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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/29/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malus (US Pub. No. 2015/0330509) in view of Bander et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0276105).
Regarding claim 1, the Malus reference discloses a gasket (10) for joining flanged connections (Fig. 2) comprising:
a gasket core (core of 10), said gasket core comprising:
a first gasket portion (14) having a top face with a top primary sealing area (top surface/area of 14) and a bottom face with a bottom primary sealing area (bottom surface/area of 14), wherein said top primary sealing area is configured with a sealing geometry pattern (20) and said bottom primary sealing area is configured with said sealing geometry pattern (Figs. 3-6)
a substantially central opening (opening at 16) having an exposed edge (e.g. inner edge of 10), wherein said gasket core at least partially defines said exposed edge (Figs. 3-6); and
a sealing material (22), wherein a first layer of said sealing material is disposed on said top primary sealing area (Figs. 3-6).
However, the Malus reference fails to explicitly disclose the gasket core composed of a non-metallic material.
The Bander et al. (hereafter Bander) reference discloses making a gasket core of metal or non-metallic material (Paras. [0028] and [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Malus reference to have a non-metallic core and provide geometry patterns in view of the Bander reference since Bander teaches that the materials are well known equivalents (Para. [0031]) that would provide optimal sealing pressure.
Regarding claim 2, the Malus reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses said non-metallic material is glass reinforced epoxy (Bander, Para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 3, the Malus reference, as modified in claim 2, discloses a second layer of said sealing material (Malus, 22) is disposed on said bottom primary sealing area (Malus, Figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 4, the Malus reference, as modified in claim 3, discloses said sealing geometry pattern is serrations (Malus, Figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 5, the Malus reference, as modified in claim 4, discloses said gasket core is substantially annular in shape (Malus, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 6, the Malus reference, as modified in claim 5, discloses said sealing material is deformable (Bander, Para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, the Malus reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses said gasket core further comprises an outer guide portion (Malus, 12) positioned exterior relative to said first gasket portion (Malus, Figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 8, the Malus reference, as modified in claim 7, discloses said non-metallic material is glass reinforced epoxy (Bander, Para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 9, the Malus reference, as modified in claim 8, discloses said sealing geometry pattern is serrations (Malus, Figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 10, the Malus reference, as modified in claim 9, discloses a second layer of said sealing material (22) is disposed on said bottom primary sealing area (Malus, Figs. 3-6).
Regarding claim 11, the Malus reference, as modified in claim 10, discloses said sealing material is deformable (Bander, Para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 12, the Malus reference discloses a gasket (10) for joining flanged connections (Fig. 2) comprising:
a gasket core (core of 10), said gasket core comprising:
a first gasket portion (14) comprising:
a top face (top face of 10) with a top primary sealing area (area at 14) and a top outer area (area at 12);
a bottom face (bottom face of 10) with a bottom primary sealing area (area at 14) and a bottom outer area (area at 12), wherein said top primary sealing area is configured with a sealing geometry pattern (20) machined into said top primary sealing area and said bottom primary sealing area is configured with said sealing geometry pattern (20) machined into said bottom primary sealing area (Figs. 3-6), wherein said top outer area has a top surface geometry different from said sealing geometry pattern and said bottom outer area has a bottom surface geometry different from said sealing geometry pattern (Figs. 3-6);
a substantially central opening (opening at 16) having an exposed edged (Figs. 4-6), wherein said non-metallic material at least partially defines said exposed edge (Figs. 4-6); and
a sealing material (22), wherein a first layer of said sealing material is disposed on said top primary sealing area (Figs. 3-6).
However, the Malus reference fails to explicitly disclose the gasket core composed of a non-metallic material.
The Bander reference discloses making a gasket core of metal or non-metallic material (Paras. [0028] and [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the Malus reference to have a non-metallic core and provide geometry patterns in view of the Bander reference since Bander teaches that the materials are well known equivalents (Para. [0031]) that would provide optimal sealing pressure.
Response to Arguments
With regards to the applicant’s argument of the material combination, the argument is not persuasive. Applicant states that the Bander reference can not be combined with the Malus reference since the materials of the Bander reference are too rigid. Applicant further states that “Malus does not disclose the use of a rigid material for use in it’s disclosed gasket design - if anything, it teaches against it based on the purpose and mechanical function of the camber.” Para. [0011] of the Malus reference clearly states that “the gasket may comprise a solid metal core.” Malus hints that other materials could be used other than solid metal. Clearly, even a “rigid” material such as a solid metal core will be capable of deforming even if the camber exists. Since the specific materials are not listed in the Malus reference, one of ordinary skill in the art, would look to the Bander reference, a gasket with a core, for known materials. Bander clearly recites that polyimide, glass reinforced epoxy, carbon steel, stainless steel, or a “sandwich” of steel with laminate material bonded on either side as being equivalents for the gasket core. It is unclear as to how the applicant has concluded that the materials of the Malus reference is too rigid for the Bander reference when the Bander reference clearly teaches that the core can be solid metal and materials listed in Bander would all have similar characteristics to each other.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 GILBERT Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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.
/GILBERT Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675