DETAILED ACTION
Examiner has received and accepted the amended claims and remarks filed on 12 June 2026. These amended claims and remarks are the claims and remarks being referred to in the instant Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claim limitations have been addressed in the amended 103 Rejection below.
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 – 5 and 7 – 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haringstad (WO 2022/139587), in view of Kumar (IN 202241070706). Citations pertaining to Kumar refer to WO 2024/121826 of the same patent family.
Regarding Claim 1, Haringstad discloses a leak detecting gasket, in at least Figure 2a, configured to seal sealing ends of first and second components having a fluid passing therethrough (Page 7, lines 22 – 23), the gasket comprising: a gasket core (from 7 including 3 up to 12) surrounding a central opening configured to receive the fluid therethrough (Figure 2a); at least one sealing portion of the gasket core (12) having a first thickness (Figure 2a), and having first and second opposing sealing surfaces configured to contact corresponding first and second sealing ends of the first and second components (Page 8, lines 13 – 15) (Figure 2a); at least one non-sealing portion (15, 16) disposed along all of an outer perimeter of the gasket core (Figure 2a), the at least one non-sealing portion having a second thickness less than the first thickness (Figure 2a), and having first and second opposing surfaces configured not to contact the first and second sealing ends of the first and second components (as contact is provided by 12) (Figure 2a); and a leak detection system comprising: a carrier structure (40) outwardly extending from the at least one non-sealing portion (Figure 2a).
Haringstad fails to expressly disclose at least one detection component disposed on the carrier structure, wherein the at least one detection component provides an indication in response to contact from fluid passing from the central opening and across at least one of the first or second sealing surfaces.
Kumar discloses a leak detection system comprising: a carrier structure (12) outwardly extending from a flange joint (Figures 1, 2); and at least one detection component (4) connected to the carrier structure (Figure 1), wherein the at least one detection component provides an indication in response to contact from fluid passing from the central opening and across at least one of the first or second sealing surfaces (Page 7, lines 4 – 25; Page 8, lines 13 - 26).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Haringstad to include at least one detection component disposed on the carrier structure, wherein the at least one detection component provides an indication in response to contact from fluid passing from the central opening and across at least one of the first or second sealing surfaces for the benefit of monitoring leaks in real time, as taught by Kumar (Page 3, lines 10 – 13).
Nevertheless, the combination fails to expressly disclose the detection component is integral to the carrier structure.
Haringstad does teach the carrier structure (12) is intended to provide fluid to diffuse through it to permit detection via the detection component (4) (Page 7, lines 4 – 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art no leaks should occur between the carrier structure and the detection component to allow for accurate detection of leaks occurring in the gasket. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to minimize in the combination potential sources of leaks e.g. joints between the carrier structure and detection component including no joints being present i.e. an integral connection for the benefit of minimizing leaks to ensure accurate detection of leaks at the gasket.
Furthermore, it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding Claim 2, Haringstad discloses the carrier structure comprises at least one rigid substrate (41) extending from a portion of the at least one non-sealing portion (Figure 2a).
Haringstad fails to expressly disclose wherein the at least one detection component is disposed on at least one outer surface of the at least one rigid substrate and configured to provide an indication when contact by a fluid.
Kumar teaches the at least one detection component is disposed on at least one outer surface of the at least one rigid substrate (12) and configured to provide an indication when contact by a fluid (Page 7, lines 4 – 25; Page 8, lines 21 - 22) (Figures 1, 2).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 3, Kumar teaches the at least one detection component comprises a hydrogen sensing substance (Page 9, lines 1 – 5).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 4, Haringstad discloses a seal (14) disposed on each of the first and second opposing surfaces of the at least one non-sealing portion proximate to and along all of an outer edge of the at least one non-sealing portion (Figure 2a), the outer perimeter of the gasket core and the seals defining corresponding first and second cavities (16) therebetween and between each of the first and second opposing surfaces and the corresponding first and second sealing ends of the first and second components (Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 5, Haringstad discloses each seal comprises an O-ring (14), each of the first and second opposing surfaces of the at least one non-sealing portion comprising a groove (14’) sized to receive a portion of each corresponding O-ring (Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 7, Haringstad the carrier structure comprises at least one rigid substrate (41) extending from a portion of the outer perimeter of the at least one non-sealing portion (Figure 2a).
Haringstad fails to expressly disclose wherein the rigid substrate comprising a detection component.
Kumar teaches the rigid substrate (12) comprising a detection component (Page 7, lines 4 – 25; Page 8, lines 21 - 22) (Figures 1, 2).
The combination would have been obvious for the same reasons regarding the rejection of Claim 2 above.
Nevertheless, the combination fails to expressly disclose a plurality of rigid substrates, each having a detection component; however this would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Duplicating the detection system allows for sensing at various locations enabling sensing to continue should a blockage or disruption occur. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the detection system is duplicated i.e. includes a plurality of rigid substrates, each having a detection component for the benefit of back-up sensing should one detection component be blocked or need to be removed for maintenance.
Regarding Claim 8, Kumar teaches the at least one detection component is an electronic system providing an electronic signal in response to detecting a leaking fluid (Page 8, lines 13 – 26).
Regarding Claim 9, Haringstad discloses the at least one non-sealing portion and the gasket core are integrally formed (Figure 2a).
Regarding Claim 10, Haringstad discloses the first and second opposing sealing surfaces of the at least one sealing portion comprise a compressible material (12) disposed on a rigid gasket core (3) (Figure 2a).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haringstad (WO 2022/139587), in view of Kumar (IN 202241070706), in further view of Bright et al. (US 2021/0396622)
Regarding Claim 6, the combination fails to expressly disclose a check valve disposed between the at least one rigid substrate and a portion of each seal.
Bright teaches utilizing a check valve (35) upstream of a detector [0056] (Figure 2D).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that a check valve is upstream of the detector e.g. between the at least one rigid substrate and a portion of each seal for the benefit of admitting clean air for flushing a sample from the detector after a test, as taught by Bright [0056].
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haringstad (WO 2022/139587), in view of Kumar (IN 202241070706), in further view of Schemmann et al. (US 2014/0333035).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination fails to expressly disclose the compressible material comprises graphite facing providing the first and second opposing sealing surfaces.
Schemmann teaches a compressible material comprises graphite facing providing first and second opposing sealing surfaces [0023].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the compressible material comprises graphite facing providing the first and second opposing sealing surfaces for the benefit of a material which is known to seal and function at high pressure and temperature, as taught by Schemmann [0015].
Regarding Claim 12, the combination fails to expressly disclose the gasket core comprises first and second pluralities of ridges extending towards each of the corresponding first and second sealing ends of the first and second components, the first and second pluralities of ridges comprising the at least one sealing portion and carrying the first and second opposing sealing surfaces.
Schemmann teaches a gasket core (206) comprises first and second pluralities of ridges extending (Figure 2) towards each of the corresponding first and second sealing ends of the first and second components (Figure 2), the first and second pluralities of ridges comprising at least one sealing portion (204) and carrying the first and second opposing sealing surfaces (Figure 2).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that the gasket core comprises first and second pluralities of ridges extending towards each of the corresponding first and second sealing ends of the first and second components, the first and second pluralities of ridges comprising the at least one sealing portion and carrying the first and second opposing sealing surfaces for the benefit of a material which is known to seal and function at high pressure and temperature, as taught by Schemmann [0015].
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
