DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but not persuasive.
Applicants’ arguments with regard to rejection by prior art of Itadani and Lai is not persuasive since Itadani teaches all limitation except for the range of less than 10% which is taught by Lai in paragraphs 0047, 0064, 0065, 0074 and 0075. It is noted that the reference of Lai is the same invention or assignee.
It is further noted that size of the ring face would determine the amount of percentage as evidence shown by Marsi US 3638957 (2 inch size results in 20%, 6 inch size results in 34% and in conclusion when size of the face is reduced the channel percentage would also reduce).
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ argument that examiner made a rejection based on design choice for the limitation of less than 10 percent is not persuasive by evidence provided by applicant own reference 20050263963, which states that the recess surface 140 and/or pattern 144 could be increased beyond 50 percent or decreased to less than 50 percent depending on the sealing application involved, see paragraph 0063-0067. This provides evidence that the range of less than 10 percent is a predictable resultant variable and taught by prior art. Examiner has also provided multiple other reference (Giesler et al and as explained to applicants representative that size of the mechanical seal and percentage are related as taught by Marsi, “2 inch size mechanical seal when the ratio of areas of grooves 43 to seal face 42 is about 20 percent or 1 to 5, and in 6 inch seal, about 34 percent or 1 to 3”, in conclusion when one skilled in the art uses a smaller size the percentage or ratio of areas of groove to seal face will decrease) teaching the ranges as claimed. It is noted that no design choice is used for the range of less than 10%.
Applicants’ argument that the reference of Giesler states a circumferential arc when relating to percent is correct in paragraph 0047 but Giesler also states in paragraph that the radial channels are configured to comprise, in sum, between one and eight percent, inclusive, of the circumferential arc of rotor of rotor second side 300 along at least the outer edge of the rotor 301 in paragraph 0051. It is further noted that refence states the circumferential arc is illustrated as 360 degrees on the rotor face or stator face.
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) 1-8, 11, 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itadani et al (US. 20150123350A1) in view of Lai (US. 20050263963A1).
Itadani discloses a system comprising a shaft (e.g. 1), a housing (e.g. 4) that defines a pressure chamber in which the shaft rotates, a hydrostatic seal assembly (e.g. figures) attached to the housing and that seals a liquid within the pressure chamber by creating a seal between the shaft and the housing, the hydrostatic seal assembly comprising a first ring (e.g. 6) having a first side (e.g. S) bounded by a first edge and a second edge (e.g. inner diameter and outer diameter of 6, see figure 2), a second ring (e.g. 3) having a second side (e.g. face of 3 facing S) facing the first side, wherein a circumferential channel (e.g. 15) extends along the first side between, and spaced from, the first edge and the second edge (e.g. see figure 4), wherein a plurality of sub-channels (e.g. 11) extend from the circumferential channel along the first side of the first ring (e.g. the sub-channels 11 are open to the high pressure fluid side which will cause hydrostatic effect in the circumferential channel 15) and wherein the first ring and the second ring form a hydrostatic seal between the first side and the second side while the shaft is rotating (e.g. this is the case for the circumferential channel 15). The plurality of sub-channels and the circumferential channel are configured to teak up to some percent of the surface area of the first side (see figures).
Regarding claim 2: The plurality of sub-channels include a plurality of first sub-channels (e.g. 11) extending from the circumferential channel to the first edge along the first side of the first ring (e.g. 11 open to the high pressure fluid side).
Regarding claim 3: The circumferential channel and the plurality of first sub-channels promote introducing fluid between the first side of the first ring and the second side of the second ring causing hydrostatic lift between the first side of the first ring and the second side of the second ring (e.g. that is the case due to high pressure fluid in 11 and 15).
Regarding claim 4: The plurality of sub-channels include a plurality of second sub-channels (14 in figure 4 or 14 in figure 6 when the second sub-channels 14 are connected to the circumferential channel 15) extending along the first side from the circumferential channel toward the second edge.
Regarding claim 5: The plurality of sub-channels extending from the circumferential channel are located on the first side of the first ring such that first sub-channels of the plurality of first sub-channels and second sub- channels of the plurality of second sub-channels extend from the circumferential channel in an alternating order along a length of the circumferential channel (e.g. figure 6 shows both the sub-channels 11 and 14 connected to the circumferential channel 15 at different locations that are alternating).
Regarding claim 6: Wherein a second sub-channel (e.g. 14 in figure 6) of the plurality of second sub-channels extends from the circumferential channel to a terminal end spaced from the second edge (e.g. 14 in figure 6 extends from the circumferential channel to a terminal end spaced from the second edge).
Regarding claim 7: Wherein a ratio of a circumferential distance between each first sub-channel of the plurality of first sub-channels to a radial span of each first sub-channel is about 4 (e.g. that would be the case since there are 16 first sub-channels).
Regarding claim 8: Wherein the first edge of the first ring is configured to be on a pressurized side of the seal, and the seal is configured to provide a seal against pressures on the pressurized side of the seal within a range of about 600 psi to about 1000 psi (e.g. since the structure of the claims is taught the seal system of Itadani, the seal system of Itadani is capable of this).
Regarding claim 11: Wherein the circumferential channel is co-axial with one or both of the first edge and the second edge (see figures 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 15: Wherein one or both of the first side of the first ring and the second side of the second ring are formed from one or more materials selected from a group consisting of carbon, silicon carbide, and tungsten carbide (e.g. paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 24: Wherein the circumferential channel, the plurality of first radial channels, and the plurality of second radial channels take up less than five percent of a surface area of the surface of the annular ring (e.g. this is the case when considering the plurality of first radial channels is just two of 11, the plurality of second radial channels is just two of 14).
Itadani discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the amount of percent is less than 5. Lai states in paragraph 0065 that the percent is less than 50%. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the percent of Itadani to be less than 10% as taught by Lai with reasonable expectation of success to seal a particular application (e.g. see paragraph 0065 of Lai).
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, 15 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itadani in view of Giesler et al (US. 20050047912A1).
Itadani discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the amount of percent is less than 5. Giesler states in claim 37 that channels are percent that is less than 10% and particularly between 1% to 8% of a seal face (e.g. also see figures). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the percent of Itadani to be less than 10% as taught by Giesler with reasonable expectation of success to provide superior seal and cooling (e.g. see abstract).
Claim(s) 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itadani and Lai.
Itadani discloses the claimed invention except the distance of one third of the width of the first side of the first ring. Discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the circumferential channel to have the distance be 1/3 of the with reasonable expectation of success a matter of design choice (e.g. choosing a particular size and spacing provides predictable of fluid pressure that creates separation between the first and second seal rings).
Itadani discloses the claimed invention except for the width between about 0.001 inches and 0.006 inches. Discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a depth and width as claimed with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice (e.g. a particular width and depth provides predictable result of amount fluid supplied to circumferential channel).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itadani and Lai and further in view of Newkirk et al (US. 1876520).
Itadani discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose a second circumferential channel portion fluidly separated from the first circumferential channel portion. Newkirk discloses a seal face (e.g. face in figure 3) with a first circumferential channel (e.g. 50) associated with first set of subchannels (e.g. 53) and a second circumferential channel (e.g. 51) spaced from the first circumferential channel (e.g. 50). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first side of Itadani to have plurality of circumferential channels separated thereof as taught Newkirk with reasonable expectation of success to provide multiple film between the sealing rings (e.g. this would be case due to a 1st dam between 1st circumferential groove and 1st edge and a 2nd dam between a 2nd circumferential groove and 1st circumferential groove, this is inherent since the combination would teach multiple circumferential grooves and multiple dams therebetween the edges of the first side).
Claim(s) 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itadani and Giesler.
Itadani discloses the claimed invention except the distance of one third of the width of the first side of the first ring. Discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the circumferential channel to have the distance be 1/3 of the with reasonable expectation of success a matter of design choice (e.g. choosing a particular size and spacing provides predictable of fluid pressure that creates separation between the first and second seal rings).
Itadani discloses the claimed invention except for the width between about 0.001 inches and 0.006 inches. Discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a depth and width as claimed with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice (e.g. a particular width and depth provides predictable result of amount fluid supplied to circumferential channel).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itadani and Giesler and further in view of Newkirk et al (US. 1876520).
Itadani discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose a second circumferential channel portion fluidly separated from the first circumferential channel portion. Newkirk discloses a seal face (e.g. face in figure 3) with a first circumferential channel (e.g. 50) associated with first set of subchannels (e.g. 53) and a second circumferential channel (e.g. 51) spaced from the first circumferential channel (e.g. 50). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the first side of Itadani to have plurality of circumferential channels separated thereof as taught Newkirk with reasonable expectation of success to provide multiple film between the sealing rings (e.g. this would be case due to a 1st dam between 1st circumferential groove and 1st edge and a 2nd dam between a 2nd circumferential groove and 1st circumferential groove, this is inherent since the combination would teach multiple circumferential grooves and multiple dams therebetween the edges of the first side).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 VISHAL A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-7060. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am to 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christine Mills can be reached on 571-272-8322. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/VISHAL A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675