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
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument that the limitation added to claim 1 are not taught by Sweeney, Glassman and Ohsono are not persuasive since Sweeny in short teaches a gasket apparatus with structure of claim 1, Glassman teaches to have a coating on a gasket apparatus and finally Ohsono teaches to have roughness on surface.
The affidavit filed under 37 CFR 1.132 filed is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims based upon the rejection as set forth in this Office action because: Applicants affidavit is based on the elastic deformation which is not claim the limitation is claimed broadly as substantially elastic deformation basis and furthermore claims are directed to just a gasket apparatus and one skilled in the art can choose to have the gasket apparatus to be elastic or plastic deformation basis. It is furthermore that no structure is provided that would only have the gasket substantially elastic deform since claims are directed to just a gasket and no other limiting structure such as where and how it is used. This also applies to claim 8 which states that operates on a substantially elastic deformation basis.
The gasket apparatus of Sweeny, Glassman and Ohsono is capable of being used in a substantially elastic basis, when used in environment with minimum pressure environment or minimum bolt pressure environment between flanges.
It is noted that Sweeny gasket assembly can be used in a different environment which substantially elastic basis.
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).
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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record provides that US 11158522, teaches to have 25-35 degrees for 1685, figure 16B, US 7819439 teaches to have 23 degree angle, column 1, line 35; column 6, line 28, US20070013146, paragraph 0018, teaches angle of 30 to 50 degrees, US20030000694, paragraph 0003 states that the seat surface is slight different than the taper angle of the sealing surface which is 22 to 45 degrees, US20080075223 teaches to have roughness of 0.6 to 20 micrometer, US6070912 teaches to have surface roughness of 32 micrometer or better, column 9, line 58, US 9985418 teaches roughness in abstract and US6502833 gasket having roughness of 0.2 Ra, see abstract.
It is noted that no claims are allowable in view of rejection above and prior art provided on forms 892.
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 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