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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 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.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The presence of claim limitations that are preceded by the phrases “wherein” often raises a question as to the limiting effect of the claim limitations (see MPEP §2111.04). The Examiner has interpreted the limitations following the phrase “wherein” as positively being claimed (i.e. the claim limitations are required and/or the claim limitations following the “wherein clause” limits the structure), where “wherein” is being used as a transitional phrase.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 recites “1and”, where there should be a space between “1” and “and”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 21 is 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. Claim 21 recites “the first bore and the second are separated by a window extending through the body between the first end and the second end”, which is unclear exactly what the applicant means “by a window”. There is no “window” recited in the specification, so it is unclear what applicant intends the boundaries of this limitation to be. Applicant on Page 3 of the Arguments has discussed claim 21, however, no specific location in the specification or clarification of the feature in the Figures for “a window” is discussed. On Page 12 applicant argues the difference between their “window” and the first and second bores of YANO. They argue that YANO’s bores are adjacent to one another, thereby YANO does not have this “window”, which the Examiner respectfully disagrees and has marked up Figure 1 specifically for claim 21. In addition, Applicant’s bores are also adjacent to one another, and thereby, the Examiner does not know exactly what the claim’s boundaries are intending. Claim 21 is considered new matter since there is no disclosed “window” in the specification. Please point directly to the specification for this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 and/or 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-4, 7, 10-12, 15-17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by YANO (U.S. Patent 10,138,889 B2) (Please see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO, for additional information with regards to the claimed elements), in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over YANO in view of DFM (What is Design for Manufacturing or DFM?, by East West Manufacturing, Published March 24, 2020).
Regarding claim 1, YANO discloses: a universal bracket (14) for use with a variety of sealing configurations for a rotating shaft fluid pump (the limitation directed to “for use with a variety of sealing configurations for a rotating shaft fluid pump” is considered as an intended use, where the only structure that is required to meet this limitation is that it has a bore (i.e. so that a seal is mounted), where (14) has seals (50, 60) mounted in it), comprising:
a body (see Figure 1, that shows a body (14)), the body being a singular component (see Figure 1), the body comprising:
a first end (the first end is at the end closest to (21)) that is configured to be operably disposed proximal to a coupled prime mover providing power (see Figure 1, Column 3, lines 4-12 that discloses that (28) is connected to a prime mover (i.e. a motor));
a second end (the second end is at the end that has (25a)) that is configured to be operably disposed distal from the coupled prime mover (see Figure 1);
a first bore (see Figure 1 that shows a first bore with bearing (23) in it) at the first end, the first bore configured to fixedly hold a bearing assembly in place during operation at the proximal end (see Figure 1, where the first bore holds bearing (23) in it. The Examiner would like to note that a bore is the only structural requirement, and that having a bearing in the bore is not required, since the bearing assembly is not positively recited in the claim); and
a second bore (see Figure 1, where the second bore holds seals (50) and/ or (60)) at the second end (see Figure 1), the second bore being coaxial with the first bore (see Figure 1), the second bore comprising a stuffing box that has an internal wall with a substantially uniform diameter (see Figure 1 that shows a stuffing box (50 or 60) that have a substantially uniform diameter), the wall of the stuffing box being configured to engage and hold a seal (see Figure 1, where the wall holds the seals (50 or 60)) , the wall of the stuffing box comprising one or more annular channels around the perimeter (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO),
wherein the stuffing box is configured to selectively and operably use the following sealing configurations:
a packing gland-packing material-bushing held configuration;
a component mechanical seal configuration;
a cartridge mechanical seal configuration;
a behind the rotor (BTR) mechanical seal configuration; and
a one-piece barrier seal comprising a monolithic gland-packing-bushing configuration (see Figure 1, that shows mechanical seal configuration. The Examiner would like to note that only one of these configurations is required to be met, since the interface for each of these configurations is the same, and therefore, if one is shown to be met, than the other types of seals are also met. Furthermore, only one of these sealing configurations are able to be used in the apparatus at one time, so the list of different options is considered as alternatives for the apparatus. The limitation is considered an intended use limitation (“configured to” and “operably use”), where the structure is discussed above to be met, as well as YANO discloses using a sealing configuration. The limitation directed to “selectively” is also met, since YANO discloses using a sealing configuration, and therefore, has selectively used the mechanical seal, thereby anticipating the claim. The Examiner would like to additional note that all of the sealing configurations are capable of being used in YANO, since YANO has a first bore and a second bore, thereby meeting the claimed limitations).
Alternatively, in the event that the claim requires that all of the seal configurations (a packing gland-packing material-bushing held configuration; a component mechanical seal configuration; a cartridge mechanical seal configuration; a behind the rotor (BTR) mechanical seal configuration; and a one-piece barrier seal comprising a monolithic gland-packing-bushing configuration) are usable, they would be obvious due to DFM.
Regarding claim 1, DFM teaches that designing for manufacturing includes minimizing part count, standardizing parts and materials, create modular assemblies (see Pages 8-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a universal bracket to accommodate any one of the sealing configurations of a packing gland-packing material-bushing held configuration; a component mechanical seal configuration; a cartridge mechanical seal configuration; a behind the rotor (BTR) mechanical seal configuration; and a one-piece barrier seal comprising a monolithic gland-packing-bushing configuration) in the universal bracket of YANO, since applying a known technique (i.e. creating a common casting to be used with multiple configurations), as taught by DFM, to a known device (i.e. the bracket of YANO) would have yielded predicable results. The results are predictable and provide the improvement of providing a common component that is utilized in multiple different applications (where the different applications would use different sealing configurations).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
647
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, YANO discloses: the bracket is configured to operably, fixedly engage with a pumping chamber at the distal end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO).
Regarding claim 3, YANO discloses: the wall of the stuffing box comprising a mechanical seal cutout configured to hold a mechanical seal (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO, that shows mechanical seals (50, 60) and that there is a cut-out for the mechanical seal).
Regarding claim 4, YANO discloses: a mechanical seal operably held in the stuffing box at the distal end by the mechanical seal cutout (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO that shows mechanical seal (60) at the distal end in a mechanical seal cutout).
Regarding claim 7, YANO discloses: a gasket disposed in one of the one or more annular channels (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the gasket operably directly engaged with a one-piece barrier seal to mitigate fluid migration (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO).
Regarding claim 10, YANO discloses: a bearing assembly disposed at the proximal end of the first bore (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the bearing assembly configured to operably support a rotating shaft of the fluid pump (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO).
Regarding claim 11, YANO discloses: an assembly comprising a pump chamber at a distal end with a pump rotor (16) (see Column 2, lines 55-60) engaged with a rotating shaft (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO, Column 2, line 55-Column 3, line 12), a prime mover applying rotational power to the shaft at a proximal end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO, Column 3, lines 4-12), the assembly comprising:
a universal bracket selectably engaged between the prime mover and the pump chamber (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO) having the shaft disposed through the bracket (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the bracket being a singular component (see Figure 1 that shows a singular component (14)), the bracket comprising:
a first end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO) engaged with the prime mover (see Figure 1, Column 3, lines 4-12 that discloses that (28) is connected to a prime mover (i.e. a motor)) ;
a second end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO) engaged with the pump chamber (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO);
a first bore (see Figure 1 that shows a first bore with bearing (23) in it) at the first end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the first bore configured to operably hold a bearing assembly in place during operation at the proximal end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO that shows a bearing assembly (23), Column 3, lines 13-25); and
a second bore (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO, where the second bore holds seals (50) and/ or (60)) at the second end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the second bore being coaxial with the first bore (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the second bore comprising a stuffing box (50, 60) that has an internal wall with a substantially uniform diameter (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), wherein the diameter is larger than the rotating shaft (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO that shows the stuffing box diameter is larger than the rotating shaft, since the stuffing box surrounds the seals that seal the shaft), the internal wall being configured to engage and hold a seal (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO that shows seals (50, 60) that are held by the internal wall of the stuffing box);
a bearing assembly (23) (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO) disposed at the proximal end of the first bore (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the bearing assembly operably holding the rotating shaft (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO, Column 3, lines 20-25); and
a shaft seal (50, 60) disposed in the stuffing box between the rotating shaft and the internal wall to mitigate fluid migration along the shaft (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO, Column 3, lines 38-44, the limitation directed to “to mitigate fluid migration along the shaft” is considered as a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, YANO is capable of performing the claimed function, since the seals are formed around the shaft, where seals are used to prevent fluids from migrating along the shaft),
wherein the stuffing box is configured to selectively and operably use the following sealing configurations:
a packing gland-packing material-bushing held configuration;
a component mechanical seal configuration;
a cartridge mechanical seal configuration;
a behind the rotor (BTR) mechanical seal configuration; and
a one-piece barrier seal comprising a monolithic gland-packing-bushing configuration (see Figure 1, that shows mechanical seal configuration. The Examiner would like to note that only one of these configurations is required to be met, since the interface for each of these configurations is the same, and therefore, if one is shown to be met, than the other types of seals are also met. Furthermore, only one of these sealing configurations are able to be used in the apparatus at one time, so the list of different options is considered as alternatives for the apparatus. The limitation is considered an intended use limitation (“configured to” and “operably use”), where the structure is discussed above to be met, as well as YANO discloses using a sealing configuration. The limitation directed to “selectively” is also met, since YANO discloses using a sealing configuration, and therefore, has selectively used the mechanical seal, thereby anticipating the claim. The Examiner would like to additional note that all of the sealing configurations are capable of being used in YANO, since YANO has a first bore and a second bore, thereby meeting the claimed limitations).
Alternatively, in the event that the claim requires that all of the seal configurations (a packing gland-packing material-bushing held configuration; a component mechanical seal configuration; a cartridge mechanical seal configuration; a behind the rotor (BTR) mechanical seal configuration; and a one-piece barrier seal comprising a monolithic gland-packing-bushing configuration) are usable, they would be obvious due to DFM.
Regarding claim 11, DFM teaches that designing for manufacturing includes minimizing part count, standardizing parts and materials, create modular assemblies (see Pages 8-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a universal bracket to accommodate any one of the sealing configurations of a packing gland-packing material-bushing held configuration; a component mechanical seal configuration; a cartridge mechanical seal configuration; a behind the rotor (BTR) mechanical seal configuration; and a one-piece barrier seal comprising a monolithic gland-packing-bushing configuration) in the universal bracket of YANO, since applying a known technique (i.e. creating a common casting to be used with multiple configurations), as taught by DFM, to a known device (i.e. the bracket of YANO) would have yielded predicable results. The results are predictable and provide the improvement of providing a common component that is utilized in multiple different applications (where the different applications would use different sealing configurations).
Regarding claim 12, YANO discloses: the wall of the stuffing box comprising one or more annular channels around the perimeter (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO).
Regarding claim 15, YANO discloses: a gasket (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO) disposed in one of the one or more annular channels (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the gasket operably directly engaged with a one-piece barrier seal to mitigate fluid migration (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO, the claimed limitation directed to “to mitigate fluid migration” is considered as a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, YANO is capable of performing the claimed function, since the gasket and barrier seals are intended to prevent fluids from migrating, and therefore, meet the functional limitation).
Regarding claim 16, YANO discloses: the wall of the stuffing box comprising a mechanical seal cutout configured to hold a mechanical seal (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO, that shows mechanical seals (50, 60), and gasket and barrier seal, Figure 1 shows that there is a cut-out (i.e. a second bore) for the mechanical seals).
Regarding claim 17, YANO discloses: a mechanical seal operably held in the stuffing box at the distal end by the mechanical seal cutout (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO).
Regarding claim 21, YANO discloses: the first bore and the second are separated by a window extending through the body between the first end and the second end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO for the rejection of claim 21).
PNG
media_image2.png
458
642
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANO in view of LECH (U.S. Patent 3,360,932 A).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, YANO discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose a retaining ring disposed in one of the one or more annular channels, the retaining ring operably retaining a packing washer and packing material at a proximal end of the stuffing box. YANO appears to show a gasket and not a retaining ring in the annular channel.
Regarding claims 5 and 13, LECH teaches that a shaft seal configuration includes a retaining ring (61, 58), a washer (59, 60), and packing material (58) (see Figure 2 and Column 3, line 73 – Column 4, line 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a retaining ring disposed in one of the one or more annular channels, the retaining ring operably retaining a packing washer and packing material at a proximal end of the stuffing box in the pump subassembly of YANO, in order to maintain and seal the shaft by. Furthermore, utilizing a retaining ring with packing washer and packing material that is known (i.e. by LECH) requires only routine skill in the art to utilize it in the subassembly of YANO and produces predictable results (i.e. the ability to seal and maintain the seal in position).
Claims 6, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANO in view of SMITH (U.S. Patent 3,712,765).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, YANO discloses a mechanical seal at the distal end of the stuffing box (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO) with a gasket in the annular channel, however, fails to disclose a retaining ring disposed in one of the one or more annular channels, the retaining ring operably retaining a mechanical seal.
Regarding claims 6 and 14, SMITH teaches: a retaining ring (22) disposed in one of the one or more annular channels (see Figure 1), the retaining ring operably retaining a mechanical seal (17) at an end of the stuffing box (see Figure 1, where SMITH discloses a retaining ring and mechanical seal in the stuffing box).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a retaining ring disposed in one of the one or more annular channels, the retaining ring operably retaining a mechanical seal in the pump subassembly or assembly of YANO, in order to hold and retain the mechanical seal in place.
Regarding claim 8, YANO discloses the claimed invention, however, fails to disclose a lip seal at the proximal end of the stuffing box.
Regarding claim 8, SMITH discloses: a lip seal (17) at the proximal end of the stuffing box (see Figure 1, where SMITH does disclose a lip seal (17) at the proximal end of the stuffing box).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a lip seal at the proximal end of the stuffing box in the pump subassembly of YANO, since swapping of one known seal for another known seal requires only routine skill in the art and produces predictable results (i.e. Lip seals are more dust seals and are simply pressed in (see Column 2, lines 63-64 of SMITH).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YANO or YANO in view of DFM.
Regarding claim 19, YANO discloses: a rotating shaft pump comprising:
a pump chamber (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO) at a distal end of the pump (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the pump chamber comprising a pump rotor (16) engaged with a rotating shaft (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO);
a prime mover (the prime mover is not shown, however, is disclosed to engage with the shaft via gear (28), see Column 3, lines 4-12) engaged with the shaft at a proximal end of the pump (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO) to operably apply rotational power to the pump rotor in the pump chamber (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO, Column 3, lines 4-12);
a universal bracket (14) selectably engaged between the prime mover and the pump chamber (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO) having the shaft disposed through the bracket (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the bracket being a singular component (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the bracket comprising:
a first end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO) engaged with the prime mover (see Figure 1, Column 3, lines 4-12 that discloses that (28) is connected to a prime mover (i.e. a motor)) ;
a second end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO) engaged with the pump chamber (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO);
a first bore (see Figure 1 that shows a first bore with bearing (23) in it) at the first end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the first bore having a first diameter at the proximal end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO that shows a first diameter); and
a second bore (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO, where the second bore holds seals (50) and/ or (60)) at the second end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the second bore being coaxial with the first bore (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the second bore comprising a stuffing box (50, 60) that has an internal wall with a second diameter at the distal end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO that shows a second diameter at the distal end for the stuffing box), wherein the first diameter is larger than the second diameter (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO that shows the first diameter is larger than the second diameter due to the step between the first and second bores), the wall of the stuffing box being configured to engage and hold a seal (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO that shows seals (50, 60) that are held by the internal wall of the stuffing box), the internal wall comprising one or more annular channels around the perimeter (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO);
one or more gaskets and/or retaining rings disposed in the one or more annular channels (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO that shows a gasket in the annular channel);
a bearing assembly (23) (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO) fixedly engaged with the first bore at the proximal end (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO), the bearing assembly operably supporting the rotating shaft (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO, Column 3, lines 20-25); and
a shaft seal (50, 60) disposed in the stuffing box between the rotating shaft and the internal wall to mitigate fluid migration along the shaft (see Marked up Figure 1 of YANO, Column 3, lines 38-44, the limitation directed to “to mitigate fluid migration along the shaft” is considered as a functional limitation. It should be appreciated that the applicant’s functional language in the claims does not serve to impart patentability. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claims. See MPEP 2114. Furthermore, YANO is capable of performing the claimed function, since the seals are formed around the shaft, where seals are used to prevent fluids from migrating along the shaft),
wherein the stuffing box is configured to selectively and operably use the following sealing configurations:
a packing gland-packing material-bushing held configuration;
a component mechanical seal configuration;
a cartridge mechanical seal configuration;
a behind the rotor (BTR) mechanical seal configuration; and
a one-piece barrier seal comprising a monolithic gland-packing-bushing configuration (see Figure 1, that shows mechanical seal configuration. The Examiner would like to note that only one of these configurations is required to be met, since the interface for each of these configurations is the same, and therefore, if one is shown to be met, than the other types of seals are also met. Furthermore, only one of these sealing configurations are able to be used in the apparatus at one time, so the list of different options is considered as alternatives for the apparatus. The limitation is considered an intended use limitation (“configured to” and “operably use”), where the structure is discussed above to be met, as well as YANO discloses using a sealing configuration. The limitation directed to “selectively” is also met, since YANO discloses using a sealing configuration, and therefore, has selectively used the mechanical seal, thereby anticipating the claim. The Examiner would like to additional note that all of the sealing configurations are capable of being used in YANO, since YANO has a first bore and a second bore, thereby meeting the claimed limitations).
YANO fails to disclose the shaft seal comprises a bearing disposed in the second diameter.
YANO discloses using bearing (23) to hold the shaft at the proximal end and bearings (22, 19) that are located at the opposite end of the shaft to support the shaft with seals (30, 40), it would have been obvious to have the shaft seal in the stuffing box (i.e. in the second diameter) having a bearing, in order to support the distal end of the shaft. Placement of bearings at the ends of the shaft is well known in the art, and requires only routine skill in the art to add bearings to aid in the supporting of the shaft.
Alternatively, in the event that the claim requires that all of the seal configurations (a packing gland-packing material-bushing held configuration; a component mechanical seal configuration; a cartridge mechanical seal configuration; a behind the rotor (BTR) mechanical seal configuration; and a one-piece barrier seal comprising a monolithic gland-packing-bushing configuration) are usable, they would be obvious due to DFM.
Regarding claim 19, DFM teaches that designing for manufacturing includes minimizing part count, standardizing parts and materials, create modular assemblies (see Pages 8-9).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to have a universal bracket to accommodate any one of the sealing configurations of a packing gland-packing material-bushing held configuration; a component mechanical seal configuration; a cartridge mechanical seal configuration; a behind the rotor (BTR) mechanical seal configuration; and a one-piece barrier seal comprising a monolithic gland-packing-bushing configuration) in the universal bracket of YANO, since applying a known technique (i.e. creating a common casting to be used with multiple configurations), as taught by DFM, to a known device (i.e. the bracket of YANO) would have yielded predicable results. The results are predictable and provide the improvement of providing a common component that is utilized in multiple different applications (where the different applications would use different sealing configurations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant has added the following limitation to claims 1, 11, and 19 “wherein the stuffing box is configured to selectively and operably use the following sealing configurations: a packing gland-packing material-bushing held configuration; a component mechanical seal configuration; a cartridge mechanical seal configuration; a behind the rotor (BTR) mechanical seal configuration; and a one-piece barrier seal comprising a monolithic gland-packing-bushing configuration”.
Applicant argues that the amendment is not intended use but a functional limitation. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim clearly recites “operably use”, and therefore, is considered as intended use. Furthermore, only one of the “sealing configurations” are present at any one time in the apparatus. In addition, the preamble for claim 1 recites “a universal bracket”, and therefore, the claimed limitation directed to “wherein the stuffing box is configured to selectively and operably use the following sealing configurations: a packing gland-packing material-bushing held configuration; a component mechanical seal configuration; a cartridge mechanical seal configuration; a behind the rotor (BTR) mechanical seal configuration; and a one-piece barrier seal comprising a monolithic gland-packing-bushing configuration” is considered an environment, since the actual seals are not required to be met, however, claims 11 and 19 do positively recite the stuffing box. The Examiner would also like to note that a functional limitation is intended for how a system or component works, and not the manufacturing of a component (i.e. a step of selecting a stuffing box, wherein one assembly contains a packing gland-packing material-bushing held configuration, a second assembly contains a component mechanical seal configuration…).
Applicant argues that the use of the word “and” in the limitation directed to “wherein the stuffing box is configured to selectively and operably use the following sealing configurations: a packing gland-packing material-bushing held configuration; a component mechanical seal configuration; a cartridge mechanical seal configuration; a behind the rotor (BTR) mechanical seal configuration; and a one-piece barrier seal comprising a monolithic gland-packing-bushing configuration” requires that the prior art must be configured to use all of the listed sealing configurations. The universal bracket of YANO shows one of the sealing configurations, and since it has a first bore and a second bore is capable of putting in the other sealing configurations, thereby meeting the claimed limitations.
Applicant argues that the bracket uses different sealing configurations and refers to their figures showing their different seals in the universal bracket. The Examiner would like to note that the claim is an intended use and has discussed their interpretation of the claim above. The Examiner has also put forth an alternative rejection based on design for manufacturing. Design for Manufacturing has been around and is a known practice in order to reduce cost, reduce assembly mistakes, reduce inventory, and includes using a common component for multiple different devices. Creating a universal bracket would have been an obvious design choice in order to minimize tooling, component inventory, assembly mistakes, which results in lower cost. Utilizing this well-known technique would have resulted in a common universal bracket to be utilized for multiple applications. Furthermore, the claim does not recite any specific structural features except for a first and second bore in a bracket that interfaces with a sealing configuration. In addition, a non-positively recited sealing configuration in claim 1 is just an environment. If there is no sealing configuration, the claim is still met, since it has the disclosed structure of the first and second bores that is capable of interfacing with a sealing configuration.
Independent claims 11 and 19, as well as, the claims that depend from the independent claims use with the same arguments that were used for claim 1, which have been discussed above.
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.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-9965. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4pm.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/Mary A Davis/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights