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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The limitation “a pair of opposed grooves facing away from the rigid orientation plate” in claim 1 is not shown or disclosed in manner in which the claims are written.
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, 5-7, 10, 12, 16, 18, 20 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Olson (US 3355181) in view of Boeve (US 7070187).
Regarding claims 1, Olson discloses a gasket plate Fig. 1 comprising: a rigid orientation plate 40 defining an opening therethrough at a predetermined location and retaining at least one seal 42 in the opening at the predetermined location in the orientation plate with a tongue and groove arrangement 44, 45 circumscribing the opening and the seal at a first interface between the rigid orientation plate and the seal; and a rigid insert 43 placed inside the seal such that the seal interposes the insert and the orientation plate, the seal retaining the rigid insert; wherein the tongue and groove arrangement 44, 45 comprises a tongue uninterruptedly circumscribing the seal and fitted into a groove uninterruptedly circumscribing the opening; and wherein the first interface between the rigid orientation plate and the seal comprises a vertical cross section of complementary curved surfaces. However, Olson fails to disclose a pair of opposed grooves facing away from the rigid orientation plate. Boeve, a gasket plate assembly 10 Fig. 1, discloses the use of a pair of opposed grooves (110, 120 of Annotated Fig. 3B, below) facing away from a rigid orientation plate 14. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the seal of Olson with opposed grooves as taught by Boeve in order to provide the necessary flexibility of the seal thus ensuring a more secure seal.
PNG
media_image1.png
346
894
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses a gasket plate Fig. 1 comprising: a planar orientation plate 40 having a thickness and defining a passage through the thickness, the passage defining a passage wall; an elastomeric seal 42 abutting the passage wall; and a rigid annular insert 43 contacting the elastomeric seal and retaining the seal against the passage; wherein the passage wall defines a groove 45 that is curved in vertical cross section uninterruptedly circumscribing the passage that receives a tongue 44 protruding from and uninterruptedly circumscribing an outer perimeter of the elastomeric seal.
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses wherein the elastomeric seal 42 comprises a rubber and is vulcanized to the insert.
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses wherein the insert 43 stretches the elastomeric seal 42 and presses it into the passage wall.
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses wherein the rigid insert 43 defines a groove 45 that receives part of the elastomeric seal 42.
Regarding claim 12, the combination discloses a gasket plate (10 of Goeve) comprising: an orientation plate 14 having a thickness and a plurality of passages 20, 22 defined therethrough, wherein each passage has: an elastomeric seal 42 in the passage; a rigid, annular insert 43 contacting the elastomeric seal and preventing collapse of the elastomeric seal away from a passage wall; and a tongue and groove interface 44, 45 between the elastomeric seal and the passage wall; wherein the tongue and groove interface comprises a tongue 44 circumscribing the seal fitted into a groove 45 circumscribing the passage; and wherein the tongue and groove interface comprises complementary curves defined continuously at a contact point between the tongue and the groove Fig. 3.
Regarding claim 16, the combination discloses wherein the elastomeric seal 42 is bonded to the insert 43.
Regarding claim 18, the combination discloses wherein the elastomeric seal 42 is circular.
Regarding claim 20, the combination discloses wherein the elastomeric seal 42 defines upper and lower tongues 47 on upper and lower surfaces thereof, respectively, facing away from a plane of the orientation plate.
Regarding claim 21, the combination discloses wherein the elastomeric seal comprises upper and lower groves 110, 120 facing away from the orientation plate.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Pat. 5700017 to Tensor is disclosed to illustrate a seal assembly having a rigid insert 86 and a seal 30 in an opening of gasket plate 22.
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 EUGENE G BYRD whose telephone number is (571)270-1824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 5712727376. 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.
/EUGENE G BYRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights