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
Applicants’ arguments filed 5/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that Sweeny gasket assembly can be used in a different environment which are substantially elastic basis.
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 and 5-8 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 and 8, “Grade D Semi-Bright silver”, unclear what this means? As stated in the specification the limitation is derived from standard (ASTM B700) which can change over time.
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 and 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney et al (US. 20030000694A1) in view Glassman et al (US. 20150176744A1) and further in view of Ohsono et al (US.20080075223A1) and further in view of Donaldson (US20040108215).
Sweeney discloses a gasket apparatus that operates on a substantially elastic deformation basis (e.g. again applicant has not provided any structure to provide only or substantially elastic deformation and the gasket of Sweeney is capable of this) comprising a substantially annular metallic element having an outwardly projecting rib (e.g. 93), wherein the annular metallic has an inner concave profile (e.g. concave profile having 91a, 91b and 91c) and wherein the outer face of the annular element comprises outer surface either side of the rib are angled relative to the central axis of the annular metallic element, to present sealing surfaces for engagement with tubular, wellhead or connector seat member surfaces (the gasket apparatus of Sweeney is capable the intended use, see MPEP 2113-2114). Wherein the sealing surfaces are inclined at 22 degrees to 23 degrees to the annular metallic element central axis (e.g. angle 51 by way of example in figure 4). The gasket apparatus having a surface finish on the angle outer sealing surfaces with a roughness value (e.g. inherent that all surfaces having a surface finish and roughness value). It is noted that Sweeney teaches a coating (e.g. 55) on the outer face of the annular metallic gasket (paragraph 0006). Paragraph 0018 states that the coating provides a very smooth surface finish, which inherently states that the surface under the coating has the roughness. Regarding claim 5: Wherein a wall of the annular element has a substantially scalloped profile in cross-section (e.g. see 83), with a concave profile or multi angled flats for the inner face and a convex outer face or flat outer face from which the rib projects (e.g. see 83). Regarding claim 7: Wherein the gasket apparatus is used for sealing connected oil and gas tubulars, wellheads or connectors (e.g. see entire document of Sweeney and the gasket apparatus is capable of being used as intended in claim 7, see MPEP 2113-2114 with regard to intended use).
Sweeney discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the coating being silver with thickness of 10 to 20 microns. Glassman discloses a gasket with outer inclined or arcuate outer sealing surfaces have a silver coating with a thickness of 10 to 20 and/or 13 to 17 micrometers (e.g. paragraph 0039 states coating can be silver and may be of any thickness, hence the range of 10-20 and/or 13 to 17 micrometers is provided). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute one low-yielding metal of Sweeney by another low-yielding metal as taught by Glassman with reasonable expectation of success to provide reduce coefficient of friction and seal or fill scratches, defects or cuts of elements being sealed (e.g. see paragraph 0039 of Glassman).
Sweeney discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the roughness value of Ra 0.6. Ohsono teaches to have a metal gasket (figures) and the metal gasket having sealing surfaces with roughness of Ra 0.6 micro meter (e.g. paragraph 0082). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine configure the incline or arcuate surfaces of Sweeney to have surface roughness as taught by Ohsono with reasonable expectation of success to provide superior sealing against leakage (e.g. see paragraph 0082 of Ohsono).
Regarding claims 8: The combination of Sweeney, Glassman and Ohsono teach the method of claim 8 (see rejection of claims 1, 3 and 5-7 above).
Sweeney discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the silver coating is Grade D semi-Bright silver. Donaldson discloses a member with a silver coating that is Grade D semi-Bright (paragraph 0057, ASTM B700). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the silver of Sweeney to be Grade D semi-Bright as taught by Donaldson, with reasonable expectation of success to apply the seal or system in military application (e.g. paragraph 0057).
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights