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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are not persuasive and/or moot in view of new rejections.
Applicant should view rejections that were sent in parent or similar applications to the assignee (see application 17587774, Final Rejection mailed on 8/15/2024, pages2-3 with regard to 112 rejection to end cap in claim 21). Examiner has provided as a courtesy some responses with regard to arguments.
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 1-7 and 9-10 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, “a seal cap alternatively engageable with the first end or the second end of the seal portion depending on the orientation of the seal between the annular surfaces”, unclear how a metal-to-metal sea a seal cap? A seal assembly can comprise many things but not a seal. If applicant want to claims a seal assembly with many components, the applicant should do it in a divisional application (It is noted that this type of rejection to claims in other applications were provided previously).
Even if applicant believes that a metal-to-metal seal can have an end cap, rejections are provided below. No claims are allowable.
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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassity (US. 4751965A) in view of Melton (US. 2012034657A1).
Cassity discloses a metal-to-metal seal for sealing between a pair of annular surfaces (e.g. intended use see MPEP 2113-2114 but surfaces capable of contacting 12 and 13), the seal comprising a first seal end (e.g. end having 72 and 74), a second seal end (e.g. end having 54), and a central seal portion (e.g. having 82 which is concave), the central seal portion having a concave shape (e.g. concave shape having 80, 86, 76 and 78) in a de-energized state such that the central portion curves toward a centerline of the seal (e.g. see figure 2), the central portion capable of flexing radially outward toward the pair of annular surfaces upon energization of the seal (e.g. see figure 3, when element 58 energizes the seal) and at least one outer ridge (e.g. one of the ribs 80) extending from the central portion of the seal radially outward away from the centerline of the seal so that when the seal is energized the at least one outer ridge sealingly engages an outer annular surface of the pair of annular surfaces (intended use and/or method limitation given little or no patentable weight in an apparatus claim, see MPEP 2113-2114). Wherein each seal portion further comprises a first end (e.g. outer 1st end near 54 and inner 1st end opposite the outer 1st end) and a second end (e.g. outer 2nd end having 74 and inner 2nd end having 72), wherein the at least one outer ridge is axially positioned on the seal nearer to the first end (e.g. ridge between each of 82 near 54) than the second end such that when the seal is reoriented between the pair of annular surfaces of the at least one outer ridge is positioned to sealingly engage the outer surface at a different location than before reorientation (intended use and/or method limitation given little or no patentable weight in an apparatus claim, see MPEP 2113-2114). Regarding claim 2, the seal further comprising at least one inner ridge (e.g. one of the ribs 76 and 78) extending from the central portion of the seal radially outward away from the centerline of the seal so that when the seal is energized the at least one inner ridge sealingly engages an inner annular surface of the pair of annular surfaces. Regarding claim 3, wherein the central seal portion comprises an outer concave central seal surface (e.g. surface having 80 or surface having 86) and an inner concave central seal surface (e.g. surface having 76 and surface having 78), the outer concave central seal surface and inner concave central seal surface separated from one another and defining a recess (e.g. recess capable of receiving 58) therebetween, the seal further comprising at least one intra-seal ridge (e.g. one of the ribs 76 and 78) extending from the outer concave central seal surface into the recess so that when the seal is energized by a plunger inserted into the recess, the at least one intra-seal ridge extending from the outer concave central seal portion sealingly engages the plunger (e.g. intended use and/or method limitation given little or no patentable weight in an apparatus claim, see MPEP 2113-2114). It is noted that the seal of Cassity is capable of being energized by a plunger. Regarding claim 4, the seal further comprising and at least one intra-seal ridge (e.g. one of the ribs 76 and 78) extending from the inner concave central seal surface into the recess so that when the seal is energized by the plunger (e.g. intended use and/or method limitation, see above), the at least one intra-seal ridge extending from the inner concave central seal surface sealingly engages a plunger (e.g. intended use and/or method limitation given little or no patentable weight in an apparatus claim, see MPEP 2113-2114). It is noted that the seal of Cassity is capable of being energized by the plunger. Regarding claim 5, wherein The at least one outer ridge comprises plurality of outer ridges (e.g. ribs 80 and 86). Regarding claim 6, wherein at least one seal (e.g. center one of 80 or center one of 86 or center one of 76 or center one of 78) positioned to seal between the outer seal portion and the inner seal portion. Regarding claim 7, wherein the at least one seal is a plunger sealing surface, an intra-seal seal or a tab seal (e.g. see figures, 76 or 76 are capable of being plunger sealing surface).
Cassity discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose that a seal cap alternatively engageable with the first end or the second end of the seal portion depending on the orientation of the seal between the annular surfaces. Melton discloses a seal assembly have a seal having a first and second ends (e.g. axial ends of 10), the seal assembly having a seal cap (e.g. 42) alternatively engageable with the first end or the second end of the seal portion depending on the orientation of the seal between annular surfaces (e.g. annular surfaces that are capable of being sealed by the seal assembly of Melton). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the metal-to-metal seal of Cassity to have a seal cap as taught by Melton with reasonable expectation of success to carry the metal-to-metal seal when placing in an annular member (e.g. the seal 10 being welded on to 42 will make the seal be inserted easily, see Melton).
Claim(s) 1-7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzie (US. 20120193088A1) in view of Melton.
Benzie discloses a metal-to-metal seal (e.g. figure 1) for sealing between a pair of annular surfaces (e.g. intended use see MPEP 2113-2114 but surfaces capable of contacting 12 and 13), the seal comprising a first seal end (e.g. ends shown in figure 1), a second seal end (e.g. the ends shown in figure 1), and a central seal portion (e.g. having 13 and 15), the central seal portion having a concave shape (e.g. concave shape having ridges 13 and 15) in a de-energized state such that the central portion curves toward a centerline of the seal (e.g. see figure 1), the central portion capable of flexing radially outward toward the pair of annular surfaces upon energization of the seal (e.g. see figures 2a-2c, when element energizes the seal) and at least one outer ridge (e.g. one of the ribs 13) extending from the central portion of the seal radially outward away from the centerline of the seal so that when the seal is energized the at least one outer ridge sealingly engages an outer annular surface of the pair of annular surfaces (intended use and/or method limitation given little or no patentable weight in an apparatus claim, see MPEP 2113-2114). Wherein each seal portion further comprises a first end (e.g. outer 1st end near 34 and inner 1st end opposite the outer 1st end) and a second end (e.g. outer 2nd end near 30 and inner 2nd end having 27), wherein the at least one outer ridge is axially positioned on the seal to the first end and the second end such that when the seal is reoriented between the pair of annular surfaces of the at least one outer ridge is positioned to sealingly engage the outer surface at a different location than before reorientation (intended use and/or method limitation given little or no patentable weight in an apparatus claim, see MPEP 2113-2114). Regarding claim 2, the seal further comprising at least one inner ridge (e.g. one of the ribs 15) extending from the central portion of the seal radially outward away from the centerline of the seal so that when the seal is energized the at least one inner ridge sealingly engages an inner annular surface of the pair of annular surfaces. Regarding claim 3, wherein the central seal portion comprises an outer concave central seal surface (e.g. outer concave surface extending between ends) and an inner concave central seal surface (e.g. inner concave surface extending between ends), the outer concave central seal surface and inner concave central seal surface separated from one another and defining a recess (e.g. recess having center line) therebetween, the seal further comprising at least one intra-seal ridge (e.g. 15) extending from the outer concave central seal surface into the recess so that when the seal is energized by a plunger inserted into the recess, the at least one intra-seal ridge extending from the outer concave central seal portion sealingly engages the plunger (e.g. intended use and/or method limitation given little or no patentable weight in an apparatus claim, see MPEP 2113-2114). It is noted that the seal of Benzie is capable of being energized by a plunger. Regarding claim 4, the seal further comprising and at least one intra-seal ridge (e.g. 15) extending from the inner concave central seal surface into the recess so that when the seal is energized by the plunger (e.g. intended use and/or method limitation, see above), the at least one intra-seal ridge extending from the inner concave central seal surface sealingly engages a plunger (e.g. intended use and/or method limitation given little or no patentable weight in an apparatus claim, see MPEP 2113-2114). It is noted that the seal of Benzie is capable of being energized by the plunger. Regarding claim 5, wherein the at least one outer ridge comprises plurality of outer ridges (e.g. ribs 13 and/or ribs 15). Regarding claim 6, wherein at least one seal (e.g. center one of 80 or center one of 86 or center one of 76 or center one of 78) positioned to seal between the outer seal portion and the inner seal portion. Regarding claim 7, wherein the at least one seal is a plunger sealing surface, an intra-seal seal or a tab seal (e.g. other of 15).
Benzie discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the at least one outer ridge is axially positioned on the seal nearer to the first end than the second end. Benzie teaches to the at least one outer ridge (e.g. 1st 46 at farthest right of figure 3 which is near a 1st end than a 2nd end which is near numeral 55) is axially positioned on the seal near a first end than a second end. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the ridges of figure 1 in Benzie to be located asymmetrically to the ends as taught by Benzie in figure 3, with reasonable expectation of success since having ridges symmetrical to the ends or asymmetrical to the ends is considered to be art equivalent and to provide proper sealing when elements are distorted (see description of figure 3 in Benzie).
Benzie discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose that a seal cap alternatively engageable with the first end or the second end of the seal portion depending on the orientation of the seal between the annular surfaces. Melton discloses a seal assembly have a seal having a first and second ends (e.g. axial ends of 10), the seal assembly having a seal cap (e.g. 42) alternatively engageable with the first end or the second end of the seal portion depending on the orientation of the seal between annular surfaces (e.g. annular surfaces that are capable of being sealed by the seal assembly of Melton). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the metal-to-metal seal of Benzie to have a seal cap as taught by Melton with reasonable expectation of success to carry the metal-to-metal seal when placing in an annular member (e.g. the seal 10 being welded on to 42 will make the seal be inserted easily, see Melton).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassity and Melton and further in view of Zheng (US. 20030155721A1).
Cassity discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the seal is made via an additive manufacturing process and the at least one ridge comprises a different material of construction than the central portion of the metal-to-metal seal. Zheng discloses a seal with central portion (e.g. 804), plurality of seal profiles (e.g. 810) and the seal profiles having a layer of softer material (e.g. paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ribs of Cassity to have softer material added as taught by Zheng with reasonable expectation of success, since having softer material will provide easy of deformation, prevent members (e.g. inner and outer pipes and plunger) to be seal from damage (e.g. inherent since the ribs having a soft material) and provide better seal when the members having irregular geometry or less than desirable surface finish (see Zheng paragraph 0025).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzie and Melton and further in view of Zheng (US. 20030155721A1).
Benzie discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the seal is made via an additive manufacturing process and the at least one ridge comprises a different material of construction than the central portion of the metal-to-metal seal. Zheng discloses a seal with central portion (e.g. 804), plurality of seal profiles (e.g. 810) and the seal profiles having a layer of softer material (e.g. paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ribs of Benzie to have softer material added as taught by Zheng with reasonable expectation of success, since having softer material will provide easy of deformation, prevent members (e.g. inner and outer pipes and plunger) to be seal from damage (e.g. inherent since the ribs having a soft material) and provide better seal when the members having irregular geometry or less than desirable surface finish (see Zheng paragraph 0025).
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassity in view of Mokrzycki (US. 6386550B1).
Cassity discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose that a seal cap alternatively engageable with the first end or the second end of the seal portion depending on the orientation of the seal between the annular surfaces. Mokrzycki discloses a seal assembly have a seal having a first and second ends (e.g. axial ends of 34), the seal assembly having a seal cap (e.g. 64) alternatively engageable with the first end or the second end of the seal portion depending on the orientation of the seal between annular surfaces (e.g. annular surfaces that are capable of being sealed by the seal assembly of Mokrzycki). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the metal-to-metal seal of Cassity to have a seal cap as taught by Mokrzycki with reasonable expectation of success to close off an end of the seal (e.g. see description of 62 in Mokrzycki).
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzie in view of Mokrzycki (US. 6386550B1).
Benzie discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose that a seal cap alternatively engageable with the first end or the second end of the seal portion depending on the orientation of the seal between the annular surfaces. Mokrzycki discloses a seal assembly have a seal having a first and second ends (e.g. axial ends of 34), the seal assembly having a seal cap (e.g. 64) alternatively engageable with the first end or the second end of the seal portion depending on the orientation of the seal between annular surfaces (e.g. annular surfaces that are capable of being sealed by the seal assembly of Mokrzycki). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the metal-to-metal seal of Benzie to have a seal cap as taught by Mokrzycki with reasonable expectation of success to close off an end of the seal (e.g. see description of 62 in Mokrzycki).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cassity and Mokrzycki and further in view of Zheng (US. 20030155721A1).
Cassity discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the seal is made via an additive manufacturing process and the at least one ridge comprises a different material of construction than the central portion of the metal-to-metal seal. Zheng discloses a seal with central portion (e.g. 804), plurality of seal profiles (e.g. 810) and the seal profiles having a layer of softer material (e.g. paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ribs of Cassity to have softer material added as taught by Zheng with reasonable expectation of success, since having softer material will provide easy of deformation, prevent members (e.g. inner and outer pipes and plunger) to be seal from damage (e.g. inherent since the ribs having a soft material) and provide better seal when the members having irregular geometry or less than desirable surface finish (see Zheng paragraph 0025).
Claim(s) 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benzie and Mokrzycki and further in view of Zheng (US. 20030155721A1).
Benzie discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the seal is made via an additive manufacturing process and the at least one ridge comprises a different material of construction than the central portion of the metal-to-metal seal. Zheng discloses a seal with central portion (e.g. 804), plurality of seal profiles (e.g. 810) and the seal profiles having a layer of softer material (e.g. paragraph 0040). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the ribs of Benzie to have softer material added as taught by Zheng with reasonable expectation of success, since having softer material will provide easy of deformation, prevent members (e.g. inner and outer pipes and plunger) to be seal from damage (e.g. inherent since the ribs having a soft material) and provide better seal when the members having irregular geometry or less than desirable surface finish (see Zheng paragraph 0025).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant should review documents on 892 which also teach seal cap on end of a seal (US7059608 see 10, US5052695 see 18, US8112887 see 50, US4218813 see 22, US3665816 see 12, US 8474828 see 6 and US8328200 see 10).
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 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 on 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