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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/2/26 has been entered.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without knowing how the dimensions are acquired/applied during the formation of the gasket; how the dimension is adjusted during the formation of the gasket; and what “a change in the sealing surface” is, which is/are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). Applicant argues that the Jiang reference does not disclose adjusting the dimension of the elastomer gasket to compensate for changes in the sealing surface. For instance, if the gasket is being formed from the printing, then how is there a change in the sealing surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Jiang et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0030794).
Regarding claim 1, the Jiang et al. (hereinafter Jiang) reference discloses a method of creating a gasket (Para. [0012], [0130], [0134], [0213], claim 55), comprising: obtaining a part (e.g. “substrate”, Para. [0030]) used for substrate processing (e.g. Para. [0030]), the part having a sealing surface for interfacing with an elastomer gasket (e.g. Para. [0030]);
forming the elastomer gasket layer-by-layer on the sealing surface (Para. [0021]), wherein the elastomer gasket is affixed to the sealing surface during the forming (Para. [0021]); and
automatically adjusting dimensions of the elastomer gasket during formation of the elastomer gasket to compensate for changes in the sealing surface (e.g. even if the dimensions of the gasket are programmed in, the printer will automatically adjust the print head to print the desired dimension).
Regarding claim 4, the Jiang reference discloses the sealing surface is a gasket groove or a planar surface (Para. [0135]).
Regarding claim 5, the Jiang reference discloses the gasket groove has a bottom width and an opening width of approximately similar dimensions or a bottom width of greater dimensions than an opening width (e.g. Para. [0135]).
Regarding claim 6, the Jiang reference discloses forming the elastomer gasket with a cross-section profile of a star, a circle, a rectangle, a circle, a polygon, or a triangle (Para. [0131]).
Regarding claim 7, the Jiang reference discloses forming the elastomer gasket using multiple types of gasket materials (e.g. Para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 8, the Jiang reference discloses the multiple types of gasket materials have different Shore hardness scale values (e.g. Para. [0010]).
Regarding claim 10, the Jiang reference discloses heating the elastomer gasket after formation of the elastomer gasket is completed (Para. [0107]).
Regarding clam 11, the Jiang reference discloses forming the elastomer gasket using a thermoplastic polyurethane material, a thermoplastic elastomer material, or a thermoplastic copolyester material (e.g. Para. [0102]).
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) 2, 3, and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Bruck et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0275687).
Regarding claims 2, 15, and 16, the Jiang reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1.
However, the Jiang reference fails to disclose cleaning the part prior to forming the elastomer gasket on the sealing surface; and adjusting a dimension of the elastomer gasket to compensate for changes to the sealing surface caused by cleaning the part.
The Bruck et al. (hereinafter Bruck) reference, a seal manufactured by additive manufacturing, discloses cleaning then filling the part with the sealing material (Para. [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to clean and fill the part with the sealing material in the Jiang reference in view of the teachings of the Bruck reference in order to ensure a proper seal.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the Jiang reference, as modified in claim 2, discloses adjusting the dimension of the elastomer gasket prior to forming of the elastomer gasket based on a number of cleaning cycles undergone by the part (Bruck, Para. [0040]).
Regarding claim 18, the Jiang reference, as modified in claim 16, discloses forming the elastomer gasket using multiple types of gasket materials (Jiang, Para. [0010]); or adjusting at least one cross-sectional dimension over a length of the elastomer gasket to compensate for dimensional changes of the gasket groove.
Claim(s) 9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Cheng et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0154910).
Regarding claim 9, the Jiang reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1.
However, the Jiang reference fails to explicitly disclose forming a core of the elastomer gasket of a metallic material and outer portions of the elastomer gasket of a non-metallic material.
The Cheng et al. (hereinafter Cheng) reference, a teaching for additive manufacturing, discloses forming a core of the elastomer gasket of a metallic material and outer portions of the elastomer gasket of a non-metallic material (e.g. Para. [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to form a core of the gasket with metallic material and outer portions of elastomer in the Jiang reference in view of the teachings of the Cheng reference in order to provide a stronger seal.
Regarding claim 13, the Jiang reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1.
However, the Jiang reference fails to explicitly disclose forming the elastomer gasket using two or more gasket materials deposited using a contact printer with two or more printing nozzles for simultaneous deposition of the two or more gasket materials.
The Cheng reference, a teaching for additive manufacturing, discloses forming the elastomer gasket using two or more gasket materials deposited using a contact printer with two or more printing nozzles for simultaneous deposition of the two or more gasket materials (Paras. [0002], [0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide two nozzles in the Jiang reference in view of the teachings of the Cheng reference in order to expedite the manufacturing process while reducing waste.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Page (US Pub. No. 2015/0367576)
Regarding claim 12, the Jiang reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1.
However, the Jiang reference fails to explicitly disclose forming the elastomer gasket using a contact printer with an angled printing nozzle of less than 90 degrees, wherein the angled printing nozzle dispenses an elastomer gasket material directly on to the sealing surface of the part.
The Page reference, a teaching for additive manufacturing, discloses forming the elastomer gasket using a contact printer with an angled printing nozzle of less than 90 degrees (Figs. 3a-3f,5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use a nozzle angled at less than 90 degrees in the Jiang reference in view of the teachings of the Page reference in order to help the nozzle reach into tight spaces (Page, Para. [0085]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jiang in view of Marin (WO2017/090069)
Regarding claim 14, the Jiang reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1, including using a contact printer (Para. [0018]).
However, the Jiang reference fails to explicitly disclose tilting a base of the contact printer during formation of the elastomer gasket to form the elastomer gasket in a recessed area of a gasket groove in the part.
The Marin reference, a teaching for additive manufacturing, discloses allowing the base of the printer to tilt (Page 2, Lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to allow the base of the Jiang reference to tilt in view of the teachings of the Marin reference in order to allow for cleaner overhang printing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the applicant’s argument of the rejection of claim 1, the argument is not persuasive. Although the claims are read in light of the specification, the specification is not read into the claims. The “substrate” mentioned in Para. [0030] of the Jiang reference can be interpreted as the claimed “a part used for substrate processing” and the claimed “sealing surface” can be interpreted as the surface of the substrate on which the material is added. The Jiang reference clearly disclose forming the gasket layer-by-layer in multiple instances throughout the publication.
Applicant further argues that the Jiang reference fails to disclose automatically adjusting dimensions of the elastomer gasket during formation of the elastomer gasket to compensate for changes in the sealing surface. The Examiner previously argued that even if the dimensions of the gasket are programmed in, the printer will automatically adjust the print head to print he desired dimension. This argument is maintained because the claim language does not require anything but a change in dimension and adding layers is being interpreted as “changing the dimension”. The claims do not recite a scanning/measuring of the seal and then adjusting the previously entered parameters to adjust the print to match the newly scanned/measured dimensions.
Applicant further argues that the gasket of the Jiang reference is not affixed to the sealing surface during the forming. This argument is not persuasive because if the gasket is not affixing to the “substrate” of the Jiang reference, then the print will fail.
With regards to the applicant’s argument of the Bruck reference, the argument is not persuasive because the Bruck reference is a teaching for the method of additive manufacturing, the material of the Bruck reference is not being used in the rejection. Furthermore, Para. [0040] of the Bruck reference discloses the preparation of the substrate, including cleaning. It is well known to one of ordinary skill in the art that “cleaning” a damaged surface is to clear debris and would therefore change the dimension of the gasket.
With regards to the applicant’s argument of the rejection of claims 3 and 17, the argument is not persuasive because it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the final dimension needed to form the gasket would be acquired and entered to the printer prior to the printing. Therefore the final dimension would be taken after the final cleaning cycle.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERT Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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.
/GILBERT Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675