DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-3, 5-10, 14-22, 51, 53, and 54 are rejected and claims 4, 11-13, 23-50, and 52 are cancelled.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicants arguments on page 9 that modification of Vila 094’ to replace the expander rings, side seal rings, and center seal rings with a single convex crown would impermissibly change the principal of operation, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the examiner is not modifying Vila 094’, but instead relying on the disclosure of Vila 094’ that planar or W-shaped groove bottoms are known and obvious variants of shape.
In response to applicants arguments on page 9 that modifying the shape of the groove of Vila 863’ from a planar groove to a W-shaped groove such that there is a protrusion in-between would be unsatisfactory for its intended purposes, the examiner respectfully disagrees because neither Vila 863’ and Vila 094’ (ex., the secondary reference) discloses that modifying the shape of the groove would result in an unsatisfactory function (see MPEP 2143.01(V), where in In re Urbanski where “Nothing in the prior art teaches that the proposed modification would have resulted in an ‘inoperable’ process or a dietary fiber product with undesirable properties.”). In addition, Vila 094’ explicitly discloses that these are obvious variants of shape (4:33-36) and it appears there is nothing structural of a protrusion between both of the seal energizers that would change the intended function/principal of operation.
In response to applicants arguments on page 9 that “it is irrelevant to the analysis whether Vila 094’ is the base reference of not … it is irrelevant to the analysis where the OA is replacing sealing components of the groove”, the examiner respectfully disagrees as viewing either reference with a planar or W-shaped groove appears would not change the principal of operation (ex., how would a flat bottom vs a W-shaped bottom groove change the principal of operation when Vila 094’ explicitly discloses both can be used and Vila 863’ discloses a flat bottom groove?).
In response to all of applicants arguments on page 10, the examiner respectfully disagrees as the only structure as required by the claims is that “the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove having a protrusion” which is shown by Vila 094’ and the only modification required of Vila 863’ is a change of shape from a planar bottom to a W-shaped bottom (ex., Vila 094’ explicitly discloses planar/protrusion are obvious variants of shape and it is unclear how the principal of operation would change of the base reference Vila).
In response to applicants arguments on page 11 that Shotbolt doesn’t disclose or suggest seal energizers and therefore cannot provide any hint or suggesting to canting seal energizers in a common direction, the examiner respectfully disagrees because the main reference Vila 863’ discloses canted seal energized for sealing, Shotbolt discloses that it is known to provide seals to locking rings to provide sealing against imperfections of spherical surfaces, and duplicating the known seal of Vila 863’ to further enhance the sealing of the device (ex., against imperfections) would not produce any new or unexpected results. In addition, Vila 863 explicitly discloses the use of additional seals to prevent air from escaping passed seal 84 and therefore, duplicating the known seal of Vila 863’ to further enhance the seal between the annual inner and outer members would not have produced any new or unexpected results (ex., see 7:10-35).
In regards to applicants arguments on page 11 that Vila 863’ in view of Vila 094’ and Shotbolt does not disclose second and third canted seal energizers canted in a common direction, the examiner respectfully disagrees as duplicating the seal assembly (ex., 88) of Vila 863’ in view of Vila 094’ with the teachings of Shotbolt would meet the limitation of both seal assemblies being canted in a common direction because the seals are duplicates of each other (ex., see 6:59-61 of Vila 863, which discloses the seal energizer is canted).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 51, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vila (U.S. Patent No. 6,880,863) in view of Vila (U.S. Patent No. 7,883,094 hereinafter “Vila ‘094”).
In regards to claim 1, Vila discloses:
A low-profile flexible coupling (see annotated fig. 1a below) for pneumatic systems to provide transfer of a gas between first and second conduits, the flexible coupling comprising:
an annular inner member (see annotated fig. 1a) defining a spherically shaped convex seal receiving surface (see annotated fig. 1a) extending from a first end to a second end and interrupted by a radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove (see annotated fig. 1a) that extends circumferentially around the inner member;
an annular outer member (see annotated fig. 1a) assembled over the inner member,
the outer member defining a spherically shaped first concave seal receiving surface conforming to the convex seal receiving surface; and
a first seal ring assembly (see annotated fig. 1a) disposed in the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove (see annotated fig. 1a), the first seal ring assembly comprises a canted seal energizer (74, fig. 2c); and
a single convex spherical crown (see annotated fig. 1a, where the “crown” is a single crown) that extends over the pair of canted seal energizers between the annular inner and outer members (see annotated fig. 1a),
a locking member (see annotated fig. 1a) assembled over the inner member,
the locking member defining a spherically shaped second concave seal receiving surface (see annotated fig. 1a),
the second concave seal receiving surface conforming to the convex seal receiving surface and the outer member being positioned over the locking member (see annotated fig. 1a),
wherein the first concave seal receiving surface of the outer member is interrupted by a first radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove (see annotated fig. 1a) that extends circumferentially in the outer member, and
wherein the first radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove is defined by a first side wall formed in the outer member, a second side wall formed in the outer member and opposing the first side wall, and a base formed in the outer member and connecting the first side wall to the second side wall (see annotated fig. 1a, where the groove is comprised of a first and second side wall and a base),
but does not disclose the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove having a protrusion such that the pair of canted seal energizers with the protrusion therebetween.
In regards to the protrusion, Vila ‘094 discloses a similar device comprising a radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove (see near 34 in fig. 3) having a protrusion (34, fig. 3) such that a pair of canted seal energizers (38, fig. 3) with the protrusion therebetween (see fig. 3),
wherein the seal assembly groove can either comprise the protrusion or be planar (4:33-36; ex., the same configuration as the base reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify on the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove of Villa with the provision of a protrusion such that the pair of canted seal energizers with the protrusion therebetween because Vila ‘094 discloses that these are obvious variants of each other (4:33-36) and it has been held that a change in shape (ex., a planar bottom to a protruding bottom) is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
PNG
media_image1.png
793
903
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 2, Vila further discloses:
The flexible coupling of claim 1, wherein the flexible coupling is configured for low temperature and low-pressure operation.
In regards to claim 5, Vila further discloses:
The flexible coupling of claim 1, further comprising a profile ratio of a coupling radial thickness to a conduit diameter (see annotated fig. 1a above hereinafter, where there are two parameters that can make up a profile ratio),
the profile ratio being of a magnitudes configured to accommodate installation of the flexible coupling within an installation window (structurally, it appears there is nothing that would prevent installation within an installation window),
wherein the coupling radial thickness is defined as a radial thickness of the outer member and the conduit diameter is defined as a diameter of the first conduit or the second conduit (see fig. 1a, where these parameters can be derived from the figure similarly to the present invention).
In regards to claims 6, Vila in view of Vila ‘094 discloses:
The flexible coupling of claims 5, but does not disclose the profile ratio is less than approximately 0.17.
However, while Vila in view of Vila ‘094 does not expressly disclose “the profile ratio is less than approximately 0.17”, the “profile ratio” or “the radial thickness of the outer member” and “the conduit diameter” may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filling date to modify the coupling of Vila in view of Vila ‘094 to have the “profile ratio to be less than approximately 0.17”, as the “the radial thickness of the outer member” and “the conduit diameter” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because modifying known parameters (ex., the conduit diameter) to meet the needs of the system would not produce any new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claims 7, Vila in view of Vila ‘094 discloses:
The flexible coupling of claims 5, but does not disclose the profile ratio is between approximately 0.13 and 0.14.
However, while Vila in view of Vila ‘094 does not expressly disclose “the profile ratio is between approximately 0.13 and 0.14.”, the “profile ratio” or “the radial thickness of the outer member” and “the conduit diameter” may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filling date to modify the coupling of Vila in view of Vila ‘094 to have “the profile ratio between approximately 0.13 and 0.14”, as “the radial thickness of the outer member” and “the conduit diameter” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because modifying known parameters to meet the needs of the system would not produce any new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 51, Vila discloses:
A low profile flexible coupling (see annotated fig. 1a above hereinafter) for pneumatic systems to provide transfer of a gas between first and second conduits, the flexible coupling comprising:
an annular inner member (see annotated fig. 1a) defining a spherically shaped convex seal receiving surface (see annotated fig. 1a) extending from a first end to a second end and interrupted by a radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove (see annotated fig. 1a) that extends circumferentially around the inner member;
an annular outer member (see annotated fig. 1a) assembled over the inner member, the outer member defining a spherically shaped first concave seal receiving surface (see annotated fig. 1a) conforming to the convex seal receiving surface;
a first seal ring assembly (see annotated fig. 1a) disposed in the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove (see annotated fig. 1a), the first seal ring assembly comprises a canted seal energizer (74, fig. 2c); and
a single convex spherical crown (see annotated fig. 1a, where the “crown” is a single crown) that extends over the pair of canted seal energizers between the annular inner and outer members (see annotated fig. 1a),
a locking nut (see “Locking Member” in annotated fig. 1a) assembled over the inner member, the locking nut defining a spherically shaped second concave seal receiving surface (see annotated fig. 1a),
the second concave seal receiving surface conforming to the convex seal receiving surface and the outer member being positioned over the locking nut (see annotated fig. 1a),
wherein the first concave seal receiving surface of the outer member is interrupted by a first radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove (see annotated fig. 1a) that extends circumferentially in the outer member, and
wherein the first radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove is defined by a first side wall formed in the outer member, a second side wall formed in the outer member and opposing the first side wall, and a base formed in the outer member and connecting the first side wall to the second side wall (see annotated fig. 1a),
but does not disclose the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove having a protrusion such that the pair of canted seal energizers with the protrusion therebetween.
In regards to the protrusion, Villa (hereinafter as Vila ‘094) discloses a similar device comprising a radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove (see near 34 in fig. 3) having a protrusion (34, fig. 3) such that a pair of canted seal energizers (38, fig. 3) with the protrusion therebetween (see fig. 3),
wherein the seal assembly groove can either comprise the protrusion or be planar (4:33-36; ex., the same configuration as the base reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify on the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove of Villa with the provision of a protrusion such that the pair of canted seal energizers with the protrusion therebetween because Vila ‘094 discloses that these are obvious variants of each other (4:33-36) and it has been held that a change in shape (ex., a planar bottom to a protruding bottom) is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
In regards to claim 54, Vila further discloses:
The flexible coupling of claim 1, wherein an end surface of the locking member abuts a surface of the inner member at a location axially aligned with the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove (see annotated fig. 1a).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vila in view of Vila ‘094 as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Shotbolt (U.S. Patent No. 4,139,221).
In regards to claim 3, Vila in view of Vila ‘094 discloses:
The flexible coupling of claim 1, wherein the flexible coupling is configured for low temperature and low-pressure operation (see col. 7, lines 61-65),
but does not disclose:
the second concave seal receiving surface of the locking ring being interrupted by a second radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove that extends circumferentially around the locking member.
In regards to the second seal groove, Shotbolt discloses a similar device comprising a locking ring (5d, fig. 1) being interrupted by a second radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove (9, fig. 1) that extends circumferentially around the locking member and comprises a seal therein to seal any possible imperfections such as score marks in the mating surfaces and not to bridge large gaps between those surfaces, the main sealing effect being provided by the metal to metal contact (6:65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the locking ring of Vila with the provision of a groove comprising a seal to seal any possible imperfections, as taught by Shotbolt (6:65-67), and to further enhance the sealing effect between the locking ring and the annular inner member.
Claim(s) 8-10, 14-22, and 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vila in view of Vila ‘094 and in further view of Shotbolt.
In regards to claim 8, Vila discloses:
A low profile flexible coupling (see annotated fig. 1a above hereinafter) for low temperature and low pressure pneumatic systems to provide transfer of a gas between first and second conduits, the flexible coupling comprising:
an annular inner member (see annotated fig. 1a) defining a spherically shaped convex seal receiving surface (see annotated fig. 1a) extending from a first end to a second end and interrupted by a radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove (see annotated fig. 1a) that extends circumferentially around the inner member;
an annular outer member (see annotated fig. 1a) assembled over the inner member, the outer member defining a spherically shaped first concave seal receiving surface (see annotated fig. 1a) conforming to the convex seal receiving surface and interrupted by a first radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove (see annotated fig. 1a) that extends circumferentially in the outer member;
a first seal ring assembly (see annotated fig. 1a) disposed in the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove (see annotated fig. 1a), the first seal ring assembly comprises a canted seal energizer (74, fig. 2c); and
a locking member (see annotated fig. 1a) assembled over the inner member, the locking member defining a spherically shaped second concave seal receiving surface (see annotated fig. 1a),
the second concave seal receiving surface conforming to the convex seal receiving surface, and
the outer member being positioned over the locking member (see annotated fig. 1a),
wherein the first radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove is defined by a first side wall formed in the outer member, a second side wall formed in the outer member and opposing the first side wall, and a base formed in the outer member and connecting the first side wall to the second side wall (see annotated fig. 1a),
a second seal ring assembly (see annotated fig. 1a) disposed in the first radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove (see annotated fig. 1a),
the second seal ring assembly comprising a second canted seal energizer (see annotated fig. 1a),
but does not disclose:
the second concave seal receiving surface being interrupted by a second radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove that extends circumferentially in the locking member, and
the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove having a protrusion such that the pair of canted seal energizers with the protrusion therebetween,
a third seal ring assembly disposed in the second radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove,
the third seal ring assembly comprising a third canted seal energizer,
wherein the second and third canted seals energizers are canted in a common direction.
In regards to the protrusion, Villa (hereinafter as Vila ‘094) discloses a similar device comprising a radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove (see near 34 in fig. 3) having a protrusion (34, fig. 3) such that a pair of canted seal energizers (38, fig. 3) with the protrusion therebetween (see fig. 3),
wherein the seal assembly groove can either comprise the protrusion or be planar (4:33-36; ex., the same configuration as the base reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify on the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove of Villa with the provision of a protrusion such that the pair of canted seal energizers with the protrusion therebetween because Vila ‘094 discloses that these are obvious variants of each other (4:33-36) and it has been held that a change in shape (ex., a planar bottom to a protruding bottom) is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
In regards to the second seal groove/canted seal, Shotbolt discloses a similar device comprising a locking ring (5d, fig. 1) being interrupted by a second radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove (9, fig. 1) that extends circumferentially around the locking member and comprises a seal therein to seal any possible imperfections such as score marks in the mating surfaces and not to bridge large gaps between those surfaces, the main sealing effect being provided by the metal to metal contact (6:65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the locking ring of Vila 863’ in view of Vila 094’ with the provision of a radially inward groove comprising a third seal assembly comprising a third canted seal to further enhance the sealing between the spherical surfaces and to seal any possible imperfections because Vila 863’ discloses that a gas ring assembly (ex., 37 in fig. 1) is used to closely conform to and slidably engage and seal against convex surfaces (3:65-67 and 4:1-4), Shotbolt discloses that it is known to provide a radially inward groove into similar locking rings to seal any possible imperfections (6:65-67), and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts (ex., duplicating the same groove and seal assembly configured for the locking ring to enhance sealing) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, modifying the locking ring of Vila 863’ in view of Vila 094’ with the provision of a radially inward groove comprising the known seal assembly of Vila 863’ to further enhance the sealing between the spherical surfaces and to seal any possible imperfections would not produce a new and unexpected results.
In regards to claim 9, Vila further discloses:
The low profile flexible coupling of claim 8, further comprising a retainer ring (see annotated fig. 1a) installed into a radially outward extending retainer ring groove (see annotated fig. 3) formed in the outer member (see near “Retainer Ring/Leak Seal in annotated fig. 1a, where a ring in a groove).
In regards to claim 10, Vila further discloses:
The low profile flexible coupling of claim 8, wherein the locking member comprises an abutment surface formed on an edge of the locking member (see annotated fig. 1a),
the abutment surface abuts against the first end of the convex seal receiving surface at a maximum angulation angle (see annotated fig. 1a),
the first concave seal receiving surface, the second concave seal receiving surface, and the convex seal receiving surface each surround a centerline (33b, annotated fig. 1a), and
the convex seal receiving surface is movable relative to the first concave seal receiving surface and the second concave seal receiving surface about a common center point C (see near 31 in annotated fig. 1a).
In regards to claim 14, Vila in view of Shotbolt and Vila ‘094 further discloses:
The flexible coupling of claim 8, wherein the third seal ring assembly comprises a C-shaped seal ring (ex., see th “Second Seal Ring Assembly” in annotated fig. 1a where the groove appears to be C-shaped),
the C-shaped seal ring is disposed in the second radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove (it is inherent that the C-shaped seal would similarly be placed in a groove of the locking ring), and
the third canted seal is disposed in a seal cavity formed in the C-shaped seal ring (see annotated fig. 1a, where the energizer of the duplicated “Second Seal Ring Assembly” would be within a seal cavity).
In regards to claim 15, Vila in view of Shotbolt and Vila ‘094 further discloses:
The flexible coupling of claim 8, wherein the first seal ring assembly comprises a single convex spherical crown (see the most outer seal near “First Seal Ring Assembly” in annotated fig. 1a) having the pair of seal energizers (see near “Radially Inward Seal Groove” in annotated fig. 1a) that conforms to the spherically shaped first concave seal receiving surface (see annotated fig. 1a, where the crown conforms to both concave surfaces) and the spherically second concave seal receiving surface (see annotated fig. 1a), and
the pair of seal energizers generates a biasing force acting outwards away from the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove (see annotated fig. 1a).
In regards to claim 16, Vila further discloses:
The flexible coupling of claim 8, wherein the second seal ring assembly is an L-shaped seal ring (see annotated fig. 1a) and comprises the second canted seal (see annotated fig. 1a) that generates a biasing force acting simultaneously inwardly toward the inner member and axially against an outer shoulder of the outer member (see annotated fig. 1a).
In regards to claim 17, Vila further discloses:
The flexible coupling of claim 8, wherein the locking member is an annular locking nut (see annotated fig. 1a).
In regards to claim 18, Vila further discloses:
The flexible coupling of claim 8, wherein a first thread on the outer member engages a complementary second thread on the locking member to secure the locking member to the outer member (see annotated fig. 1a).
In regards to claim 19, Vila further discloses:
The flexible coupling of claim 8, further comprising an annular leakage seal (see annotated fig. 1a, where the leak seal is between the locking ring and outer member by being placed in the groove) mounted axially between the locking member and the outer member.
In regards to claim 20, Vila further discloses:
The flexible coupling of claim 8, further comprising a profile ratio of a coupling radial thickness to a conduit diameter (see fig. 1, where the coupling inherently has a thickness and the conduit has a diameter),
the profile ratio being of a magnitude configured to accommodate installation of the flexible coupling within an installation window (it appears that the coupling of Vila would be capable being installed within an installation window),
wherein the coupling radial thickness is defined as a radial thickness of the outer member (see fig. 1, where the outer member comprises a radial thickness) and
the conduit diameter is defined as a diameter of the first conduit or the second conduit (it can be seen that the first and second conduits 12, 14 in fig. 1 comprise a diameter).
In regards to claim 21, Vila in view of Shotbolt and Vila ‘094 discloses:
The flexible coupling of claim 20, but does is silent on the profile ratio is less than approximately 0.17.
In regards to the ratio, while Vila in view of Shotbolt and Vila ‘094 does not expressly disclose “the profile ratio is less than approximately 0.17”, the “profile ratio” or “the radial thickness of the outer member” and “the conduit diameter” may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the coupling of Vila in view of Shotbolt and Vila ‘094 to have “the profile ratio less than approximately 0.17”, as the “the radial thickness of the outer member” and “the conduit diameter” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because modifying known parameters (ex., the conduit diameter) to meet the needs of the system would not produce any new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 22, Vila in view of Shotbolt and Vila ‘094 discloses:
The flexible coupling of claim 20, but does is silent on the profile ratio is between approximately 0.13 and 0.14.
In regards to the ratio, while Vila in view of Shotbolt and Vila ‘094 does not expressly disclose “the profile ratio is between approximately 0.13 and 0.14.”, the “profile ratio” or “the radial thickness of the outer member” and “the conduit diameter” may be determined through the use of routine experimentation during the engineering design process to optimize the functionality of the device, suited to the intended use and desired parameters.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the coupling of Vila in view of Shotbolt and Vila ‘094 to have “the profile ratio between approximately 0.13 and 0.14.”, as the “the radial thickness of the outer member” and “the conduit diameter” may be optimized to the desired operational parameters through the use of routine experimentation. A person of ordinary skill in the art undertaking such experimentation would have had a reasonable expectation of success and the results would have been predictable because modifying known parameters (ex., the conduit diameter) to meet the needs of the system would not produce any new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
In regards to claim 53, Vila discloses:
A coupling (see annotated fig. 1a) for transferring gas between a first conduit and a second conduit, the coupling comprising:
an annular inner member (see annotated fig. 1a) comprising a spherically shaped convex surface (see annotated fig. 1a) extending from a first end to a second end,
wherein a first circumferential groove (see “Radially Inward Seal Groove” in annotated fig. 1a) extends into the inner member from the convex surface between the first end and the second end;
an annular outer member (see annotated fig. 1a) disposed at least partially over the inner member, the outer member comprising a spherically shaped first concave surface (see annotated fig. 1a) extending from a third end to a fourth end and conforming to the convex surface,
wherein a second circumferential groove (see “First Radially Outward Seal Groove” in annotated fig. 1a) extends into the outer member from the first concave surface between the third end and the fourth end; and
a locking member (see annotated fig. 1a) disposed at least partially over the inner member and at least partially under the outer member, the locking member comprising a spherically shaped second concave surface (see annotated fig. 1a) extending from a fifth end to a sixth end and conforming to the convex seal receiving surface (see annotated fig. 1a),
wherein the first circumferential groove (ex., “Radially Inward Seal Groove” in annotated fig. 1a) contains a first seal ring (see annotated fig. 1a),
the second circumferential groove (ex., “First Radially Outward Seal Groove” in annotated fig. 1a) contains a second seal ring (see annotated fig. 1a),
wherein the first seal ring comprises a pair of canted seal energizers (see near “Radially Inward Seal Groove” in annotated fig. 1a),
wherein the second seal ring comprise a canted seal energizer (ex., the single spring shown in the “Second Seal Ring Assembly”), which are canted in a common direction (see annotated fig. 1a),
but does not disclose:
wherein a third circumferential groove extends into the locking member from the second concave surface between the fifth end and the sixth end and the third circumferential groove contains a third seal ring, and
the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove having a protrusion such that the pair of canted seal energizers with the protrusion therebetween, and
wherein the third seal ring comprises a canted seal energizer, which is canted in a common direction.
In regards to the protrusion, Villa (hereinafter as Vila ‘094) discloses a similar device comprising a radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove (see near 34 in fig. 3) having a protrusion (34, fig. 3) such that a pair of canted seal energizers (38, fig. 3) with the protrusion therebetween (see fig. 3),
wherein the seal assembly groove can either comprise the protrusion or be planar (4:33-36; ex., the same configuration as the base reference).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify on the radially inward extending seal ring assembly groove of Villa with the provision of a protrusion such that the pair of canted seal energizers with the protrusion therebetween because Vila ‘094 discloses that these are obvious variants of each other (4:33-36) and it has been held that a change in shape (ex., a planar bottom to a protruding bottom) is obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
In regards to the third circumferential groove/canted seal energizers, Shotbolt discloses a similar device comprising a locking ring (5d, fig. 1) being interrupted by a second radially outward extending seal ring assembly groove (9, fig. 1) that extends circumferentially around the locking member and comprises a seal therein to seal any possible imperfections such as score marks in the mating surfaces and not to bridge large gaps between those surfaces, the main sealing effect being provided by the metal to metal contact (6:65-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the locking ring of Vila 863’ in view of Vila 094’ with the provision of a radially inward groove comprising a third seal assembly comprising a third canted seal to further enhance the sealing between the spherical surfaces and to seal any possible imperfections because Vila 863’ discloses that a gas ring assembly (ex., 37 in fig. 1) is used to closely conform to and slidably engage and seal against convex surfaces (3:65-67 and 4:1-4), Shotbolt discloses that it is known to provide a radially inward groove into similar locking rings to seal any possible imperfections (6:65-67), and it has been held that a mere duplication of parts (ex., duplicating the same groove and seal assembly configured for the locking ring to enhance sealing) has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) in MPEP2144.04(VI)(B)). In this case, modifying the locking ring of Vila 863’ in view of Vila 094’ with the provision of a radially inward groove comprising the known seal assembly of Vila 863’ to further enhance the sealing between the spherical surfaces and to seal any possible imperfections would not produce a new and unexpected results.
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 ALEXANDER TYLER RUFRANO whose telephone number is (571)272-6223. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30AM to 4:30PM.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/A.T.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679