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 .
Specification
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/17/2025 and 08/18/2025 is being
considered by the examiner. A signed IDS is hereby attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hong et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number US20030197974A1(hereinafter Hong).
Regarding Claim 15, Hong discloses A magnetic disk device comprising: a housing;
a disk rotatably provided in the housing (para. [0007] i.e., The housing encloses a spindle motor spinning a disc.);a head provided in the housing and capable of writing and reading information to and from the disk (para. [0003] i.e., Information is written to and read from tracks on the discs through the use of an actuator assembly… );a voice coil motor provided in the housing and driving the head (Fig. 1, i.e., "housing 103" and "coil 126"); and a filter structure provided in the housing (Fig. 2 i.e., filter assembly 210; para. [0020] i.e., filter assembly 210) and located closer to the disk than to voice coil motor (Fig. 2 i.e., filter assembly 210; para. [0020] …A filter assembly 210 is located between the discs 108 and a corner of the base 102…; Fig. 2 shows the disk is between the filter assembly 210 is located closer to the disk than the actuator arm 114 and the voice coil motor (coil 126) is disclosed in Fig. 1.).
Regarding Claim 17, Hong discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 15 as discussed above and further discloses wherein the filter structure is located on an opposite side of the disk relative to the voice coil motor (Fig. 2 shows the disk is between the filter 240 and the actuator arm 114 and the VCM is disclosed in Fig. 1.).
Regarding Claim 18, Hong discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 15 as discussed above and further discloses wherein the filter structure further includes an airflow guide configured to guide an airflow caused by rotation of the disk (Fig. 3 i.e., flow divider 250; para. [0006] i.e., a filter stream of moving gas created by a spinning motion of the disc flows through the filter. Additionally, a flow divider is secured to a portion of the housing and positioned within the filter stream upstream of the filter…).
Regarding Claim 19, Hong discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 18 as discussed above and further discloses wherein the airflow guide is provided upstream of the airflow flowing into the filter structure (para. [0030] i.e., a flow divider (such as 250) is secured to a portion of the housing and positioned within the filter stream upstream of the filter …).
Regarding Claim 20, Hong discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 18 as discussed above and further discloses wherein the airflow guide further includes a curved surface having a curvature center located near an edge of the disk in a direction that is towards a center of the disk (Fig. 3 i.e., vane 252; para. [0022] i.e., the vane 252 … it is preferably curved as needed to properly redirect gaseous flow to the filter 240. Also, the leading edge 256 of the vane 252 is preferably positioned so that the flow rates through the outer filter zone 246 and the inner filter zone 248 are substantially the same.). While the exact mathematical terms are not be present, a curved flow guide(vane) has general inward-facing geometry to efficiently capture and redirect the circular airflow into a filter. When the curved vane (or guide) is positioned to redirect the flow, the resulting air path will have a curvature center, and it will be located near the edge of the disk due to the vane's design. The structure to perform the function is inherently taught.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Voights et al. U.S. Patent Number US6208484B1 (hereinafter Voights).
Regarding Claim 15, Voights discloses A magnetic disk device comprising: a housing (Col. 2 lines 30-40, i.e., disk drive housing); a disk rotatably provided in the housing (Col. 2 line 57-66, i.e., storage device using a rotating disk); a head provided in the housing and capable of writing and reading information to and from the disk; a voice coil motor provided in the housing and driving the head (Col. 3 lines 15-33, i.e., The actuator arm 20 and the VCM 22 are used to controllably position the transducer 18 over a target track of the disk 14 so that a data transfer (i.e., a read or write operation) with the track can take place. ); and a filter structure provided in the housing and located closer to the disk than to voice coil motor (Fig. 1 recirculation filter 24; Col. 4 lines 1-5, i.e., locating the recirculation filter 24 in the corner of the drive immediately preceding…).
Regarding Claim 16, Voights discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 15 as discussed above and further discloses, wherein the filter structure is located between the voice coil motor and an edge of the disk (Fig. 1 i.e., recirculation filter 24; The recirculation filter 24 is positioned between the VCM 22 and the disk 14.).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben et al. U.S. Patent Number US11631436B1 (hereinafter Luebben ) in view of Ellison et al. U.S. Patent Publication Number US20140377143A1(hereinafter Ellison).
Regarding Claim 1, Luebben discloses A magnetic disk device comprising: a housing (Fig. 1 housing 11; Col. 2 lines 1-11, i.e., Disc drive 100 includes a housing 102); a disk rotatably provided in the housing (Fig. 1 disk drive stack 23; Col. 2 lines 1-11, i.e., disk stack 23 and that are rotatably positioned in hard disk drive 9.); a head provided in the housing and capable of writing and reading information to and from the disk (Fig. 1 i.e., head 22; Col. 2 lines 1-11, i.e., read/write heads 22); and
a filter structure provided in the housing (Fig. 1 i.e., ECM 30; Col. 2 lines 29-32 i.e., environmental control module (ECM) 30 ) and including a first porous body (Fig. 2 i.e., compartment 45; Col. 7 lines 44-49 i.e., first compartment 45 can be filled with one or more zeolite compositions; Col. 4 lines 45-49 i.e., A desiccant component can include one or more zeolite compositions. As used herein, a “zeolite composition” is a solid, microporous…that can be used as an adsorbent… ) with an average pore diameter of 0.4 nm or more and 1.0 nm or less (Fig. 2 i.e., zeolite compositions 45; Col. 5 lines 23-25 i.e., zeolite composition according to the present disclosure can have an average pore size in the range from 4 to 20 angstroms…; The range 4-20 angstroms overlaps and encompasses the 0.4 nm-1.0 nm range.) except the filter structure is optimized for adsorbing glycol ether.
In an analogous art, Ellison teaches a filter structure is optimized for adsorbing glycol ether (para. [0031] i.e., Depending on the SAM material, solid particulates may be accumulated and/or sequestered on filter element 200, 210.; para. [0034] i.e., …SAM may be present in any conventionally-used … Examples of suitable organic solvents may include… glycol ethers), filter body may comprise zeolite (para. [0005] i.e., …filter element comprising a body …The body may comprise… zeolite) and the filter element includes a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) coating on a high surface area to volume ratio adsorbent or absorbent material, such as zeolite(para. [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adsorbing glycol ether in Ellison in the filter structure provided in the housing to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Ellison, the motivation for the combination would be to improve a filter performance. Because glycol ether is a recognized and common chemical contaminant in sealed environments, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it an obvious choice to select.
Regarding Claim 2, Luebben in view of Ellison discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 1 as discussed above and further discloses wherein the filter structure further includes a second porous body (Fig. 2 i.e., second compartment 41; Col. 7 lines 50-57 i.e., Second compartment 41 could be filled with one or more other compositions. Non-limiting examples of such one or more other compositions…) having an average pore diameter less than the average pore diameter of the first porous body (Col. 5 lines 22-25 i.e., …a zeolite composition …have an average pore size in the range … from 10 to 15 angstroms…;The second average pore diameter range(10-15 angstroms) is smaller than the portion of the first average pore diameter range(4-20 angstroms).)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply an average pore diameter into a second compartment. The second compartment may contain "other compositions" for controlling humidity and the reference does not limit the second compartment to those specific material. Since zeolite is well-known humidity control material, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that zeolite could also be used in the second compartment. Nothing in the reference excludes it so it is reasonably taught or suggested.
Regarding Claim 3, Luebben in view of Ellison discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 2 as discussed above. Luebben further discloses wherein the second porous body has the average pore diameter of 0.2 nm or more and less than 0.4 nm (Col. 5 lines 16-17 i.e., a zeolite composition can have an average pore size greater than 3 angstroms…; The range of 3-4 angstroms encompasses 0.2 nm or more and less than 0.4 nm.).
Regarding Claim 4, Luebben in view of Ellison discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 3 as discussed above. Luebben further discloses wherein the average pore diameter of the second porous body is optimized for adsorbing water molecules (Col. 5 lines 31-37 i.e., …one or more zeolite composition can be disposed … in an amount that can adsorb … to provide the interior gas space with a relative humidity...).
Regarding Claim 9, Luebben in view of Ellison discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Ellison further teaches the first porous body adsorbs a glycol ether (para. [0031] i.e., Depending on the SAM material, solid particulates may be accumulated and/or sequestered on filter element 200, 210.; para. [0034] i.e., …SAM may be present in any conventionally-used … Examples of suitable organic solvents may include… glycol ethers), the filter element includes a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) coating on a high surface area to volume ratio adsorbent or absorbent material, such as zeolite and the precursor compound of the SAM may be present in any conventionally-used organic solvent( e.g., glycol ethers), filter body may comprise zeolite (para. [0005] i.e., …filter element comprising a body …The body may comprise… zeolite) and the filter element includes a self-assembled monolayer (SAM) coating on a high surface area to volume ratio adsorbent or absorbent material, such as zeolite(para. [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adsorbing glycol ether in Ellison in the filter structure provided in the housing to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Ellison, the motivation for the combination would be to improve a filter performance. Because glycol ether is a recognized and common chemical contaminant in sealed environments, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it an obvious choice to select.
Luebben further discloses wherein the first porous body includes pores with a valid diameter of 0.4 nm or more and 0.7 nm or less (Col. 5 lines 16-26 i.e., average pore size in the range from 4 to 20 angstroms; The range of 4-20 angstroms encompasses 0.4 nm or more and less than 0.7 nm.).
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben in view of Ellison and further in view of NPL- Hoffman, Elizabeth & Barsoum, Michel. (2006). Carbide derived carbon from MAX-phases and their separation applications(hereinafter Hoffman).
Regarding Claim 5, Luebben in view of Ellison discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Luebben further discloses wherein the filter structure further includes a third porous body (Col. 8 lines 5-17 i.e., …in addition to the one or more zeolite compositions …examples of such additional compositions include … silica gel… activated carbon…) but fails to explicitly discloses an average pore diameter.
In an analogous art, Hoffman teaches an average pore diameter of a third porous body is greater than the average pore diameter of the first porous body (Page 6, Figure 2.1; The Fig. 2.1 shows the pore diameters of the silica gel and the activated carbon are larger than those of the zeolite.);.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the pore diameter table of Hoffman into the porous body to achieve the claimed invention. Because it merely applies the known size constraints taught by Hoffman to a known porous body to achieve the predictable result of optimal adsorption.
Regarding Claim 6, Luebben in view of Ellison and further in view of Hoffman discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 5 as discussed above. Luebben further discloses wherein the third porous body includes activated carbon or silica gel (Col. 8 lines 5-17 i.e., …in addition to the one or more zeolite compositions …examples of such additional compositions include … silica gel… activated carbon…).
Regarding Claim 7, Luebben in view of Ellison The magnetic disk device according to claim 1 as discussed above. Luebben further discloses wherein the filter structure further includes:
a second porous body having an average pore diameter less than the average pore diameter of the first porous body (Col. 5 lines 22-25 i.e., …a zeolite composition …have an average pore size in the range … from 10 to 15 angstroms…;The portion of the second average pore diameter range(10-15 angstroms) is smaller than the portion of the first average pore diameter range(15-20 angstroms).) but fails to explicitly disclose a third porous body having an average pore diameter greater than the average pore diameter of the first porous body.
In analogous art, Hoffman teaches a third porous body having an average pore diameter greater than the average pore diameter of the first porous body (Page 6, Figure 2.1; The Fig. 2.1 shows the pore diameters of the silica gel and the activated carbon are larger than those of the zeolite.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the pore diameter table of Hoffman into the porous body to achieve the claimed invention. Because it merely applies the known size constraints taught by Hoffman to a known porous body to achieve the predictable result of optimal adsorption.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben in view of Ellison, further in view of Nicklay U.S. Patent Publication Number US20180085693A1(hereinafter Nicklay), and further in view of Reese Kraus U.S. Patent Number US10424336B1(hereinafter Reese Kraus).
Regarding Claim 8, Luebben in view of Ellison discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose a specific filter structure.
In an analogous art, Reese Kraus discloses wherein the filter structure has an upper surface in contact with an inner wall of the housing (Fig. 4 i.e., top surface 32; Col. 3 lines 34-39 i.e., environmental control module …is mounted or attached to the inner surface of the top cover 16…) and further includes: a frame including a cavity (Fig. 4 i.e., body member 22; Claim 1 i.e., a body member comprising: an outer peripheral wall defining an inner body member area,…a bottom surface extending from the bottom edge of the outer peripheral wall and comprising an opening into the first section of the inner body member area); and a ventilation membrane (Fig. 4, i.e., first permeable member 36) provided on a lower surface of the frame and covering an opening of the cavity (Fig. 4 i.e., Col. 4 lines 28-20 i.e., …bottom opening 34 with a first permeable member 36 sealed to cover the opening 34.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the filter structure by Reese Kraus onto the magnetic disk device, since the operation of the filter structure is in no way dependent on the operation of the other magnetic disk device assembly, and the filter could be used in combination with a standard magnetic disk device to achieve the predictable results of improving a magnetic disk performance.
However, Reese Kraus fails to explicitly discloses a location of the first porous body.
In an analogous art, Nicklay discloses the first porous body is provided in the cavity of the frame above the ventilation membrane (Fig. 1B i.e., adsorbent 114; para. [0018] i.e., The support layer can be a permeable scrim material…;The adsorbent 114 is surrounded by the permeable layers 112a and 112b.).
Because both reference Reese Kraus and reference Nicklay teaches a membrane layer for adsorbing the contamination through the filtering assembly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve the claimed invention. AS disclosed in Nicklay, the motivation for the combination would be to increase the amount of contaminants that are removed from the airstream (Nicklay, para. 19).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben in view of Ellison, and further in view of NPL -Glycol Ethers Guidance by West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection, 7/26/2005(hereinafter Glycol Ethers Guidance).
Regarding Claim 10, Luebben in view of Ellison discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 1 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose a specific type of molecule selected from ethylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol monobutyl ether, propylene glycol monomethyl ether or dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether.
Ellison further teaches the first porous body adsorbs a glycol ether (para. [0031] i.e., Depending on the SAM material, solid particulates may be accumulated and/or sequestered on filter element 200, 210.; para. [0034] i.e., …SAM may be present in any conventionally-used … Examples of suitable organic solvents may include… glycol ethers)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the adsorbing glycol ether in Ellison in the filter structure provided in the housing to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Ellison, the motivation for the combination would be to improve a filter performance. Because glycol ether is a recognized and common chemical contaminant in sealed environments, a person having ordinary skill in the art would find it an obvious choice to select.
Glycol Ethers Guidance discloses a plurality of well-known glycol ethers compounds (diethylene glycol monomethyl ether, ethylene glycol monoethyl ether, diethylene glycol monoethyl ether, and diethylene glycol monobutyl ether).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the well-known type of glycol ether of Glycol Ethers Guidance within the porous body to achieve the claimed invention. Because it merely applies that known type of glycol ether taught to a known porous body to achieve the predictable result of optimal adsorption.
Claim(s) 11-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben.
Regarding Claim 11, Luebben discloses A magnetic disk device comprising: a housing (Fig. 1 housing 11; Col. 2 lines 1-11, i.e., Disc drive 100 includes a housing 102); a disk rotatably provided in the housing (Fig. 1 disk drive stack 23; Col. 2 lines 1-11, i.e., disk stack 23 and that are rotatably positioned in hard disk drive 9.); a head provided in the housing and capable of writing and reading information to and from the disk (Fig. 1 i.e., head 22; Col. 2 lines 1-11, i.e., read/write heads 22); and
a filter structure provided in the housing (Fig. 1 i.e., ECM 30; Col. 2 lines 29-32 i.e., environmental control module (ECM) 30 ) and including a first porous body (Fig. 2 i.e., compartment 45; Col. 7 lines 44-49 i.e., first compartment 45 can be filled with one or more zeolite compositions; Col. 4 lines 45-49 i.e., A desiccant component can include one or more zeolite compositions. As used herein, a “zeolite composition” is a solid, microporous…that can be used as an adsorbent… ) and a second porous body(Fig. 2 i.e., second compartment 41; Col. 7 lines 50-57 i.e., Second compartment 41 could be filled with one or more other compositions. Non-limiting examples of such one or more other compositions…) but fails explicitly disclose the specific size of the first porous body and the second porous body. However, Luebben teaches a zeolite composition can have multiple sets of average pore size and one or more zeolite compositions can be selected to control relative humidity within a target range (Col. 5 lines 16-30 i.e., a zeolite composition can have an average pore size…)
A person of ordinary skill in the art can apply the teaching to a second porous body having an average pore diameter less than the average pore diameter of the first porous body, the filter structure including pores with an average pore diameter of 0.4 nm or more and 1.0 nm or less (Col. 5 lines 23-25 i.e., zeolite composition according to the present disclosure can have an average pore size in the range from 4 to 20 angstroms…; The range 4-20 angstroms overlaps and encompasses the 0.4 nm-1.0 nm range.). The second compartment may contain "other compositions" for controlling humidity and the reference does not limit the second compartment to those specific material. Since zeolite is well-known humidity control material, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that zeolite could also be used in the second compartment. Nothing in the reference excludes it so it is reasonably taught or suggested.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the pore diameter into the porous body in order to improve a filter assembly performance.
Regarding Claim 12, Luebben discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 11 as discussed above and further teaches wherein the first porous body has an average pore diameter of 0.4 nm or more and 1.0 nm or less (Fig. 2 i.e., zeolite compositions 45; Col. 5 lines 23-25 i.e., zeolite composition according to the present disclosure can have an average pore size in the range from 4 to 20 angstroms…; The range 4-20 angstroms overlaps and encompasses the 0.4 nm-1.0 nm range. ).
The motivation of obviousness discussed in the rejection of claim 11 is herein repeated.
Regarding Claim 14, Luebben discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 11 as discussed above and further teaches wherein the second porous body has an average pore diameter of 0.4 nm or more and 1.0 nm or less (Fig. 2 i.e., zeolite compositions 45; Col. 5 lines 23-25 i.e., zeolite composition according to the present disclosure can have an average pore size in the range from 4 to 20 angstroms…; The range 4-20 angstroms overlaps and encompasses the 0.4 nm-1.0 nm range. ). 103 (Fig. 2 i.e., second compartment 41; Col. 7 lines 50-57 i.e., Second compartment 41 could be filled with one or more other compositions. Non-limiting examples of such one or more other compositions…)
The motivation of obviousness discussed in the rejection of claim 11 is herein repeated.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luebben in view of Nicklay and further in view of Hoffman.
Regarding Claim 13, Luebben discloses The magnetic disk device according to claim 11 as discussed above but fails to explicitly disclose a third porous body.
In an analogous art, Nicklay discloses wherein the filter structure further includes a third porous body (Fig. 1B i.e., "first containment layer 122", "second containment layer 124", and "adsorbent 114"; para. [0025] i.e., first containment layer 122 and the second containment layer 124 are each… having a permeability; para. [0021] i.e., The adsorbent 114 is generally configured to adsorb chemical contaminants from the environment within an electronics enclosure.).
Because both reference Luebben and reference Nicklay teaches a porous layer for adsorbing the contamination through the filtering assembly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Nicklay, the motivation for the combination would be to provide sufficient surface area to properly mount the filter element (Nicklay, para. 23).
However, Nicklay fails to teach a third porous body has an average pore diameter greater than the average pore diameter of the first porous body.
In an analogous art, Hoffman teaches an average pore diameter of a third porous body is greater than the average pore diameter of the first porous body (Page 6, Figure 2.1; The Fig. 2.1 shows the pore diameters of the silica gel and the activated carbon are larger than those of the zeolite.);.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the pore diameter table of Hoffman into the porous body to achieve the claimed invention. Because it merely applies the known size constraints taught by Hoffman to a known porous body to achieve the predictable result of optimal adsorption.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHELLE J KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-5571. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 7:30am-4:30/5pm.
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.
/MICHELLE J. KIM/
Examiner, Art Unit 2688
/Daniell L Negron/ Supervisory Patent Examiner