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 .
The amendments filed 2/17/26 and 4/20/26 have 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.
Claims 1-20 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 claiming how the surface roughness of the 3D surface pattern is greater than the surface roughness of the sealing surface, 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). Although the current specification discloses that “the surface roughness of the 3D surface patter 304 is greater than the surface roughness of the sealing surface 306”, the disclosure does not specify how the roughness is greater (i.e. is it material, a process, etc.).
Claims 1-20 are 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. Amended independent claims recite “including a plurality of raised elements extending from the sealing surface”. The only “sealing surface” in the claims is on the “body”. The current disclosure only has support for the “raised elements” being a part of the 3D surface pattern on the first layer (Para. [0028]). Claims 7, 8, 15, 19, and 20 also recite “the plurality of raised elements.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 recite “wherein the first layer includes a 3D surface pattern including a plurality of raised elements extending from the sealing surface”. It is unclear to the examiner as to how the raised elements are extending from the sealing surface if the raised elements are part of the 3D surface pattern of the first layer.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 also recite “wherein the surface roughness of the 3D surface pattern is greater than the surface roughness of the sealing surface”. It is unclear as to what is being claimed and how the roughness of the two separate components are correlated.
Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
For the purposes of this examination, the amendments are unclear and a prior art search has not been done. As best understood, the prior art rejection is maintained.
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) 1-6 and 16-18, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Karmarkar et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0156475).
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]).
Regarding claim 2, the Karmarkar reference discloses the first layer and the second layer are deposited by 3D printing (Para. [0045]).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, the Karmarkar reference 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 4, the Karmarkar reference discloses the 3D surface pattern has a configuration based on elastomeric properties of the seal material (e.g. Para. [0045]).
Regarding claim 5, the Karmarkar reference discloses depositing the second layer includes extruding the seal material onto the first layer (e.g. Para. [0045]).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, the Karmarkar reference discloses depositing one or more additional layers of the seal material or a different seal material onto the second layer (Claim 5).
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) 7, 8, 19, and 20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karmarkar.
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 Karmakar reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claims 1 and 16.
However, the 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, as best understood, 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.
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 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; and
depositing a second layer onto the first layer, wherein the second layer includes a seal material.
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.
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights