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 filed 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Johnston reference does not disclose the dimensions of LH, LFL, LSL as modified in the rejection, as Johnston has a rigid thick holding portion in contrast to relatively thin and flexible leg. Johnston’s heel and first lip with their relative thicknesses are similar to the applicant’s invention.
Examiner notes that Johnston discloses the dimensions of LH, LFL, LSL as modified in the rejection, as the heel of Johnston is flexible due to its material and shape of the heel and the sealing lip can be compresses under given conditions.
Applicant argues that Johnston reference does not disclose the planar portion as sealing bush 7 has an angle d of 5 degrees.
Examiner notes that Johnston's sealing bush 7 is planar, as it has a flat or level surface. Johnston Col 2 Lines 21 - 24 also discloses that sealing bush 7 is substantially parallel with the shaft.
Applicant argues that Johnston reference does not disclose the axial length of the outer peripheral wall 2.
Examiner notes that it is clear from the figure of Johnston that the general conditions of the claim are met, as the length of the first lip (2), LFL is greater than that of the second lip (7 and 5 ), LSL.
Applicant argues that Johnston reference cannot be combined with Kalsi reference, as changing the thickness of the second lip of Johnston as in Kalsi would not achieve the desired capabilities of withstanding broader pressure and temperature conditions as the seal assembly of the invention.
Examiner notes that the combination of Johnston and Kalsi provides a seal lip with thickness that is engineered to provide a dynamic seal to shaft interface controlling the hydrodynamic film thickness.
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.
Claim 1 is 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. How is the portion of the heel 116 above the first lip 112 in the drawings of the application?
Claims 6 – 11, 15, 19 and 21 – 23 are rejected as they depend on Claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the moving shaft" in Line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the entirety" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the cavity" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 Johnston (U.S. Patent # 4519616) in view of Kalsi et al. (U.S. Patent # 5678829).
Regarding Claim 1, Johnston discloses a 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 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).
Johnston 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 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.
Johnston does not disclose wherein the heel deforms to form an angle β of at least 3° and no greater than 45° with a portion of the heel above the first lip that is perpendicular to the central axis 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.
Johnston discloses wherein the heel deforms to form an angle β of at least 3° and no greater than 45° with a portion of the heel above the first lip that is perpendicular to the central axis when fit within a seal assembly (portion of heel 3 above the bottom portion of the first lip 2 when fit within a seal assembly).
Johnston does not disclose wherein the second lip has a non-uniform axial width, Wsl along its circumference.
However, Kalsi teaches wherein the second lip has a non-uniform axial width, Wsl along its circumference (256, fig 4A has a non-uniform axial width).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of the second lip of Johnston with that of Kalsi with a reasonable expectation of success so that the thickness is engineered to provide the dynamic seal to shaft interface controlling the hydrodynamic film thickness (Kalsi Col 10, Lines 35 - 41).
PNG
media_image1.png
494
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Johnston discloses a seal assembly comprising: a first member (housing around shaft 4); a second member (shaft 4); and a seal disposed between the first member and the second member (1 between housing and 4), the seal comprising: an annular jacket comprising a body comprising a heel ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 above), a first lip ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 above), and a 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 is adapted to deform down the central axis to form an angle, β, with a line perpendicular to the central axis (heel capable of deformation to form an angle).
Johnston does not disclose wherein β is greater than 3°, 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.
Johnston does not disclose wherein the second lip has a non-uniform axial width, Wsl, along its circumference.
However, Kalsi teaches wherein the second lip has a non-uniform axial width, Wsl, along its circumference (256, fig 4A has a non-uniform axial width).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of the second lip of Johnston with that of Kalsi with a reasonable expectation of success so that the thickness is engineered to provide the dynamic seal to shaft interface controlling the hydrodynamic film thickness (Kalsi Col 10, Lines 35 - 41).
Regarding Claim 3, Johnston discloses a seal assembly comprising: a first member (housing around shaft 4); a second member (shaft 4); and a seal disposed between the first member and the second member (1 between housing and 4), 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 a contact force of the second lip against the moving shaft measured after completion of Test 1 is in a range between about 1 and about 25 N/mm (second lip capable of the limitation), and wherein a wear length on the second lip measured after completion of Test 1 is bigger than about 0.1 mm and smaller than about 2.5 mm (second lip capable of the limitation).
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.
Johnston 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.
Johnston does not disclose wherein the second lip has a non-uniform axial width, Wsl, along its circumference.
However, Kalsi teaches wherein the second lip has a non-uniform axial width, Wsl, along its circumference (256, fig 4A has a non-uniform axial width).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thickness of the second lip of Johnston with that of Kalsi with a reasonable expectation of success so that the thickness is engineered to provide the dynamic seal to shaft interface controlling the hydrodynamic film thickness (Kalsi Col 10, Lines 35 - 41).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal assembly, wherein the second lip is a dynamic lip (second lip is dynamic against shaft 4).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal, wherein the first lip has an axial width, WFL (axial width of first lip).
Johnston 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, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal, wherein axial width, WSL (axial width of second lip).
Johnston 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 8, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal, wherein the heel has an axial length, LH (axial length of heel).
Johnston does not disclose wherein the heel has an axial length, LH, between 0.1 and 300 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 length of the heel 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 9, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal, wherein the first lip has an axial length, LFL, between 0.1 and 300 mm.
Johnston does not disclose wherein the first lip has an axial length, LFL (axial length of first lip).
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 length 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 10, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal, wherein the second lip has an axial length, LSL.
Johnston does not disclose wherein the second lip has an axial length, LSL, between 0.1 and 300 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 length 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, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal, wherein the entirety of the second lip is rectilinear (second lip is entirely rectilinear).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal assembly, wherein the first lip has a contact area, CAFL (contact area of first lip).
Johnston 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, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal assembly, wherein the second lip has a contact area, CASL (contact area of second lip).
Johnston 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, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal assembly, wherein the seal provides an outward biasing contact force ( outward biasing force provided by seal 1).
Johnston 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, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal, wherein the cavity has a radius of curvature, RCC (radius of curvature of cavity).
Johnston 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, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal assembly, wherein the second lip is deformed to include an arcuate outer surface (second lip capable of deformation with arcuate surface at 8).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal assembly, wherein the first lip is located exterior to the second lip ( as seen in examiner annotated Johnston fig 1 above).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal, wherein the seal does not include an energizer (seal 1 does not have an energizer).
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the 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 Johnston fig below).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the 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 Johnston fig 1 above).
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Johnston and Kalsi discloses the seal, wherein a radial width of the jacket (Wj) is equivalent to a width of the seal (Ws) (Johnston width of the jacket is equivalent to that of the seal).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 from Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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).
/L. SUSMITHA KONERU/Examiner, Art Unit 3675