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 July 31, 2026 have been fully considered.
The 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 is modified based on the applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C 103 rejections 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.
The changes to the rejections are necessitated by amendment and are therefore final.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20 are 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite:
“wherein the carrier base extends in a first direction relative to the axis from a first end of the carrier arm and the carrier end extends in a second direction relative to the axis opposite the first direction at a second end of the carrier arm”.
It is unclear what a component extending in a direction requires. The seal carrier (80) is a 3-D object. The claim refers to the base and carrier end as extending in a first and second direction relative to the axis respectively. The annular shape of the carrier base and carrier end means that they extend axially, radially inwardly, or radially outwardly. This radial directionality is not a singular direction as claimed, but is rather comprised of many directions that differ based on the angular location. To overcome the indefiniteness described above, it is suggested the claim clarify the direction is a radial direction (relative to an axis). For example:
wherein the carrier base extends in a first radial direction relative to the axis
Claims dependent from the claims discussed above are also rejected.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-9, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thornton (U.S Patent 7,669,424) hereinafter Thornton in view of Siemens (GB492954) hereinafter Siemens, Poolathody (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20240061454) hereinafter Poolathody, Caldwell et al. (U.S Patent 4,331,338) hereinafter Caldwell, Stenger (U.S Patent 3,775,975) hereinafter Stenger, and Kosty et al. (U.S Pre-Grant Publication 20030031828) hereinafter Kosty.
Regarding claim 1, Thornton discloses:
A seal arrangement of a gas turbine engine {Column 1 lines 3-19}, comprising:
a seal carrier {Figure 3 (40)};
at least one seal element secured at the seal carrier {Figure 3 (50)},
the at least one seal element disposed and configured to minimize airflow leakage between a first component and a second component while preventing wear of the first component and the second component {Figure 3, the seal (50) minimizes airflow leakage between (32) and (58) while preventing wear between these components},
the second component defining an axis {Figure 3 (58) defines an axis in the up/down direction in the figure};
wherein the first component surrounds the second component and is spaced apart from the second component, so that the seal element provides sealing while allowing for displacement of the second component relative to the first component {Figure 3 (32) surrounds (58) and is spart apart from it so that the seal elements provides sealing while allowing for the displacement of (58) relative to (32)}; and
wherein the seal carrier includes:
a carrier base secured to the first component {Figure 3 (64) is secured to (32) via (66)};
a carrier end spaced apart from and parallel to the carrier base {Figure 3 (52)/(54) form a carrier end that is spaced apart from and parallel to the carrier base}; and
a carrier arm connecting the carrier base to the carrier end {Figure 3 (42) connects the carrier base (64) and the carrier end (52)/(54)},
the carrier arm extending non-parallel to both the carrier base and the carrier end {Figure 3 (42) extends non-parallel to both the carrier base and the carrier end};
wherein the carrier base extends in a first direction relative to the axis from a first end of the carrier arm and the carrier end extends in a second direction relative to the axis opposite the first direction at a second end of the carrier arm {Figure 3 (64) extends radially outwardly relative to the axis of (58) from the radially outer end of (42) and the carrier end extends radially inwardly relative to the axis of (58) in a manner opposite of the carrier base at the radially inward end of carrier arm (42)}
Thornton does not disclose:
the at least one seal element formed from a moldable silicone rubber material configured for operation in temperature conditions equal to or greater than 500 degrees Fahrenheit,
wherein the at least one seal element is configured as a lip seal,
the lip seal having a seal base disposed at the seal carrier secured to the first component, and extending to a seal tip contacting the second component,
wherein the lip seal extends nonlinearly from the seal base to the seal tip; and
wherein the at least one seal element includes:
a first seal element formed from a composite material and secured to the seal carrier; and
a second seal element secured to the first seal element,
the second seal element formed from the moldable silicone rubber material;
wherein the first seal element is disposed axially between the carrier end and the second seal element.
Siemens pertains to sealing a gap between components and is therefore reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of sealing a gap between components. Siemens teaches:
wherein the at least one seal element is configured as a lip seal {Figure 2 (1) is a lip seal},
the lip seal having a seal base disposed at the seal carrier secured to the first component, and extending to a seal tip contacting the second component {Figure 2, (1) has a base that is secured at (11) to the seal carrier (7); (1) also extends to a seal tip that contacts (4)},
wherein the lip seal extends nonlinearly from the seal base to the seal tip {Figure 2 (1) extends nonlinearly as it is curved/bent}; and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have lip seal (including the seal carrier) as taught by Siemens for the annular seal (and seal carrier) of Thorton. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as O-rings and lip seals are known alternative piston seal type sealing structures {Poolathody [0024]}.
The combination of Thornton, Siemens, and Poolathody still teaches the seal carrier limitations disclosed by Thorton:
wherein the seal carrier includes:
a carrier base secured to the first component {Siemens Figure 2, bottom of (7) is secured to bottom plate (unlabeled)};
a carrier end spaced apart from and parallel to the carrier base {Siemens Figure 2, (upper portion of (7) form a carrier end that is spaced apart from and parallel to the carrier base}; and
a carrier arm connecting the carrier base to the carrier end {Siemens Figure 2, the middle of (7) connects the carrier base and the carrier end},
the carrier arm extending non-parallel to both the carrier base and the carrier end { {Siemens Figure 2, middle of (7) extends upward which is non-parallel to both the carrier base and the carrier end};
wherein the carrier base extends in a first direction relative to the axis from a first end of the carrier arm and the carrier end extends in a second direction relative to the axis opposite the first direction at a second end of the carrier arm {Siemens Figure 2, the carrier base extends radially outwardly relative to the axis of (4) from the radially outer end of the middle of (7) and the carrier end extends radially inwardly relative to the axis of (4) in a manner opposite of the carrier base at the radially inward end of carrier arm}.
Caldwell pertains to the sealing of a duct passing through a wall/casing in the situation of an aircraft which uses a gas turbine engine for propulsion and is therefore both considered pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of sealing such an interface and in the same field of endeavor as both relate to gas turbine engines.
Caldwell teaches:
the at least one seal element formed from a moldable silicone rubber material configured for operation in temperature conditions equal to or greater than 500 degrees Fahrenheit {Figure 1 (28)/(30)/(32); Column 4 lines 42-55; all silicon rubber is implicitly moldable as it will melt and reharden depending on the temperature. These seals are configured for operation temperature conditions greater than 500 degrees Fahrenheit. The air in the duct is 600-1000 degrees Fahrenheit; Column 3 lines 25-45. A spacer element (14) along with the stainless steel duct does separate the seal from direct contact with these temperatures. The examiner finds that the seal is still configured for operation in temperature conditions equivalent to taught 600-1000 Fahrenheit as these temperatures are present in the immediate vicinity of the seal. The claim does not recite/require that the seal in operation reaches a particular temperature. Additionally, the examiner does find that the temperature of the seal may still reach greater than 500F in the scenarios at the higher end of the taught range. Lastly, the examiner finds that the limitation does not require the seal of silicone rubber to be in an environment with a precise temperature, but rather only requires that the seal is capable of use in conditions of greater than or equal to 500 degrees Fahrenheit}
Since Thorton is silent regarding this material selection, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the seal of the combination of Thorton, Siemens, and Poolathody to be made of moldable silicone rubber that is configured for operation in temperatures conditions of greater than 500 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as silicone rubber can operate in high temperature conditions {see claim 4 of Caldwell} and one of ordinary skill in the art understands that materials must be selected to be able to perform in the temperatures/pressures of their environment such as those in the vicinity of the combustor {Stenger Column 3 lines 29-40}.
Kosty pertains to seal construction/materials/manufacturing and is therefore analogous art as it is in the same field of endeavor. Kosty is also reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of constructing a seal which provides effective sealing between components.
Kosty teaches:
wherein the at least one seal element includes:
a first seal element formed from a composite material and secured to the seal carrier {Figure 5b (86) is a first seal element secured to carrier (8A) and may be composite instead of metal as discussed with regard to (50) in [0048]; (86) is the substrate in the same manner as (50) in Figure 3A}; and
a second seal element secured to the first seal element {Figure 5 (88) is a second seal element secured to the first seal element (86)},
the second seal element formed from a polymer {Figure 5 (88) is a polymer as discussed in [0044]-[0045] with regard to (48); (88) is the sealing polymer compound in the same manner as (48) in Figure 3A}
wherein the first seal element is disposed axially between the carrier end and the second seal element {Figure 5b (86) is disposed axially between the carrier end on the right of the figure and the second seal element (88); the axial direction is left/right in the figure}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a first seal element and second seal element as claimed made from a composite material for the seal of the combination of Thorton, Siemens, Poolathody, Caldwell, and Stenger. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as non-metals including composites are known substitutes in the context of a layer of a seal configuration and that the material may be selected based on the particular properties called for by the seal application {Kosty [0048]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second seal element of Thorton, Siemens, Poolathody, Caldwell, Stenger and Kosty be formed from the moldable silicone rubber as taught by Caldwell. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as they would have to select a material for the second seal element of the combination of Thorton, Siemens, Poolathody, Caldwell, Stenger and Kosty. The sealing polymer layers of Kosty are analogous to seal material selection teachings of Caldwell and Stenger; therefore, the motivation discussed earlier for choosing silicone rubber as the material of at least one seal element is applicable for the second seal element being formed from the moldable silicone rubber material. Additionally, seals made from polymers are known to be composed of rubbers or PTFE as alternatives {Poolathody [0024]}.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Thorton, Siemens, Poolathody, Caldwell, Stenger and Kosty further teaches:
wherein the at least one seal element is formed as a single unitary unbroken ring configured to extend around the second component {Siemens Figure 2, (1) is a washer shape which is a single unitary unbroken ring}.
Regarding claim 8, Thornton discloses:
A case and tube arrangement of a gas turbine engine {Figure 3, (58) and (32); Column 1 lines 3-19}, comprising:
a case having one or more case openings extending therethrough from an exterior of the case to an interior of the case {Figure 3, case (32) has plurality of case openings (36) which extend from an exterior of the case to an interior of the case};
a tube extending through a case opening of the one or more case openings {Figure 3 (58) extends through (36)},
the case surrounding the tube at the case opening {Figure 3 (32) surrounds (58) at the case opening (36)},
the tube defining an axis {Figure 3, the tube (58) defines an axis in the up/down direction in the figure}; and
a seal assembly to seal between the case and the tube at the case opening {Figure 3 (38) is a seal assembly between the case and the tube at the case opening},
the seal assembly including:
a seal carrier secured to the case {Figure 3 (40) is secured to (32)};
at least one seal element secured at the seal carrier {Figure 3 (50)},
the at least one seal element extending between the case and the tube {Figure 3, (38) extends between the case (32) and the tube (58)},
the second component defining an axis {Figure 3 (58) defines an axis in the up/down direction in the figure};
wherein the case is radially spaced apart from the tube at the case opening, so that the seal element provides sealing between the case and the tube while allowing for displacement of the tube relative to the case {Figure 3 (32) surrounds (58) and is spart apart from it so that the seal elements provides sealing while allowing for the displacement of (58) relative to (32)}; and
wherein the seal carrier includes:
a carrier base secured to the case {Figure 3 (64) is secured to (32) via (66)};
a carrier end spaced apart from and parallel to the carrier base {Figure 3 (52)/(54) form a carrier end that is spaced apart from and parallel to the carrier base}; and
a carrier arm connecting the carrier base to the carrier end {Figure 3 (42) connects the carrier base (64) and the carrier end (52)/(54)},
the carrier arm extending non-parallel to both the carrier base and the carrier end {Figure 3 (42) extends non-parallel to both the carrier base and the carrier end};
wherein the carrier base extends in a first direction relative to the axis from a first end of the carrier arm and the carrier end extends in a second direction relative to the axis opposite the first direction at a second end of the carrier arm {Figure 3 (64) extends radially outwardly relative to the axis of (58) from the radially outer end of (42) and the carrier end extends radially inwardly relative to the axis of (58) in a manner opposite of the carrier base at the radially inward end of carrier arm (42)};
Thornton does not disclose:
the at least one seal element formed from a moldable silicone rubber material configured for operation in temperature conditions equal to or greater than 500 degrees Fahrenheit,
wherein the at least one seal element is configured as a lip seal,
the lip seal having a seal base disposed at the seal carrier, and extending to a seal tip contacting the tube,
wherein the lip seal extends nonlinearly from the seal base to the seal tip; and
wherein the at least one seal element includes:
a first seal element formed from a composite material and secured to the seal carrier; and
a second seal element secured to the first seal element,
the second seal element formed from the moldable silicone rubber material;
wherein the first seal element is disposed axially between the carrier end and the second seal element.
Siemens pertains to sealing a gap between components and is therefore reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of sealing a gap between components. Siemens teaches:
wherein the at least one seal element is configured as a lip seal {Figure 2 (1) is a lip seal},
the lip seal having a seal base disposed at the seal carrier secured to the first component, and extending to a seal tip contacting the second component {Figure 2, (1) has a base that is secured at (11) to the seal carrier (7); (1) also extends to a seal tip that contacts (4)},
wherein the lip seal extends nonlinearly from the seal base to the seal tip {Figure 2 (1) extends nonlinearly as it is curved/bent}; and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have lip seal (including the seal carrier) as taught by Siemens for the annular seal (and seal carrier) of Thorton. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as O-rings and lip seals are known alternative piston seal type sealing structures {Poolathody [0024]}.
The combination of Thornton, Siemens, and Poolathody still teaches the seal carrier limitations disclosed by Thorton:
wherein the seal carrier includes:
a carrier base secured to the first component {Siemens Figure 2, bottom of (7) is secured to bottom plate (unlabeled)};
a carrier end spaced apart from and parallel to the carrier base { Siemens Figure 2, (upper portion of (7) form a carrier end that is spaced apart from and parallel to the carrier base}; and
a carrier arm connecting the carrier base to the carrier end {Siemens Figure 2, the middle of (7) connects the carrier base and the carrier end},
the carrier arm extending non-parallel to both the carrier base and the carrier end { {Siemens Figure 2, middle of (7) extends upward which is non-parallel to both the carrier base and the carrier end};
wherein the carrier base extends in a first direction relative to the axis from a first end of the carrier arm and the carrier end extends in a second direction relative to the axis opposite the first direction at a second end of the carrier arm {Siemens Figure 2, the carrier base extends radially outwardly relative to the axis of (4) from the radially outer end of the middle of (7) and the carrier end extends radially inwardly relative to the axis of (4) in a manner opposite of the carrier base at the radially inward end of carrier arm}.
Caldwell pertains to the sealing of a duct passing through a wall/casing in the situation of an aircraft which uses a gas turbine engine for propulsion and is therefore both considered pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of sealing such an interface and in the same field of endeavor as both relate to gas turbine engines.
Caldwell teaches:
the at least one seal element formed from a moldable silicone rubber material configured for operation in temperature conditions equal to or greater than 500 degrees Fahrenheit {Figure 1 (28)/(30)/(32); Column 4 lines 42-55; all silicon rubber is implicitly moldable as it will melt and reharden depending on the temperature. These seals are configured for operation temperature conditions greater than 500 degrees Fahrenheit. The air in the duct is 600-1000 degrees Fahrenheit; Column 3 lines 25-45. A spacer element (14) along with the stainless steel duct does separate the seal from direct contact with these temperatures. The examiner finds that the seal is still configured for operation in temperature conditions equivalent to taught 600-1000 Fahrenheit as these temperatures are present in the immediate vicinity of the seal. The claim does not recite/require that the seal in operation reaches a particular temperature. Additionally, the examiner does find that the temperature of the seal may still reach greater than 500F in the scenarios at the higher end of the taught range. Lastly, the examiner finds that the limitation does not require the seal of silicone rubber to be in an environment with a precise temperature, but rather only requires that the seal is capable of use in conditions of greater than or equal to 500 degrees Fahrenheit}
Since Thorton is silent regarding this material selection, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to choose a material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the seal of the combination of Thorton, Siemens, and Poolathody to be made of moldable silicone rubber that is configured for operation in temperatures conditions of greater than 500 degrees Fahrenheit. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as silicone rubber can operate in high temperature conditions {see claim 4 of Caldwell} and one of ordinary skill in the art understands that materials must be selected to be able to perform in the temperatures/pressures of their environment such as those in the vicinity of the combustor {Stenger Column 3 lines 29-40}.
Kosty pertains to seal construction/materials/manufacturing and is therefore analogous art as it is in the same field of endeavor. Kosty is also reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of constructing a seal which provides effective sealing between components.
Kosty teaches:
wherein the at least one seal element includes:
a first seal element formed from a composite material and secured to the seal carrier {Figure 5b (86) is a first seal element secured to carrier (8A) and may be composite instead of metal as discussed with regard to (50) in [0048]; (86) is the substrate in the same manner as (50) in Figure 3A}; and
a second seal element secured to the first seal element {Figure 5 (88) is a second seal element secured to the first seal element (86)},
the second seal element formed from a polymer {Figure 5 (88) is a polymer as discussed in [0044]-[0045] with regard to (48); (88) is the sealing polymer compound in the same manner as (48) in Figure 3A}
wherein the first seal element is disposed axially between the carrier end and the second seal element {Figure 5b (86) is disposed axially between the carrier end on the right of the figure and the second seal element (88); the axial direction is left/right in the figure}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a first seal element and second seal element as claimed made from a composite material for the seal of the combination of Thorton, Siemens, Poolathody, Caldwell, and Stenger. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as non-metals including composites are known substitutes in the context of a layer of a seal configuration and that the material may be selected based on the particular properties called for by the seal application {Kosty [0048]}.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the second seal element of Thorton, Siemens, Poolathody, Caldwell, Stenger and Kosty be formed from the moldable silicone rubber as taught by Caldwell. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as they would have to select a material for the second seal element of the combination of Thorton, Siemens, Poolathody, Caldwell, Stenger and Kosty. The sealing polymer layers of Kosty are analogous to seal material selection teachings of Caldwell and Stenger; therefore, the motivation discussed earlier for choosing silicone rubber as the material of at least one seal element is applicable for the second seal element being formed from the moldable silicone rubber material. Additionally, seals made from polymers are known to be composed of rubbers or PTFE as alternatives {Poolathody [0024]}.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Thorton, Siemens, Poolathody, Caldwell, Stenger and Kosty further teaches:
wherein the at least one seal element is configured to have an interference fit to the tube {Siemens (1) is bent/deformed and contacts the tube (4); this is an interference fit; also see MPEP 2144.01}.
Claim 14 is substantially identical to claim 7 and would therefore be addressed in a substantially identical manner. For the purpose of brevity and clarity these rejections are not repeated; please see the rejection of claim 7 above. It is noted the second component in claim 7 is mapped to the same element as the tube in claim 14 as shown in the rejections of claim 8.
Regarding claim 15 Thornton discloses:
A gas turbine engine {Column 1 lines 3-5}, comprising:
a combustor configured to combust a mixture of air and fuel {Figure 1 (20); Column 1 lines 3-10}
a turbine driven by combustion products flowed from the combustor {Figure 1 (16), (17), (18); Column 2 lines 41-50}
The remainder of claim 15 is substantially identical to the totality of claim 8. For the purpose of brevity and clarity, this section of the rejection is not repeated; please see the rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Thorton, Siemens, Poolathody, Caldwell, Stenger and Kosty further teaches:
wherein the at least one seal element is configured to have an interference fit to the tube {Siemens (1) is bent/deformed and contacts the tube (4); this is an interference fit; also see MPEP 2144.01}.
Claim 20 is substantially identical to claim 7 and would therefore be addressed in a substantially identical manner. For the purpose of brevity and clarity these rejections are not repeated; please see the rejection of claim 7 above. It is noted the second component in claim 7 is mapped to the same element as the tube in claim 20 as shown in the rejections of claim 15.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorton, Siemens, Poolathody, Caldwell, Stenger, and Kosty as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Yamanaka et al. (U.S Patent 6,279,914) hereinafter Yamanaka.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Thorton, Siemens, Poolathody, Caldwell, Stenger, and Kosty teaches the seal of claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein a thickness of the at least one seal element varies.
Yamanaka pertains to lip seals and is therefore in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor of achieving a proper seal.
Yamanaka teaches wherein a thickness of the at least one seal element varies {Figure 1 (19) has a varying thickness along the radial dimension; Column 8 line 34-44}
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a seal with varying thickness as taught by Yamanaka for the seal of the combination of Thorton, Siemens, Poolathody, Caldwell, Stenger, and Kosty. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so as for the desired contact between the seal and the component as well as achieving the desired elastic restoring force {Yamanaka Column 8 line 34 – Column 9 line 7}.
Claim 13 is substantially identical to claim 6 and would therefore be addressed in a substantially identical manner. For the purpose of brevity and clarity these rejections are not repeated; please see the rejection of claim 6 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL K. REITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1387. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 a.m. -5:30 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at 5712703508. 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.
/MICHAEL K. REITZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights