DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ argument with regard to “the conductive…devoid of asperities” is not persuasive since the reference of Matsui teaches that surface which does not contact shaft has no asperities (see figure below “space”).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicants’ argument with Matsui teaches a different configuration then what is claimed is not persuasive since the contact surface which is to contact shaft provides asperities and the surface which is not to contact the shaft having no asperities (see figure above).
Applicants’ argument that combining Colineau to Matsui is not obvious is incorrect since applicant is making conclusion that examiner will be using Colineau to teach no asperities.
Applicants’ argument with regard to obvious rejection does not teach all the limitation of the claims is not persuasive, since as provided below all the structural limitations are taught by Matsui et al (US. 20100109252A1, figure 6) in view of Matsui et al (US. 20100109252A1, figure 5A) in view of Hayashi (JP2014240676A) in view of Colineau et al (US.20140203514A1). It is noted that the lips of Matsui deform through the contact of the shaft, since elastomeric lips are deformed when contacted by a metallic member which is harder than the elastomer lips and the shaft outer diameter as shown in figure is larger than inner diameters of the elastomeric lips (e.g. figure 6).
Applicants’ argument with regard to deformed is not persuasive since the rejection already provides the structure of interference fit (e.g. interference fit for two concentric members, where an inner member placed in an outer member and the inner member has an outer diameter slightly larger than an inner diameter of the outer member. In conclusion when outer member which is formed of elastomeric material and inner member is a metallic shaft, deformation of the elastomeric material which contacts the shaft occurs when interference fit is provided). It is further noted that assignee is well aware of this as being old and well known (assignee can always provide evidence that this is not well known and old to assignee).
It is noted that applicant has not provide any new or novel inventive feature. Applicant is combining inventive concepts of others to provide the current invention of the application. This was also discussed with applicant representative on 8/15/2025.
It is noted that to discharge static electric current one skilled in the art provides a continuous circuit from shaft to housing (this is taught to engineering students by professors and also provided in many articles and also well known to assignees based on many pattens or applicants provided).
Applicant should also review references 2145928 or 7073794, which teaching that reinforcing structure is just an L-shape or other shapes.
Further evidence is provided by CN208010932 that one skilled in the art would provide an amount of grease which would keep shaft in contact with lips at all times (see figure 3 grease less than amount of volume and then grease after deformation of lips in figure 6 where shaft is maintained in contact with the lips). Similarly the reference of JP2001099326A also provides evidence that amount of grease is pick to an amount which would maintain lips that contact the shaft (see figures).
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 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui et al (US. 20100109252A1, figure 6) in view of Matsui et al (US. 20100109252A1, figure 5A) in view of Hayashi (JP2014240676A) in view of Colineau et al (US.20140203514A1).
Matsui discloses a seal assembly, comprising a casing (e.g. not shown in figure 6 but casing receiving the sealing device of figure 6) having an inner periphery side that includes a lubricant and an outer periphery side that is exposed to the atmosphere (e.g. see figures), a rotatable shaft (e.g. see shaft shown in figure 6 by phantom lines) positioned in the casing that defines an axis and extends between the inner periphery side and the outer periphery side (e.g. figure 6), a void (e.g. figure 6) between an outer periphery of the rotatable shaft and an inner peripheral surface of the casing, a sealing device (e.g. figure 6) positioned in the void and configured to seal the void, the sealing device slidably contacting the outer peripheral surface of the rotatable shaft, the sealing device including: a reinforcement ring (e.g. R, figure below) in an annular shape around the axis, the reinforcement ring consisting of a circular tubular portion (e.g. tubular portion T) that extends along the axis and a disk portion (e.g. disk portion D) that is connected to the circular tubular portion and extends radially inwardly toward the rotatable shaft (e.g. figure below), a terminal end (e.g. TE) of the circular tubular portion being defined by a surface that extends entirely orthogonal to the outer peripheral surface of the rotatable shaft (e.g. end of the tubular portion having an end surface, figure below) and the terminal end (e.g. DE of the disk portion having an end surface that is parallel to the rotatable shaft, figure below) of the disk portion being defined by a surface that extends entirely in parallel with the outer peripheral surface of the rotatable shaft (e.g. see figure 6), an elastic portion (e.g. figure below) which is attached to the reinforcement ring and is made of an elastic body in an annular shape around the axis, the elastic portion has a base (e.g. base connected to the disk portion), a lip portion (e.g. L) which extends from the base along the axis in a direction toward the inner periphery side of the casing, a tightening force provision member (e.g. spring) which is an elastic member in an annular shape that is attached to the lip portion that extends in the direction toward the inner periphery side of the casing, the lip portion has, at a tip end of the lip portion, a lip tip end portion having a lip contact surface that is pressed into contact with the outer peripheral surface of the rotatable shaft due to an interference fit between the lip portion and the rotatable shaft (e.g. that would be the case as shown in figures), the interference fit (e.g. with regard to interference fit, figure shows this by comparing the shaft outer diameter and the lip inner diameter) being defined by a difference between an outer diameter of the rotatable shaft and an inner diameter of the lip tip end portion the lip contact surface, at least one dust lip (e.g. DL) in an annular shape around the axis that extends in a direction toward the outer periphery side of the casing that is exposed to the atmosphere, the elastic body having a plane (e.g. P) that extends between an end portion of the exterior side of the lip contact surface of the lip tip end portion of the lip portion and a tip end of the dust lip, the elastic body having a part of an inner peripheral which is a surface in an annular shape facing an inner periphery side of the elastic portion in at least a part of an inter-lip space (e.g. this is space between the lips inner surfaces and shaft outer surface) which is spaced in an annular shape between the lip contact surface and the dust lip in the direction of axis (see plane surfaces P between the dust lip DL and the lip portion L) and the tightening force (e.g. the spring) provision member is placed on an outer periphery side of the lip portion at the lip tip end portion and is configured to provide tightening force that, in combination with the interference fit, presses the lip contact surface against the outer peripheral surface of the rotatable shaft (e.g. see figure 6). The surface on the atmosphere side of the lip contact that is devoid of asperities and has an annular surface facing the inner peripheral side of the elastic portion in at least a part of the inter-lip space which is the space in the annular shape formed between the lip contact surface and the dust lip in the direction of the axis (e.g. annotated figure below showing space with P). Each of the dust lip and the lip portion are deformed (e.g. this is the case since the dust lip and lip portion are formed of elastomeric material and the shaft is of metallic material which are connected by the interference fit) through the contact with the outer peripheral surface of the rotatable shaft to form closed space between the inner peripheral surface and the outer peripheral surface of the rotatable shaft (e.g. as shown in figure 6 shows how the lips are in an undeformed state and then the lips would deform and become the same diameter as the outer diameter of the shaft) that has a volume that is less than the volume of the inter-lip space when the sealing device is not in contact with the rotatable shaft (e.g. see figure 6 which shows lip extending past the shaft and then ). Examiner is providing further evidence by the reference of Ikebukuro et al (e.g. 20160153564A1).
Matsui et al discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the lip contact surface has a surface in an annular cylindrical shape with asperities which faces the outer circumferential surface of the shaft, is parallel to the axis, and has a predetermined length in a direction of the axis. Matsui ‘252 discloses in figure 5A that a lip contact surface has a surface in an annular cylindrical shape with asperities which faces an outer circumferential surface of a shaft and has a predetermined length in a direction of the axis of the shaft (e.g. paragraph 0045). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the lip contact surface of Matsui in figure 6 to have a cylindrical surface with predetermined length as taught by Matsui ‘252 in figure 5A with reasonable expectation of success to provide seal that provides effective pumping effect at time of rotation of shaft (see abstract and entire document, noted that the assignee is same as the current application).
Matsui discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose conductive grease adhered to the inner peripheral surface which forms the inter-lip space which is the space in an annular shape formed between the lip contact surface and the dust lip in a direction of the axis and the plane of the inter-lip space. Hayashi (see solution section of the reference) et al discloses a sealing device made of elastic material with plurality of lips and spaces between lips are filled with conductive grease (e.g. see solution and abstract provided by applicant Hayashi) and it is further point out that inherent property of grease is to adhere to a surface. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the grease and place particular amount between lips of Matsui as taught by Hayashi, with reasonable expectation of success to secure the electrical conductivity between relative rotating members (e.g. see solution and entire document of Hayashi).
The combination of Matsui and Hayashi teaches a volume of the conductive grease in the closed space is not greater than the volume of the closed space to present expansion of the grease that causes disengagement between the outer peripheral surface of the rotatable shaft and the lip tip end portion (In conclusion the amount of conductive grease in space would be chosen by one skilled in the art base on predictable variable of the volume size before and after shaft installation, one skilled in the art would place an amount of grease which is less than the volume before shaft installation and/or after shaft installation, since too much conductive grease the lips and shaft would not seal properly due to abrasion of the lips by conductive particles in the grease and too little grease electrically conductivity would be lost).
Matsui discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the elastic body being formed of a mixture of a rubber material and conductive particles to provide the elastic body with conductivity. Colineau discloses a seal with an elastomeric member (e.g. figure 3) with a lip seal (e.g. seal shown in figure 3) with a reinforcing member (e.g. 11) and an elastic body (e.g. 19) made of a mixture of rubber material (e.g. rubber elastic material stated in paragraph 0025 that forms 19) and conductive fibers (inherent since claim 3 states that 19 is made of the electrically conductive, rubbery elastic material, also see metallic fibers are chosen to make the seal conductive). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the elastic body of Matsui be conductive by being made of mixture of rubber material and conductive particles as taught by Colineau with reasonable expectation of success to provide a seal that is entirely conductive from the contact surface with the shaft to the contact surface of the housing (e.g. see entire document, all claims and paragraph 0028, 0026, 0005 to 0015 of Colineau).
PNG
media_image2.png
530
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
449
519
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui, Hayashi, Colineau and further in view of Bowman (CA1289400C).
Matsui, Hayashi and Colineau disclose the invention as claimed above but fail to disclose that the elastic body comprising carbon black, which is a conductive powder that provides reinforcement. Bowman discloses a lip seal having carbon black (“For simplicity Figure 6 the rubber part of the body of the cover support was shown without any reenforcing cloth, wire, or cord embedded in it, although this is often desirable, as is the compounding of the rubber material with special fillers such as carbon black”, see Bowman). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the elastic body of Matsui with carbon black as taught by Bowman with reasonable expectation of success to provide reinforcement to the elastic body (“For simplicity Figure 6 the rubber part of the body of the cover support was shown without any reenforcing cloth, wire, or cord embedded in it, although this is often desirable, as is the compounding of the rubber material with special fillers such as carbon black”, see Bowman).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui, Hayashi, Colineau and further in view of JP (S6343067A).
Matsui, Hayashi and Colineau disclose the invention as claimed above but fail to disclose that the elastic body comprising conductive particles and conductive fibers. JP ‘067 discloses a lip seal having multiple conductive substances (e.g. “the combination rate of conductive substances, such as carbon black, increases, upper limit is set up also about that blend ratio. Incidentally, when the volume fraction was measured by the penetration electron microscope about the case of after-mentioned each Example 3~4, all suited within the limits of 0 and 55~0.70. Especially as a conductive substance, they are Ketchen black and an acetylene blank, Carbon black, graphite which are represented by ECF carbon black, Metal fibers, such as metal powder, such as carbon textiles, the synthetic fiber which carried out metal Metsuki, glass fiber which carried out metal Metsuki and also nickel powder, copper powder, gold dust, and aluminium powder, aluminum textiles, brass textiles, and a nickel fiber, etc.”, see JP ‘067). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the elastic body of Matsui with conductive particles and fibers as taught by JP ‘067 with reasonable expectation of success to provide particular hardness to rubber and also effective conductivity (“the combination rate of conductive substances, such as carbon black, increases, upper limit is set up also about that blend ratio. Incidentally, when the volume fraction was measured by the penetration electron microscope about the case of after-mentioned each Example 3~4, all suited within the limits of 0 and 55~0.70. Especially as a conductive substance, they are Ketchen black and an acetylene blank, Carbon black, graphite which are represented by ECF carbon black, Metal fibers, such as metal powder, such as carbon textiles, the synthetic fiber which carried out metal Metsuki, glass fiber which carried out metal Metsuki and also nickel powder, copper powder, gold dust, and aluminium powder, aluminum textiles, brass textiles, and a nickel fiber, etc.”, see JP ‘067).
Claim(s) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsui, Hayashi, Colineau et al and further in view of Kalsi et al (US. 20010045704A1).
Matsui, Hayashi and Colineau disclose the invention as claimed above but fail to disclose that the elastic body comprising carbon black, which is a conductive powder that provides reinforcement. Kalsi discloses an elastomeric body having a lip seal and the elastomeric body comprising reinforced with particles such as but not limited to carbon black and/or fiber and/or metal and/or PTFE particles (e.g. see paragraph 0059). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the elastic body of Matsui with carbon black as taught by Kalsi with reasonable expectation of success, to provide reinforcement to the elastic body (see paragraph 0059 in Kalsi).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-7060. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am to 4:00pm.
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.
/VISHAL A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675