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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 5 – 7, 11 – 16, 18, 19, and 21 – 27 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5 – 16, 18, 19 and 21 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manaka (U.S. PG Pub # 20210018099) alone.
Regarding Claim 1, Manaka discloses a self-energizing seal (fig 1) comprising: an annular jacket comprising a body comprising a heel ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below), a first lip ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below), and a second lip ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) defining an annular recess ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) oriented down a central axis ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below), wherein the heel includes an exterior surface portion facing opposite the first lip and the second lip ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below),
wherein the first lip is substantially parallel to the central axis ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below), wherein the second lip comprises an angled portion adjacent to the heel ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) and a planar portion adjacent to the angled portion ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below),
wherein the second lip has a non-uniform axial width, Wsl along its circumference (second lip has a non-uniform axial width as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below).
Manaka does not disclose wherein the angled portion forms an angle, α, with a line perpendicular to the central axis, wherein α is between 30 and 90°, wherein the heel has an axial length, LH, the first lip has an axial length, LFL, and the second lip has an axial length LSL and wherein each of LFL and LSL is greater than LH
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle, the axial length of the heel, the first lip and the second lip dimension limitations disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide flexibility to the sealing lip under compression. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Manaka does not disclose wherein the second lip and the heel are deformable such that the heel forms an angle β of at least 3° and no greater than 45° relative to the exterior surface portion of the heel when fit within a seal assembly.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle limitation disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide flexibility to the sealing lip under compression. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
855
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 3, Manaka discloses a seal assembly comprising: a first member (housing 51 around shaft 53, fig 3 same as fig 1); a second member (shaft 53) operatively coupled to the first member (housing 51); and a self-energizing seal disposed between the first member and the second member (1 between housing and shaft), the seal comprising: an annular jacket comprising a body comprising a heel ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 above), a static first lip ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 above), and a dynamic second lip ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 above) defining an annular recess oriented down a central axis ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 above), wherein the first lip is substantially parallel to the central axis ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 above), wherein the heel includes an exterior surface portion facing opposite the first lip and the second lip ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 above),
wherein the second lip and the heel are deformable such that the heel forms an angle β ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 above), relative to the exterior surface portion of the heel responsive to the second lip and the heel directly engaging the second member ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 above),
wherein the heel has an axial length, LH, the first lip has an axial length, LFL, and the second lip has an axial length LSL, wherein each of LFL and LSL is greater than LH ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 above),
wherein the second lip has a non-uniform axial width, Wsl along its circumference (second lip has a non-uniform axial width as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below).
Manaka does not disclose wherein the heel has an axial length, LH, the first lip has an axial length, LFL, and the second lip has an axial length LSL and wherein LSL < LFL and LH ≤ 3 LFL.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle, the axial length of the heel, the first lip and the second lip dimension limitations disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide flexibility to the sealing lip under compression. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 5, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal assembly, wherein the second lip is a dynamic lip (second lip is dynamic against shaft).
Regarding Claim 6, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein the first lip has an axial width, WFL (axial width of first lip).
Manaka does not disclose wherein the first lip has an axial width, WFL (axial width of first lip) between 0.1 and 30 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the axial width of the first lip dimension limitations disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide flexibility to the sealing lip under compression. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 7, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein axial width, WSL (axial width of second lip).
Manaka does not disclose wherein the axial width, WSL, is between 0.1 and 30 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the axial width of the second lip dimension limitations disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide flexibility to the sealing lip under compression. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 11, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein the entirety of the second lip is rectilinear (second lip is entirely rectilinear).
Regarding Claim 12, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein the first lip has a contact area, CAFL (contact area of first lip).
Manaka does not disclose wherein the first lip has a contact area, CAFL, between 0.01 and 3000 mm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the contact area of the first lip dimension limitations disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide required force by the first sealing lip against the housing. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 13, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein the second lip has a contact area, CASL (contact area of second lip).
Manaka does not disclose wherein the second lip has a contact area, CASL, between 0.01 and 3000 mm2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the contact area of the second lip dimension limitations disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide required force by the first sealing lip against the shaft. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 14, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein the seal provides an outward biasing contact force (outward biasing force provided by seal 1).
Manaka does not disclose wherein the seal provides an outward biasing contact force, FS, between 1 and 25 N/mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the contact force of the seal dimension limitations disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide required force by the first sealing lip against the shaft and the housing under compression. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 15, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, further comprising a cavity that is formed from the annular recess and has a radius of curvature, RCC (radius of curvature of cavity).
Manaka does not disclose wherein the cavity has a radius of curvature, RCC, of -200 and 200 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the radius of curvature of the recess dimension limitations disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide flexibility of the seal under compression. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 16, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein the second lip is deformable to include an arcuate outer surface when fit within the seal assembly (second lip capable of deformation with arcuate surface at 8).
Regarding Claim 18, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein the first lip is located exterior to the second lip ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above).
Regarding Claim 19, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein the seal does not include an energizer (seal 1 does not have an energizer).
Regarding Claim 21, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein the second lip may include a generally rectilinear inner surface portion that is inclined or angled with the line perpendicular to the central axis in a non-deformed state (angled portion of second lip has a rectilinear inner surface portion as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig below).
Regarding Claim 22, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein the first lip comprises an exterior portion having a radius of curvature. Rfe formed on an end portion of the first lip ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above).
Regarding Claim 23, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein a radial width of the jacket (Wj) is equivalent to a width of the seal (Ws) (Manaka width of the jacket is equivalent to that of the seal).
Regarding Claim 24, Manaka discloses a self-energizing seal (fig 1) comprising: an annular jacket comprising a body comprising a heel ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above), a first lip ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above), and a second lip ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above) defining an annular recess oriented down a central axis ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above), wherein the heel includes an exterior surface portion facing opposite the first lip and the second lip ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above), wherein the first lip is substantially parallel to the central axis ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above), wherein the second lip comprises an angled portion ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above) adjacent to the heel ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above) and a planar portion ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above) adjacent to the angled portion ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above),
wherein the second lip and the heel are deformable such that the heel forms an angle, β ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above), relative to the exterior surface portion of the heel when fit within a seal assembly ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above), and wherein the second lip has a non-uniform axial width, WSL, along its circumference ( as seen in examiner annotated Manaka fig 1 above).
Manaka does not disclose wherein the angled portion forms an angle, α, with a line perpendicular to the central axis, wherein α is between 30 and 90°, wherein the heel has an axial length, LH, the first lip has an axial length, LFL, and the second lip has an axial length LSL and wherein each of LFL and LSL is greater than LH
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the angle, the axial length of the heel, the first lip and the second lip dimension limitations disclosed by Applicant, 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, to provide flexibility to the sealing lip under compression. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 25, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein the first lip has an axial width, WFL, and wherein the axial width, WSL, is greater than the axial width, WFL, at each point along the axial length, LSL, of the second lip (width of second lip is greater than that of first lip).
Regarding Claim 26, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein the first lip has an axial width, WFL, and wherein the axial width, WSL, is greater than the axial width, WFL, at each point along the axial length, LSL, of the second lip (width of second lip is greater than that of first lip).
Regarding Claim 27, Manaka discloses the self-energizing seal, wherein the first lip has an axial width, WFL, and wherein the axial width, WSL, is greater than the axial width, WFL, at each point along the axial length, LSL, of the second lip (width of second lip is greater than that of first lip).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to L. SUSMITHA KONERU whose telephone number is (571) 270-5333. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9 A.M. – 4 P.M.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.S.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights