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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Amendment to claims of 08/06/226 is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For independent claim 19, applicant argues, on page 12, that Johnson does not disclose the limitation “at least one of the first and second sealing flanges and its corresponding sealing surfaces extend at an angle greater than zero degrees but less than or equal to ninety degrees measured clockwise or counterclockwise relative to a transverse plane of the sela element.” Johnson discloses the first and second sealing flanges (48,48) and its corresponding sealing surfaces (52, 52) extend at an angle greater than zero degrees but less than or equal to ninety degrees measured clockwise or counterclockwise relative to a transverse plane of the sela element (Figure 2 and as shown below.) Applicant's argument is not persuasive.
It is suggested amending independent claim 19 limitation as “the first and second sealing flanges configured to sealingly engage corresponding sealing surfaces extend at an angle greater than zero degrees but less than or equal to ninety degrees measured clockwise or counterclockwise relative to a transverse plane of the sela element.” Paragraph [0056] of US Publication supports the amendment.
Also, check claims 23 and 25.
Claim(s) that depend(s) from the rejected claim(s) is/are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by D1 (Johnson, US 6,450,507).
For claim 19, D1 discloses, in Figures 1-2, a sealing system (32) for sealing a junction between first and second components (10, 20) which when assembled define a pressure containing enclosure (Col.1, L 45-63), the sealing system comprising:
an annular seal element (32) comprising:
first and second axially spaced sealing lips (36, 38) which are configured to sealingly engage respective first and second sealing surfaces (24, 16) on the first and second components (20,10) to thereby seal an external environment from internal pressure in the enclosure (Col.1, L 45-63. Figure 1);
third and fourth axially spaced sealing lips (as shown below) which are located radially outwardly of the first and second sealing lips and are configured to sealingly engage respective third and fourth sealing surfaces (28, 14) on the first and second components (20, 10) to thereby seal the enclosure from external pressure in the external environment (seal is subjected to external and internal pressures. Col.1, L45-63);
a cylindrical seal body (Body of 32); and
first and second spaced-apart sealing flanges (48, 48) which extend
radially outwardly from the seal body;
wherein the first and second axially spaced sealing lips are
located on the seal body and are directed generally radially outwardly (Figure 2 and as shown below); and
wherein the third and fourth sealing lips are located on the first and second sealing flanges (48, 48), respectively;
wherein the first and second sealing flanges (48, 48) define an intervening annular cavity (50) which opens radially outwardly (Figure 2);
wherein each of the third and fourth sealing lips is located on a side of its respective sealing flange located opposite the cavity (50, Figure 2 and as shown below); and
wherein at least one of the first and second sealing flanges (48, 48) and its corresponding sealing surface (52, 52) extends at an angle greater than zero degrees but less than or equal to ninety degrees measured clockwise or counterclockwise relative to a transverse plane of the seal element (Figure 2 and as shown below.)
PNG
media_image1.png
690
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim(s) 23 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1 (Johnson, US 6,450,507) in view of D2 (Janoff et al., US Pub. 2002-0140184).
For claim 23, D1 discloses the sealing system of claim 19, wherein each of the first and second sealing flanges (48, 48) and its corresponding sealing surface (52, 52) extends generally parallel to a transverse plane of the seal element (Figure 2.)
D1 does not disclose the first and second sealing surfaces extends generally parallel to a transverse plane of the seal element. D2 teaches, in Figure 2, a sealing system with seal 10, first and second seal lips (14b, 14b), and first and second sealing surfaces (Surfaces of 26, 26 on which the lips 14b, 14b have contact define the first and second sealing surfaces) to provide effective sealing environment. The surfaces of lips and sealing surfaces extend generally parallel to a transverse plane of the seal element 10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 such that the first and second sealing surfaces extend generally parallel to a transverse plane of the seal element, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having an effective sealing system.
For claim 25, D1 discloses the sealing system of claim19, wherein both of the first and second sealing flanges (48, 48) and their corresponding sealing surfaces extend at an angle greater than zero degrees but less than or equal to ninety degrees relative to the transverse plane of the seal element, wherein one of the first and second sealing flanges extends in a direction measured clockwise relative to the transverse plane and the other of the first and second sealing flanges extends in a direction measured counterclockwise relative to the transverse plane (First and second sealing flanges 48, 48 extend at an angle greater than zero degrees but less than or equal to ninety degrees relative to the transverse plane of the seal element. Figure 2.)
D1 does not disclose corresponding sealing surfaces extend at an angle greater than zero degrees but less than or equal to ninety degrees relative to the transverse plane of the seal element. D2 teaches, in Figure 4, a sealing system with seal 90, first and second seal lips (Lip between 102 and 114, and 104 and 114), and first and second sealing surfaces (Surfaces of 110 on which the lips have contact define the first and second sealing surfaces) to provide effective sealing environment. The surfaces of lips and sealing surfaces extend at an angle greater than zero degrees but less than or equal to ninety degrees relative to the transverse plane of the seal element 90. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify D1 such that the first and second sealing surfaces extend at an angle greater than zero degrees but less than or equal to ninety degrees relative to the transverse plane of the seal element, as taught by D2 with a reasonable expectation of success of having an effective sealing system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3, 8-11, and 14-15 are allowed.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides example of invention. A few of the prior art cited but not applied include Haeber (US 4,550,936); Gariepy (US Pub. 2007-0013146); and Mcintosh (US 6,612,371).
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 NATHAN CUMAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3112. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, KRISTINA FULTON can be reached at 571-272-7376. 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.
/NATHAN CUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
