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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 9/15/26 has been entered.
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) 1-8 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karmarkar et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0156475) in view of Crudu et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0072355).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the Karmarkar et al. (hereinafter Karmarkar) reference discloses a method of fabricating a component (102) having a seal (104), comprising:
depositing a first layer directly onto a sealing surface of a body (Para. [0007]), wherein the first layer includes a 3D surface pattern (Para. [0045]); and
depositing a second layer onto the first layer (Para. [0007]), wherein the second layer includes a seal material (Para. [0007]).
However, the Karmarkar reference fails to explicitly disclose the 3D surface pattern including a plurality of raised elements, wherein the 3D surface pattern increases available surface area for attaching the second layer.
The Crudu et al. (hereinafter Crudu) reference, a seal, discloses providing a plurality of raised elements (40,44) to a 3D-printed part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a plurality of raised elements to the Karmarkar reference in view of the teachings of the Crudu reference in order to all for better connection to the sealing material.
Regarding claim 2, the Karmarkar, as modified in claim 1, reference discloses the first layer and the second layer are deposited by 3D printing (Karmarkar, Para. [0045]).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the Karmarkar reference, as modified in claims 1 and 16, discloses the first layer is formed of metal, the seal material, or a different seal material (Karmarkar, e.g. all layers of the seal are made of the same material).
Regarding claim 4, the Karmarkar reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses the 3D surface pattern has a configuration based on elastomeric properties of the seal material (Karmarkar, e.g. Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 5, the Karmarkar reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses depositing the second layer includes extruding the seal material onto the first layer (Karmarkar, e.g. Para. [0045]).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the Karmarkar reference, as modified in claims 1 and 16, discloses depositing one or more additional layers of the seal material or a different seal material onto the second layer (Karmarkar, Claim 5).
Regarding claims 7 and 19, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use 3D surface patterns including cylinders cubes, triangles or pyramids, stars spheres, and zig-zag lines in order to ensure a strong shape.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, the modified Karmakar reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claims 1 and 16.
However, the modified Karmarkar reference fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of 3D elements having an aspect ratio of width to height less than 1:6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the claimed ratio, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and in order to ensure proper sealing pressure. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruck et al. (US Pub. No. 2015/0275687) in view of Karmarkar and Crudu.
Regarding claim 9, the Bruck reference discloses a method of refurbishing a component having a seal (Abstract), comprising:
providing a component including a body and a seal attached to the body (Fig. 1);
removing at least a portion of the seal from a sealing surface of the body to form an exposed portion of the sealing surface (Abstract).
However, the Bruck et al. (hereinafter Bruck) reference fails to explicitly disclose depositing a first layer directly onto the exposed portion of the sealing surface, wherein the first layer includes a 3D surface pattern including a plurality of raised elements; and
depositing a second layer onto the first layer, wherein the second layer includes a seal material,
wherein the 3D surface pattern increases available surface area for attaching the second layer.
The Karmarkar reference, a method of forming a seal, discloses depositing a first layer directly onto a sealing surface of a body (Para. [0007]), wherein the first layer includes a 3D surface pattern (Para. [0045]); and
depositing a second layer onto the first layer (Para. [0007]), wherein the second layer includes a seal material (Para. [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the claimed method of forming the seal in the Bruck reference in view of the teachings of the Karmarkar reference in order to provide an effective seal.
The Crudu et al. (hereinafter Crudu) reference, a seal, discloses providing a plurality of raised elements (40,44) to a 3D-printed part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a plurality of raised elements to the Karmarkar reference in view of the teachings of the Crudu reference in order to all for better connection to the sealing material.
Regarding claim 10, the Bruck reference, as modified in claim 9, discloses removing the seal includes at least one of mechanical or chemical stripping (Bruck, Para. [0040]).
Regarding claim 11, the Bruck reference, as modified in claim 9, discloses measuring the body after removing the seal and refurbishing the body before depositing the first layer. Note that measuring is required in order to input parameters of the 3D print.
Regarding claim 12, the Bruck reference, as modified in claim 9, discloses the first layer and the second layer are applied by 3D printing (Karmarkar, Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 13, the Bruck reference, as modified in claim 9, discloses the 3D surface pattern has a configuration based on elastomeric properties of the seal material (Karmarkar, Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 14, the Bruck reference, as modified in claim 9, discloses the first layer is formed of metal, the seal material, or a different seal material (e.g. all layers of the seal are made of the same material).
Regarding claim 15, the examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use 3D surface patterns including cylinders cubes, triangles or pyramids, stars spheres, and zig-zag lines in order to ensure a strong shape.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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
