DETAILED ACTION
The present application and its arguments have been reviewed and currently claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-14, and 21-23 are rejected, claims 4 and 7 are objected, claims 16-18 are allowed, and claims 8, 15, and 19-20 are withdrawn.
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 with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, and 9-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, 9-13, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,895,053) in view of Bauman et al. (WO-9814725) and in further view of Bastow (U.S. Patent No. 3,271,038).
In regards to claim 1, Bauman discloses:
A composite seal (see fig. 3 hereinafter) configured for a swivel seal assembly (ex., structurally, there is nothing preventing this from not being used in a swivel seal assembly),
the swivel seal assembly having a first part rotatable about a longitudinal axis in comparison to a second part, wherein the first and second parts cooperatively form an inside annular groove disposed between the first and second parts, the inside annular groove being cylindrically-shaped and aligned about the longitudinal axis, wherein a gap between the first and second parts is connected to the inside annular groove (ex., the swivel seal assembly is not required),
wherein the composite seal is configured to be disposed within the inside annular groove to seal the gap (ex., structurally, there is nothing preventing this functional limitation),
wherein the composite seal is configured to be aligned about the longitudinal axis and is delimited by an inside diameter (ex., the most inner diameter of lobes 84) opposite an outside diameter (ex, the most outer diameter of lobes 78) connected by a first axial side (72) opposite a second axial side (68),
wherein the composite seal comprises:
an elastomeric seal ring (62) bonded to at least one anti-extrusion ring (94; ex., see claim 2 where the ring is made of PTFE and the seal is made of rubber),
wherein the at least one anti-extrusion ring is disposed at the second axial side configured to be placed adjacent to the gap when the composite seal is disposed within the inside annular groove (structurally there is nothing preventing this);
wherein the elastomeric seal ring includes an outside annular valley (see annotated fig. 3 below) formed along the outside diameter, the outside annular valley separating a first outside sealing annular interface apart from a second outside sealing annular interface (82),
the first outside sealing annular interface disposed adjacent to the first axial side (ex., see near 72),
wherein the first and the second outside sealing annular interfaces are disposed at a same first diameter (ex., see fig. 3 where both are protruding the same height) which is at aligned along the outside diameter (see fig. 3, where the outside diameter and same first diameter are the same); and
wherein the elastomeric seal ring includes an inside annular valley (see annotated fig. 3) formed along the inside diameter,
the inside annular valley separating a first inside sealing annular interface (74) apart from a second inside sealing annular interface (64),
the first inside sealing annular interface disposed adjacent to the first axial side and the second inside sealing annular interface disposed adjacent to the at least one anti-extrusion ring, (see fig. 3, where ring 94 is next to 84)
wherein the first and the second inside sealing annular interfaces are disposed at a same second diameter which is at the inside diameter (see fig. 3),
but does not disclose:
wherein the elastomeric seal ring starts from the first axial side and extends longitudinally along the inside and outside diameters until it reaches the at least one anti-extrusion ring,
the second outside sealing annular interface disposed adjacent to the at least one anti-extrusion ring,
wherein the at least one anti-extrusion ring has an anti-extrusion ring inner surface which is cylindrically shaped and disposed at the same second diameter which is at the inside diameter.
In regards to the cylindrical anti-extrusion ring surface, Bauman (ex., the same inventor; hereinafter as Bauman 725’) discloses a very similar devices (see figs. 3 and 7) which comprises:
a first embodiment (see figs. 3-6) comprising an anti-extrusion ring (see fig. 6) comprising a sloped inner surface (98, fig. 6);
a second embodiment (see figs. 7-8) comprising an anti-extrusion ring (see fig. 6) comprising a cylindrical inner surface (142, fig. 8);
wherein the dimensions of the inner surface of the ring and sealing lobes are known parameters (see fig. 11) such that dimensions of the inner surface and sealing lobes 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 in the art before the effective filling date to modify the shape of the inner surface of the anti-extrusion ring of Bauman such that the inner surface is cylindrical because Bauman 725’ discloses that there a finite number of identified solutions of using either a tapered inner surface or a cylindrical inner surface for the anti-extrusion ring (ex., compare figs. 6 and 8). A person of ordinary skill could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because modifying the known tapered inner surface to a known cylindrical surface is within their technical grasp and would produce no new results. In addition, it has been held that a change in shape has been found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. See In re Dailey 357 F.2d 669, 672-73 (CCPA 1966) (referred to in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
In regards to the inner surface disposed at the second diameter, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the anti-extrusion ring inner surface to be disposed at the second diameter which is at the inside diameter, as the “diameter” of the inner surface 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 Bauman 725’ explicitly shows the dimensions of the inner surface of the ring and sealing lobes are known parameters (see fig. 11). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It is further noted that In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In regards to a dual anti-extrusion ring, Bastow discloses multiple configurations of an anti-extrusion ring such as:
a first embodiment (see figs. 4-5) where an anti-extrusion ring (11 or 12) is a single ring directly adjected a gasket (10), or
a second embodiment (see fig. 2) wherein at least one anti-extrusion ring comprises an outer anti-extrusion ring (12) and an inner anti-extrusion ring (11) separated by an extension of the elastomeric seal ring (13),
wherein the outer anti-extrusion ring is configured to be placed adjacent to the gap when the composite seal is disposed within the inside annular groove (ex., structurally there is nothing from preventing this functional limitation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify anti-extrusion ring of Bauman in view of Bauman 725’ such that the anti-extrusion ring comprises an outer anti-extrusion ring and an inner anti-extrusion ring which are separated by an extension of the elastomeric seal ring (ex., a duplication of the same ring where the outer ring has a cylindrical outer surface) because Bastow discloses that there a finite number of identified solutions of an anti-extrusion ring (ex., compare figs. 4-5 and fig. 2; ex., see 3:34-41, which discloses there are obvious variants). A person of ordinary skill could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success because modifying the anti-extrusion ring to be a plurality of anti-extrusion rings with an extension of the gasket therebetween is within their technical grasp and would produce no new results. In addition, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts 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, duplicating the known anti-extrusion ring of Bauman, which is a known configuration as disclosed by Bastow, would not produce any new and unexpected results.
In regards to claim 2, Bauman further discloses:
The composite seal of claim 1, wherein a transition between the first axial side and the first outside sealing annular interface is rounded.
In regards to claim 3, Bauman further discloses:
The composite seal of claim 2, wherein the first outside sealing annular interface is an annular edge formed at an intersection of the rounded transition and the outside annular valley.
In regards to claim 5, Bauman further discloses:
The composite seal of claim 1, wherein a transition between the first axial side and the first inside sealing annular interface is rounded.
In regards to claim 6, Bauman further discloses:
The composite seal of claim 5, wherein the first inside sealing annular interface is an annular edge formed at an intersection of the rounded transition and the inside annular valley.
In regards to claim 9, Bauman in view of Bastow further discloses:
The composite seal of claim 1, wherein the at least one anti-extrusion ring comprises an outer anti-extrusion ring and an inner anti-extrusion ring separated by an extension of the elastomeric seal ring (ex., see fig. 2 of Bastow),
wherein the outer anti-extrusion ring is configured to be placed adjacent to the gap when the composite seal is disposed within the inside annular groove (structurally there is nothing preventing this functional limitation).
In regards to claim 10, Bauman further discloses:
The composite seal of claim 9, wherein the extension of the elastomeric seal ring at least partially extends a distance beyond the second axial side of the outer and inner anti-extrusion rings (it is inherent that slight pressure to the gasket of Bauman in view of Bastow would meet this limitation, ex., as shown in fig. 1 of Bauman).
In regards to claim 11, Bauman further discloses:
The composite seal of claim 1, wherein the elastomeric seal ring and the at least one anti-extrusion ring are formed of different materials (ex., see claim 2 where the seal is made of rubber and the ring is made of PTFE).
In regards to claim 12, Bauman further discloses:
The composite seal of claim 1, wherein the at least one anti-extrusion ring is formed of a material having a greater rigidity in comparison to the elastomeric seal ring (it is inherent that PTFE is more rigid than rubber).
In regards to claim 13, Bauman further discloses:
The composite seal of claim 1, wherein the elastomeric seal ring has a lower modulus of elasticity in comparison to the at least one anti-extrusion ring.
In regards to claim 21, Bauman in view of Bastow and Bauman 725’ discloses:
The composite seal of claim 1, wherein the at least one anti-extrusion ring has an anti-extrusion ring outer surface which is cylindrically-shaped (ex., see rejection of claim 1 above),
but does not disclose:
wherein the anti-extrusion ring outer surface is disposed at the same first diameter which is at the outside diameter.
In regards to the outer surface disposed at the second diameter, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the anti-extrusion ring outer surface of Bauman in view of Bauman 725 and Bastow to be disposed at the first diameter which is at the outside diameter, as the “diameter” of the outer surface 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 Bauman 725’ explicitly shows the dimensions of the inner surface of the ring and inner/outer sealing lobes are known parameters (see fig. 11; ex., duplicating the same ring to match the diameter of the lobe on the top the same way the inner ring matches the bottom lobe would not have produced any new or unexpected results). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It is further noted that In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
In regards to claim 22, Bauman in view of Bauman 725 and Bastow further discloses:
The composite seal of claim 1, wherein the at least one anti-extrusion ring does not extend radially inward beyond the second inside sealing annular interface (ex., see claim 1 rejection above).
In regards to claim 23, Bauman in view of Bauman 725 and Bastow discloses:
The composite seal of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein the at least one anti-extrusion ring does not extend radially outward beyond the second outside sealing annular interface.
In regards to the outer surface disposed at the second diameter, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the anti-extrusion ring outer surface of Bauman in view of Bauman 725 and Bastow to be disposed at most to the first diameter which is at the outside diameter, as the “diameter” of the outer surface 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 Bauman 725’ explicitly shows the dimensions of the inner surface of the ring and inner/outer sealing lobes are known parameters (see fig. 11; ex., duplicating the same ring to match the diameter of the lobe on the top the same way the inner ring matches the bottom lobe would not have produced any new or unexpected results). See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
It is further noted that In Gardner v TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bauman in view of Bauman 725 and Bastow as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Pippert (U.S. Patent No. 4,219,204).
In regards to claim 14, Bauman in view of Bastow discloses:
The composite seal of claim 1,
but does not disclose:
wherein the at least one anti-extrusion ring is formed from any of the following materials: metal, stainless steel or polyether ether ketone (PEEK).
In regards to the selection of materials, Pippert discloses a similar device where anti-extrusion rings are made of metal (2:37-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to modify the anti-extrusion rings of Bauman in view of Bauman 725 and Bastow to be comprised of metal because Pippert discloses that it is known to use a metal material for anti-extrusion rings (2:37-40) and it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See MPEP 2144.07.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are allowed.
Claims 4 and 7 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.
Conclusion
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 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
Prosecution Insights