DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Indication of Possible Allowable Subject Matter is presented below.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
Receipt is acknowledged of a request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 07/30/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 12-16 have been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/13/2022.
Applicant amended Claims 1, 11, 17, 19, and 25. Applicant added Claims 27-29. Support for the amendments and new claim are found in the original filing. No new matter is presented.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/10/2020 and 03/14/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Responsive to communications filed on 01/30/2026, amendments to the claims have been acknowledged.
The rejections over Kolb US 20130249171 A1 are maintained under additional grounds as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 and 17-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “workpiece support surfaces” in Line 4 in which phrase the term “workpiece support” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. There is no recitation of a workpiece as a component of the claimed device. The device would ‘support’ a number of other items and “workpiece support” is an intended use. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 further recites “the device is stiffer than the workpiece to be supported when the device is at temperatures above the workpiece softening point” in Lines 16-17 (emphasis added). It is unclear what the device is “stiffer than” when a workpiece is not recited as a component of the claimed device. It is unclear what temperature is required by a member that is not a feature or element of the claimed device. A comparison cannot be made between the claimed device an element that is not required by the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Separately, Claim 1 recites “temperatures above the workpiece softening point” in Line 17 which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which temperatures would be required by a component that is not a feature of the claimed device. A comparison cannot be made between the claimed device an element that is not required by the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 recites “workpiece support elements” in Line 3 in which phrase the term “workpiece support” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. There is no recitation of a workpiece as a component of the claimed device. The device would ‘support’ a number of other items and “workpiece support” is an intended use. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 recites “workpiece support elements” in Line 3 in which phrase the term “workpiece support” is a relative term rendering the claim indefinite. There is no recitation of a workpiece as a component of the claimed device. The device would ‘support’ a number of other items and “workpiece support” is an intended use. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-10 and 18-29 are rejected for their dependency on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-7, 18, 21-23, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolb US 20130249171 A1 in view of Miyagi et al. JP 5237839 B2 and further in view of Santoro US 2269486 A.
Regarding Claims 1-2, and 5 Kolb ‘638 teaches a corrugated metal gasket (meeting the limitation for a ring) having a first and second face, wherein the second face is equipped with “substantially uniform and generally concentric corrugations” (meeting the limitation for support elements defining a concentric circular pattern) and the support elements comprise support surfaces that bound a support plane (Abstract). The corrugated metal gasket is capable of loadbearing [0004] and withstanding high temperatures [0055], reading on the intended use for the support and flow guiding of a metallic workpiece in thermochemical treatment.
A cross section of the known kammprofile gasket shown in Fig. 2 has a polygonal outer contour, meeting the limitation for the instant claim. Recesses or grooves are disposed between adjacent corrugations [0005] (reading on and meeting the limitation for support elements) and there are 13 corrugations shown in Fig. 2 and 10 corrugations shown in Fig. 3A, meeting the limitation for N support elements with 10 ≤ N ≤ 200, and 10 ≤ N ≤ 50.
Regarding the limitation that the support surfaces are all either (i) flat relative to the second face or (ii) are defined by round bars disposed radially relative to the ring, Kolb ‘638 does not expressly teach flat support surfaces.
However, Miyagi et al. ‘839 teaches a kammprofile gasket having flat support shapes in order to increase the sealing performance [0001, 0017]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by a desire to form a tightly sealed-and compressed flange-gasket connection, to form the corrugated supports of Kolb ‘638 to be flat in shape. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the supports of Kolb ‘638 to be flat relative to the second face with the reasonable expectation of forming a useful corrugated metal gasket, meeting the limitation of the instant Claims.
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. Further, “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Regarding the presence of recesses or groves, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 teaches the limitations set forth above, including recesses arranged in a circumferential direction, but does not expressly teach the recesses are arranged in a radial direction.
However, Santoro ‘486 teaches a gasket having both concentric and radial recesses (Fig. 1, Column 2, Lines 17-22) that allow for the flowthrough of fluid, either liquid or gaseous, on the surface of the gasket.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the gasket of Kolb ‘638 with both radial and concentric recesses in order to allow for the increased flowthrough of fluid based on the teachings of Santoro ‘486 at (Column 2, Lines 23-34).
Regarding the newly amended limitations of Claim 1, the presence of a workpiece has not been recited as a component of the claimed device as set forth in the 112(b) rejections above. The claimed device therefore continues to read on a corrugated gasket having flat supports arranged in a radial direction.
Regarding Claim 3, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach a specific percentage of cross-sectional area of its corrugations.
However, Kolb ‘338 teaches the corrugations are machined to a point of sufficient gasket stiffness at [0007].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to machine the corrugations of the gasket of Kolb ‘338 at a depth sufficient to maintain “critical gasket stress” based on the teachings of Kolb ‘338 at [0007]. A visual approximation can be determined in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 of Kolb ‘638 that the sum total of the cross-sectional area of each corrugation (meeting the limitation for a support area) overlaps and encompasses the instantly claimed range of 10% to 50% of the cross-sectional area of the ring. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Although Kolb ‘638 does not describe a specific limit or range of concentric circular corrugations, from this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the gasket of Kolb ‘338 with corrugations having a depth sufficient to maintain “critical gasket stress” and in turn forming a cross-sectional area falling within or overlapping the limitation of the instant Claim. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 4, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 teaches the limitations set forth above. Kolb ‘638 teaches its gasket is in one-piece form, meeting the limitation of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 teaches the limitations set forth above. Kolb ‘638 teaches the second face of its gasket is equipped with “substantially uniform and generally concentric corrugations” which form grooves ([0005], claim 17, Fig. 2, Fig. 3) meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 teaches the limitations set forth above. Kolb ‘638 teaches concentric circular recesses shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 3A, meeting the limitation for the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 21, K Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 and Santoro ‘486 teaches the limitations set forth above. Kolb ‘638 teaches concentric circular recesses are milled [0051], meeting the limitation for the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 22, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 and Santoro ‘486 teaches the limitations set forth above. Miyagi et al. ‘839 teaches flat recesses [0020], meeting the limitation for the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 23, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 and Santoro ‘486 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach a specific flatness value.
However, Miyagi et al. ‘839 does expressly teach the corrugations are machined to a point of sufficient surface flatness at [0009].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to machine the corrugations of the gasket of Kolb ‘338 with a flatness tolerance sufficient to perform excellent sealing at low surface pressure based on the teachings of Miyagi et al. ‘839 at [0009-0011]. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Although Kolb ‘638 does not describe a specific flatness value, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the gasket of Kolb ‘338 with corrugations having a minimal flatness sufficient to perform and maintain excellent sealing at low surface pressure and in turn forming a flatness value falling within or overlapping the limitation of the instant Claim.
Regarding Claim 26, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 and Santoro ‘486 teaches the limitations set forth above. The outer contour of the corrugated gasket of Kolb ‘388 (meeting the limitation for a ring) is defined by its concentric circular support elements.
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. Further, “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Regarding Claim 27, as set forth in the 112(b) rejections above, it is unclear how a device, and not a method, “results in” features of an unrecited workpiece. Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 and Santoro ‘486 teaches the limitations set forth above. The corrugated gasket of Kolb ‘388 (meeting the limitation for a ring) is a rigid metal structure with a high load capacity and heavy core [0026] meeting the limitations of the instant Claim.
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. Further, “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolb US 20130249171 A1 in view of Miyagi et al. JP 5237839 B2 and Santoro US 2269486 A as applied to Claims 1-7, 18, 21-23, and 26-27 above further in view of NPL Lamons.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 and Santoro ‘486 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach its gasket is formed of graphite or fiber-reinforced carbon (CFRC).
However, NPL Lamons teaches gaskets formed of a flexible graphite, a high-strength material with high thermal resistance and high chemical resistance, meeting the limitation for the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the ring or support elements of the gasket of Kolb ‘638 from graphite or carbon fiber-reinforced carbon (CFRC) in order to form a useful gasket that displays increased strength, chemical resistance, and thermal resistance based on the teachings of NPL Lamons at (Page 23).
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. Further, “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolb US 20130249171 A1 in view of Miyagi et al. JP 5237839 B2 and Santoro US 2269486 A as applied to Claims 1-7, 18, 21-23, and 26-27 above further in view of Barrall et al. US 20140217679 A1 and Hohe et al. US 220060097459 A1.
Regarding Claim 11, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 and Santoro ‘486 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach a surface of the support elements is equipped with particles of a ceramic material and the particles have an equivalent diameter in the range from 5 to 1000 nm.
However, Barrall et al. ‘679 teaches a high temperature coating for a metal gasket formed of a nanoparticle suspension coating, which may be ceramic [0031], having nanoparticles with an average size of 50 nanometers or less, overlapping the range of the instant Claim from 5 to 1000 nm [0034-0035]. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to equip the surface of the support elements of the gasket of Kolb ‘638 with the nanoparticle suspension of Barrall et al. ‘679 in order to inhibit excess oxidation under exposures to high temperatures based on the teachings of Barrall et al. ‘679 e.g. at [0009].
Regarding the newly amended Limitations of Claim 11, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839, Santoro ‘486, and Barrall et al. ‘679 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach the flat support surfaces are bounded by vertical support element walls. However, Hohe et al. ‘459 teaches a corrugated gasket having vertical grooves with zero angle indentation [0074] (Fig. 8 (a)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the grooves gasket of Kolb ‘388 to have a zero angle edge in order to form a tight seal based on the teachings of Hohe et al. ‘459 at [0067].
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. Further, “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolb US 20130249171 A1 in view of Miyagi et al. JP 5237839 B2 and Santoro US 2269486 A as applied to Claims 1-7, 18, 21-23, and 26-27 above further in view of NPL Lamons and Hohe et al. US 220060097459 A1.
Regarding Claim 17, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 and Santoro ‘486 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach its gasket is formed of graphite or fiber-reinforced carbon (CFRC).
However, NPL Lamons teaches gaskets formed of a flexible graphite, a high-strength material with high thermal resistance and high chemical resistance, meeting the limitation for the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the ring or support elements of the gasket of Kolb ‘638 from graphite or carbon fiber-reinforced carbon (CFRC) in order to form a useful gasket that displays increased strength, chemical resistance, and thermal resistance based on the teachings of NPL Lamons at (Page 23).
Regarding the newly amended Limitations of Claim 17, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839, Santoro ‘486, and NPL Lamons teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach the flat support surfaces are bounded by vertical support element walls. However, Hohe et al. ‘459 teaches a corrugated gasket having vertical grooves with zero angle indentation [0074] (Fig. 8 (a)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the grooves gasket of Kolb ‘388 to have a zero angle edge in order to form a tight seal based on the teachings of Hohe et al. ‘459 at [0067].
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. Further, “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolb US 20130249171 A1 in view of Miyagi et al. JP 5237839 B2 and Santoro US 2269486 A, NPL Lamons, and Hohe et al. US 220060097459 A1 as applied to Claim 17 above further in view of Hyatt US 20140037399 A1.
Regarding Claim 19, as set forth above, Santoro ‘486 teaches a gasket (meeting the limitation for a single circular or polygonal ring) having both concentric and radial recesses (Fig. 1, Column 2, Lines 17-22) that allow for the flowthrough of fluid, either liquid or gaseous, on the surface of the gasket.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the gasket of Kolb ‘638 (meeting the limitation for a single ring) with both radial and concentric recesses in order to allow for the increased flowthrough of fluid based on the teachings of Santoro ‘486 at (Column 2, Lines 23-34).
Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839, Santoro ‘486, NPL Lamons, and Hohe et al. ‘459 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach the first face of the kammprofile gasket is flat. However, Hyatt ‘399 teaches a gasket serrated on one side and flat on the other (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the first face of the gasket of Kolb ‘388 to be flat in order to form a tight seal against a flange based on the teachings of Hyatt ‘399 at [0017].
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. Further, “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolb US 20130249171 A1 in view of Miyagi et al. JP 5237839 B2 and Santoro US 2269486 A as applied to Claims 1-7, 18, 21-23, and 26-27 above further in view of NPL Yaang.
Regarding Claim 20, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 and Santoro ‘486 teaches the limitations set forth above. A stack of three gaskets meets the limitations of the instant claims and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention that the gaskets of Kolb ‘638 may be stacked in a group of three, forming a useful means of storing the gaskets. See MPEP 2144.04 VI. B., C.
Additionally, NPL Yaang teaches the creation of a tight seal on a conventional spectacle blind flange (meeting the limitation for a workpiece) which is “usually sandwiched between two gaskets” (Page 1), expressly meeting the limitation for the instant claims for a sandwich arrangement comprising a workpiece stored or arranged between two devices as claimed in claim 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form a sandwich arrangement with two of the gaskets of Kolb ‘638 in order to form a useful spectacle blind flange having a tight seal based on the teachings of NPL Yaang (Pages 1). See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolb US 20130249171 A1 in view of Miyagi et al. JP 5237839 B2 and Santoro US 2269486 A as applied to Claims 1-7, 18, 21-23, and 26-27 above further in view of Hyatt US 20140037399 A1.
Regarding Claim 25, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839, Santoro ‘486, NPL Lamons, and Hohe et al. ‘459 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach the first face of its gasket (meeting the limitation for a singular circular ring) is flat. However, Hyatt ‘399 teaches a gasket serrated on one side and flat on the other (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the first face of the gasket of Kolb ‘388 to be flat in order to form a tight seal against a flange based on the teachings of Hyatt ‘399 at [0017].
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. Further, “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolb US 20130249171 A1 in view of Miyagi et al. JP 5237839 B2, Santoro US 2269486 A, and Hyatt US 20140037399 A1 as applied to Claim 25 above further in view of NPL Lamons and Hohe et al. US 220060097459 A1.
Regarding Claim 17, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 and Santoro ‘486 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach its gasket is formed of graphite or fiber-reinforced carbon (CFRC).
However, NPL Lamons teaches gaskets formed of a flexible graphite, a high-strength material with high thermal resistance and high chemical resistance, meeting the limitation for the instant claims.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the ring or support elements of the gasket of Kolb ‘638 from graphite or carbon fiber-reinforced carbon (CFRC) in order to form a useful gasket that displays increased strength, chemical resistance, and thermal resistance based on the teachings of NPL Lamons at (Page 23).
Regarding the newly amended Limitations of Claim 17, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839, Santoro ‘486, and NPL Lamons teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach the flat support surfaces are bounded by vertical support element walls. However, Hohe et al. ‘459 teaches a corrugated gasket having vertical grooves with zero angle indentation [0074] (Fig. 8 (a)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form the grooves gasket of Kolb ‘388 to have a zero angle edge in order to form a tight seal based on the teachings of Hohe et al. ‘459 at [0067].
Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. Further, “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kolb US 20130249171 A1 in view of Miyagi et al. JP 5237839 B2 and Santoro US 2269486 A as applied to Claims 1-7, 18, 21-23, and 26-27 above further in view of Hohe et al.
Regarding Claim 29, Kolb ‘338 modified by Miyagi et al. ‘839 and Santoro ‘486 teaches the limitations set forth above but does not expressly teach a specific percentage of cross-sectional area of its corrugations.
However, Kolb ‘338 teaches the corrugations are machined to a point of sufficient gasket stiffness at [0007].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to machine the corrugations of the gasket of Kolb ‘338 at a depth sufficient to maintain “critical gasket stress” based on the teachings of Kolb ‘338 at [0007]. A visual approximation can be determined in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 of Kolb ‘638 that the sum total of the cross-sectional area of each corrugation (meeting the limitation for a support area) overlaps and encompasses the instantly claimed range of 10% to 30% of the cross-sectional area of the ring. See MPEP 2144.05. In cases where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Although Kolb ‘638 does not describe a specific limit or range of concentric circular corrugations, from this disclosure, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to provide the gasket of Kolb ‘338 with corrugations having a depth sufficient to maintain “critical gasket stress” and in turn forming a cross-sectional area falling within or overlapping the limitation of the instant Claim. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 8 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claims 8 and 24 require the support elements to be round bars disposed radially relative to the ring which sufficiently differentiate the claims from a flat kammprofile gasket and the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the cited references do not teach or suggest the claimed singular circular device. However, the prior art is analogous art that describes metal structures capable of supporting load for use in high temperature environments, reading on use in high temperature treatments. Kolb ‘638 describes a gasket that remains analogous art to the claimed device. Further, Hyatt ‘399 teaches a gasket serrated on one side and completely flat on the opposing side (Abstract). Gaskets may be used for a wide variety of applications and applicant is reminded claim language must be granted a broadest reasonable interpretation. See MPEP 2111.
As set forth above, an indication of allowable subject matter in Claims 8 and 24 includes the rounded bars disposed radially relative to the ring, which would sufficiently differentiate the claims from a flat kammprofile gasket and the prior art. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to form serrations in the singular, circular ring of Kolb ‘638, as well as fashion a flat side, and vary serration shapes in order to achieve various sealing functions, meeting the limitations of the instant Claims.
As set forth in the 112(b) rejections above, there is no recitation of a workpiece as a physical and tangible component of the claimed device. For at least this reason, the claims as presently drafted continue to read on kammprofile gaskets. Generally, changes in shape will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such shape is critical. See MPEP 2141.01(a) I. Further, “[A] reference need not be from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention in order to be analogous art.” Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
GB 2278651 A teaches a sealing gasket device with rounded support struts.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORIAH S. SMOOT whose telephone number is (571)272-2634. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am - 5pm EDT.
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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/Keith D. Hendricks/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/M.S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1733