to providing the hermetically-sealed enclosure with a gaseous environment that differs from a standard air environment, Zhang provides such a teaching.
The Applicant maintains that Aoyanagi discloses providing the environment-controlling substance in a "hollow space," but the Examiner maintains that the "hollow space" provided by Aoyanagi, corresponds to a structure that gives rise to an inner cover (e.g., the innermost portion of the cover facing the interior of the housing), and an outer cover (which is the outermost portion of the cover that faces the external environment). Clearly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the structure of Aoyanagi discloses an environment-controlling substance as being located between an "inner cover" and an "outer cover" in which a permeable membrane (e.g., 14) couples the space between the inner cover and the outer cover, to the hermetically-sealed interior enclosure as taught by Aoyanagi , which can include a gaseous environment that differs from standard air (as taught by Zhang).
As set forth in the rejection, supra, Zhang does not expressly disclose wherein the environment-controlling substance is situated between the sealed inner enclosure and the outer cover, in the manner set forth by amended claims 1 and 20.
Such structure is known in the art.
As an example, Aoyanagi discloses an analogous data storage device, in the same field of endeavor as Zhang, wherein, as per claims 1 and 20, Aoyanagi discloses a data storage device ("magnetic disk device" - abstract; see also Figs. 1, 2), comprising: a sealed inner enclosure (e.g., see paragraph [0009] of the enclosed English-machine translation; see also paragraph [0017] of the enclosed English-machine translation); an outer cover (e.g., the uppermost portion of (6) facing the exterior of the disk drive, as depicted in Figs. 1, 2) situated over and coupled to at least a portion of the sealed inner enclosure (e.g., which includes the lowermost portion of (6) facing the sealed interior of the disk drive); and an environment-controlling substance (e.g., 10, 11 and/or 12 - e.g. see paragraphs [0009, 0012, 0016] of the enclosed English-machine translation) situated between the sealed inner enclosure and the outer cover - see Figs. 1, 2, wherein the sealed inner enclosure comprises at least one membrane (e.g., 14) situated between an interior of the sealed inner enclosure (that is, the portion between of the enclosure between the cover and the disk drive components, below the environment-controlling substance (e.g., 10, 11 and/or 12)) and the environment-controlling substance (e.g., 10, 11 and/or 12), the at least one membrane configured to allow the environment-controlling substance (e.g., 10, 11, 12) to affect the gaseous environment inside of the sealed inner enclosure (e.g., reduce humidity levels), while maintaining a seal of the sealed inner enclosure (e.g., see paragraph [0009] of the enclosed English-machine translation; see also paragraph [0017] of the enclosed English-machine translation, wherein in some embodiments, the disk drive device is hermetically sealed from the external environment). The means for providing the environment-controlling substance is provided in a gap, the gap being external to the sealed inner enclosure (that is, the portion between of the enclosure between the cover and the disk drive components, below the environment-controlling substance (e.g., 10, 11 and/or 12)).
Given the express teachings and motivations, as espoused by Aoyanagi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to provide the environment-controlling substance of Zhang, as being situated between a sealed inner enclosure and an outer cover, as taught and suggested by Aoyanagi, in order to advantageously reduce interior space constraints associated with the internal placement of an environment-controlling substance - see paragraph [0004] of the enclosed English-machine translation of Aoyanagi - the space constraint limitations are overcome by placing the environment-controlling substance between an innermost cover and an outermost cover of a data storage device, in lieu of the conventional approach as seen in Fig. 3 of Aoyanagi.
For additional emphasis, the test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly disclosed in the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). 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, and must take into full account an ordinarily skilled artisan's "knowledge, creativity, and common sense." Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Applicant has not demonstrated the Examiner's proffered combination of references including Zhang and Aoyanagi, would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., A85 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Nor has Applicant provided objective evidence of secondary considerations which "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
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 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
Prosecution Insights