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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 17-21 are pending and presented for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3 and 5-7 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.
Applicant’s newly added claims 17-21 are allowable except for the presence of claim objections to newly presented claims 20 and 21 (see below).
Claim Objections
1. Claims 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: “hydrocarbon lubricant” should be changed to “hydrocarbon” to be consistent with claim 17 OR alternatively, “hydrocarbon” in claim 17 should be changed to “hydrocarbon lubricant”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
2. Claim(s) 1 and 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdemir et al. (U.S. PGPUB No. 2019/0314803) in view of Heidecker et al. (CN 104662300, of which reference is made to the provided English translation).
Regarding claims 1 and 5-7, Erdemir teaches a process for forming a low friction wear surface (abstract): comprising providing a seal having a bulk material and catalytically active additive (0030) and a reciprocating component to slidably reciprocate thereon (0030 and Figure 1); exposing the seal and reciprocating component to a PAO hydrocarbon lubricant (0033), which is a Group IV base oil; and forming a carbon tribolayer coating on one or both of the seal and reciprocating component by breaking down the hydrocarbon lubricant through catalytic interaction with the catalytically active additive in the seal (0033 and 0043). Erdemir fails to teach the additive selected from the group as claimed and the bulk material being selected from the group as claimed
However, Heidecker teaches forming a sealing material potentially from a combination of PTFE (0059) and tungsten trioxide (0059). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Erdemir’s process by substituting PTFE and tungsten trioxide for the bulk material and additive in Erdemir’s seal. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Heidecker teaches that the PTFE and tungsten trioxide can provide reinforcement and strengthening to the seal (0059).
3. Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Erdemir in view of Heidecker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ye et al. (CN 103435947, of which reference is made to the previously provided English translation).
Regarding claim 3, Erdemir in view of Heidecker teach all the limitations of claim 1, but fail to teach the particle size of the additive particles. However, Ye teaches forming a sealing material from PTFE and including 30 micron sized particles as an additive (abstract and 0036). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Erdemir in view of Heidecker’s process by substituting 30 micron sized particles for the unspecified particle size of the additive in Erdemir in view of Heidecker’s process. One would have been motivated to make this modification as Ye teaches that a seal composition incorporating additive particles of this size provides wear resistance and low-creep deformation to provide long service life for the seal (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 17-19 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the process of claim 17. In particular, the prior art fails to teach or suggest the process wherein vanadium pentoxide is the additive in a seal and forming a carbon tribolayer coating on the seal and/or the reciprocating component.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3, 5-7 and 17-21 are pending.
Claims 1, 3 and 5-7 are rejected.
Claims 20 and 21 are objected to.
Claims 17-19 are allowed.
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 ROBERT S WALTERS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-5351. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ROBERT S WALTERS JR/
January 13, 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1717