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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 23 December 2025. These drawings are unacceptable as they contain new matter (e.g. the size, shape, positioning, etc. of the fourth bellow structure is shown in more detail than previously disclosed in the specification).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the fourth bellow structure surrounding or defining the third opening (claim 12), the first bellow structure having a truncated rectangular shape (claim 21), the second bellow having a rectangular shape (claim 21) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Specifically Examiner notes that the Figures lack any fourth bellows, the illustrated shape of the first bellow structure is a substantially truncated-rectangular shape as the corners of such are rounded, and the illustrated shape of the second bellow structure is a substantially rectangular shape as the corners of such are rounded. Examiner recommends canceling claim 12 and amending claim 21 to respectively read “a substantially truncated-rectangular shape” and “a substantially rectangular shape”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 limitations that “the second bellow has a rectangular shape”. This limitations 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. Specifically Examiner notes that the described/illustrated shape of the second bellow structure is a substantially rectangular shape as the corners of such are rounded. Appropriate correction and clarification is required. Examiner recommends amending claim 21 to read “a substantially rectangular shape”.
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 17 and 18 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.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the bellow structure”, “a perimeter”, “a second bellow structure”, “a first opening”, etc. that all appear to be previously recited in claim 16 on which this claim relies. As the limitations of this claim were substantially added to claim 16 in the most recent amendment it is unclear if this claim was intended to be canceled, was an attempt to claim additional structural elements (that may result in a 112(a) rejection), or was an attempt to further narrow the similar elements from claim 16 (though currently it is not clear if it claims additional limitations or would fail to further limit). Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to cancel this claim.
Claim 18 is indefinite for depending on an indefinite claim, and Examiner notes should likely be amended to depend on claim 16.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 1700723.
With regard to claim 1, EP ‘723 discloses a seal (28, as seen in Figs. 3-5) to be disposed between a structural component and an environment module (Examiner notes this is an intended use limitation in the preamble and as seen in Fig. 3 it is capable of being disposed between two element which could be a structural component and an environmental module it anticipates such), the seal comprising: a main body (e.g. 30) having opposing first and second sides (as seen in Fig. 4 opposing axial sides thereof (i.e. the left/right sides)) and including one or more openings (e.g. 52 and each 36); a first bellow structure (56) extending from the first side of the main body (as seen in Fig. 5 as it extends axially left of the first side of 30) surrounding each of the one or more openings (as seen in Figs. 3-5) and corresponding with a periphery of the first side of the main body (as seen in Fig. 4 it is at least a similar shape and/or similar location to such and thus corresponds to such), the first bellow structure including a curvature (e.g. the curvature at the bottom portion in Fig. 4, the curved portion at the upper right in Fig. 4, etc.) centered at a major axis of the seal (e.g. as seen in Fig. 4 as the largest vertical axis or the largest overall axis of the seal respectively run through and is centered at such portions. Additionally these can be defined to be centered at such); and a second bellow structure (i.e. one 34) extending from the first side of the main body (as seen in Fig. 5 as they extend to the axial left of such) and surrounding a first opening (i.e. the respective 36) of the one or more openings (as seen in Figs. 4-5), the second bellow structure being separate from the first bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 3-5), the first bellow structure surrounding the second bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 3-5).
With regard to claim 2, EP ‘723 discloses that the first bellow structure is a continuous bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 3-5).
With regard to claim 4, EP ‘723 discloses that the seal further includes: a third bellow structure (i.e. the other 34) extending around a second opening (i.e. the other respective 36) of the one or more openings (as seen in Figs. 3-5).
With regard to claim 10, EP ‘723 discloses a seal (28, as seen in Figs. 3-5) to be disposed between a structural component and an environment module (Examiner notes this is an intended use limitation in the preamble and as seen in Fig. 3 it is capable of being disposed between two element which could be a structural component and an environmental module it anticipates such), the seal comprising: a first opening (i.e. one 36) surrounded or defined by a first bellow structure (i.e. the respective 34 shown surrounding it); a second opening (i.e. one other 36) surrounded or defined by a second bellow structure (i.e. the other respective 34), the second bellow structure being separate from the first bellow structure (as seen in Fig. 4); and a third bellow structure (i.e. 56) surrounding the first and second bellow structures (as seen in Figs. 3-5) and corresponding with a periphery of the seal (as seen in Fig. 5 it is at least a similar shape and/or similar location to such and thus corresponds to such), the third bellow structure being separate from the first bellow structure and the second bellow structure (i.e. as seen in Figs. 3-5 they are separate elements) and including a curvature centered at a major axis of the seal (e.g. the curvature at the bottom portion in Fig. 4, the curved portion at the upper right in Fig. 4, etc.) centered at a major axis of the seal (e.g. as seen in Fig. 4 as the largest vertical axis or the largest overall axis of the seal respectively run through and is centered at such portions. Additionally these can be defined to be centered at such).
With regard to claim 11, EP ‘723 discloses that the seal further includes: a third opening (52) and a substantially planar portion (i.e. the planar portion that the openings are in as seen in Figs. 3-5) of the seal extends between a side of the third opening (i.e. part of the outer periphery thereof) and the first bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 3-5), a first end (e.g. a top thereof) of the substantially planar portion having a first distance from the first bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 3-5), and a second end (e.g. a bottom thereof) of the substantially planar portion having a second distance from the first bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 3-5), the second distance being greater than the first distance (as seen in Figs. 3-5).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-12, 14, 16-18, and 21, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richter et al. (US 2015/0021858) in view of Seryi et al. (US 20110127730).
With regard to claim 1, Richter discloses a seal (as seen in Figs. 4A-4B, etc.) to be disposed between a structural component and an environment module (Examiner notes that by virtue of its structure the seal of Richter is capable of this intended use limitation in the preamble as it can be placed between such), the seal comprising: a main body (e.g. 13) having opposing first and second sides (as seen in Fig. 4A-B opposing axial sides thereof) and including one or more openings (e.g. 7, or each 8); a first bellow structure (14) extending from the first side of the main body (as seen in Fig. 4B as it extends axially up from the first side of 13) surrounding each of the one or more openings (as seen in Figs. 4A-B) and corresponding with a periphery of the first side of the main body (as seen in Fig. 4A it is at least a similar shape and/or similar location to such and thus corresponds to such), the first bellow structure including a curvature (e.g. a curvature at any of the corners thereof as seen in Fig. 4A) centered at a major axis of the seal (e.g. as seen in Fig. 4A as the largest overall axis of the seal respectively run through and is centered at such portions (i.e. a diagonal axis thereof)); and a second seal structure (e.g. 5 or one of 6) extending from the first side of the main body (as seen in Fig. 4B as they extend to the axial up from such) and surrounding a first opening (7 or one of 8, respectively) of the one or more openings (as seen in Figs. 4A-B), the second seal structure being separate from the first bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 4A-B), the first bellow structure surrounding the second bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 4A-B).
Richter fails to disclose that the second seal structure is a second bellow structure.
Seryi discloses a similar seal (as seen in Figs. 1-2) having a plurality of openings each surrounded by a bellows (see each 24/25 surrounding each 16).
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the seal of Richter with the teaching of Seryi such that the second seal structure is a bellow structures. Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of allowing greater flexibility to the seal and preventing leakage/breakage when an element run through the opening(s) moved.
With regard to claim 2, the combination (Richter) discloses that the first bellow structure is a continuous bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 4A-B).
With regard to claim 4, the combination (Richter) discloses that the seal further includes: a third seal structure (i.e. an other one of 5 or one of the 6s) extending around a second opening (i.e. a respective one of 7 or one of the 8s) of the one or more openings (as seen in Figs. 4A-B).
The pior combination fails to disclose that the third seal structure is a third bellow structure.
Seryi discloses a similar seal (as seen in Figs. 1-2) having a plurality of openings each surrounded by a bellows (see each 24/25 surrounding each 16).
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the seal of Richter with the teaching of Seryi such that the third seal structure is a bellow structures. Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of allowing greater flexibility to the seal and preventing leakage/breakage when an element run through the opening(s) moved.
With regard to claim 5, the combination (Richter) discloses that the one or more openings further includes: a third opening (i.e. the final one of 7 or one of the 8s) and a substantially planar portion (i.e. the flat portion of 13) of the main body extends between a side of the third opening and the first bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 4A-B), a first end (i.e. the smaller portion thereof as seen in Figs. 4A-B) of the substantially planar portion having a first distance from the first bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 4A-B), and a second end (as larger portion thereof as seen in Figs. 4A-B) of the substantially planar portion having a second distance from the first bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 4A-B), the second distance being greater than the first distance (as seen in Figs. 4A-B).
With regard to claim 6, the combination discloses that the seal includes a hard plate (i.e. 13 of Richtrer) defining the one or more openings (as seen in Figs. 4A-B of Richter), the plate being overmolded with a sealing material that defines the first and second bellow structures (as seen in Figs. 4A-B in combination with the proposed modification along with para. [0017], etc. of Richter).
The combination fails to disclose that the hard plate of Richter is a metal plate.
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have selected metal for the material of the plate as it has been held to be within the general skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of providing a stronger and/or more durable base plate to the seal which would allow the seal to seal stronger pressure differentials, etc..
With regard to claim 7, the combination (Richter) discloses that the sealing material a material such as thermoplastic elastomer (see para. [0026]), which is known in the art (i.e. as such is a material property) to have a Shore A hardness in a durometer hardness range greater than or equal to about 40 to less than or equal to about 70 (commonly 25-95 which overlaps the entire claimed range) as a basic material property thereof. Additionally as Applicant has not specified that hardness test is performed and the hardness of a material will depend on the exact nature of the test (e.g. temperature, humidity, environment, which hardness scale, etc.) such that there is some test that can produce the claimed range
With regard to claim 8, the combination (Richter) discloses that the seal further includes: a plurality of coupling apertures (i.e. the other two apertures shown in Figs. 4A-B that are not the first opening, which can be considered coupling apertures as they can at least be used to couple the seal to components passing there through) extending through the main body (as seen in Figs. 4A-B) and configured for securing the seal to at least one of the structural component and the environment module (Examiner notes that as Applicant is only claiming the seal this is an intended use/capability limitation that the apertures of Richter are capable of in a variety of ways including as an element passing through the apertures can be attached to the structural component and the environment module and thus aid in securing the seal thereto).
With regard to claim 9, the combination (Richter) is silent as to the dimensions of the seal and thus fails to explicitly disclose that the seal has an average resting thickness greater than or equal to about 25 millimeters to less than or equal to about 40 millimeters.
However it would have been considered an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have made an average resting thickness greater than or equal to about 25 millimeters to less than or equal to about 40 millimeters as such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of a component, which is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of allowing for the seal to fit different sized components.
With regard to claim 10, Richter discloses a seal (as seen in Figs. 4A-4B, etc.) to be disposed between a structural component and an environment module (Examiner notes that by virtue of its structure the seal of Richter is capable of this intended use limitation in the preamble as it can be placed between such), the seal comprising: a first opening (e.g. 7) surrounded or defined by a first seal structure (e.g. 5 shown surrounding 7 as seen in Figs. 4A-B); a second opening (e.g. 8) surrounded or defined by a second seal structure (e.g. 6 shown surrounding 8 as seen in Figs. 4A-B), the second seal structure being separate from the first seal structure (as seen in Figs. 4A-B); and a third bellow structure (14, which examiner notes is considered a bellow structure as due to its flexible and curved nature it allows for an expandable or contractable function) surrounding the first and second seal structures (as seen in Figs. 4A-B) and corresponding with a periphery of the seal (as seen in Figs. 4A-B as it is similarly shaped and positioned relative to the outer periphery), the third bellow structure being separate from the first seal structure and the second seal structure (as seen in Figs. 4A-B) and including a curvature relative to a major axis of the seal (e.g. at least as seen in the cross-section of Fig. 4B relative to the horizontal direction thereof).
Richter fails to disclose that the first and second seal structures are bellows structures.
Seryi discloses a similar seal (as seen in Figs. 1-2) having a plurality of openings each surrounded by a bellows (see each 24/25 surrounding each 16).
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the seal of Richter with the teaching of Seryi such that the first and second seal structures are bellows structures. Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of allowing greater flexibility to the seal and preventing leakage/breakage when an element run through the opening(s) moved.
With regard to claim 11, the combination (Richter) discloses that the seal further includes: a third opening (e.g. the unlabeled opening identical to 8 as seen in Fig. 4A) and a substantially planar portion of the seal (13) extends between a side of the third opening and the first bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 4A-B), a first end (e.g. the left hand end at the outer periphery of 13) of the substantially planar portion having a first distance from the first bellow structure (as seen in Fig. 4A), and a second end (e.g. the right end at the outer periphery of 13) of the substantially planar portion having a second distance from the first bellow structure (as seen in Fig. 4A), the second distance being greater than the first distance (as seen in Fig. 4A as the first bellows structure is offset more to one end than the other).
With regard to claim 12, the combination (Richter) discloses a fourth seal structure (upper 6 surrounding the unlabeled opening identical to 8 as seen in Fig. 4A) surrounding or defining the third opening (as seen in Fig. 4A).
Richter fails to disclose that the fourth seal structures is a bellows structure.
Seryi discloses a similar seal (as seen in Figs. 1-2) having a plurality of openings each surrounded by a bellows (see each 24/25 surrounding each 16).
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the seal of Richter with the teaching of Seryi such that the fourth seal structure is a bellows structure. Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of allowing greater flexibility to the seal and preventing leakage/breakage when an element run through the opening(s) moved.
With regard to claim 14, the combination (Richter) discloses that the seal includes a plate (13) defining the first opening and the second opening (as seen in Figs. 4A-4B), the plate being overmolded with a sealing material that defines the first, second, and third bellow structures (as seen in Figs. 4A-4B, disclosed in para. [0017], etc.), and that the plate is made of a relatively hard material (see para. [0017], etc.).
The combination fails to disclose that the plate is made of metal.
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have selected metal for the material of the plate as it has been held to be within the general skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of providing a stronger and/or more durable base plate to the seal.
With regard to claim 16, Richter discloses a seal (as seen in Figs. 4A-4B, etc.) to be disposed between a structural component and an environment module (Examiner notes that by virtue of its structure the seal of Richter is capable of this intended use limitation in the preamble as it can be placed between such), the seal comprising: one or more plates (13) defining a main body (i.e. the main portion of the seal as seen in Fig. 4A-B) having one or more openings (7, 8, etc.); and a sealing material (i.e. the material of one or more of 4, 5, 6, as seen in Figs. 4A-B) overmolding the main body (as seen in Figs. 4A-B and described in para. [0017], etc.) and extending from one side thereof to form a first bellow structure (14, which examiner notes is considered a bellow structure as due to its flexible and curved nature it allows for an expandable or contractable function) that surrounds each of the one or more openings (as seen in Figs. 4A-B), that corresponds with a periphery of the main body (as seen in Figs. 4A-B as it is similarly shaped and positioned relative to an outer periphery thereof), and that includes a curvature centered at a major axis of the seal (e.g. at least as seen in the cross-section of Fig. 4B relative to the horizontal direction thereof), and a second seal structure (5 or one of 6) separate from the first bellow structure (as seen in Figs. 4A-B) that surrounds a first opening (respectively 7 or one of 8) of the one or more openings (as seen in Figs. 4A-B).
Richter fails to disclose that the plate is made of metal, and that the second seal structure is a bellow structure.
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have selected metal for the material of the plate as it has been held to be within the general skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of providing a stronger and/or more durable base plate to the seal.
Seryi discloses a similar seal (as seen in Figs. 1-2) having a plurality of openings each surrounded by a bellows (see each 24/25 surrounding each 16).
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the seal of Richter with the teaching of Seryi such that the first and second seal structures are bellows structures. Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of allowing greater flexibility to the seal and preventing leakage/breakage when an element run through the opening(s) moved.
With regard to claim 17, the combination discloses that the [first] bellow structure extends along a perimeter of the one side of the main body (as seen in Fig. 4A), and that the seal further includes: a second bellow structure (e.g. 5) extending around a first opening (e.g. 7) of the one or more openings (as seen in Figs. 4A-B).
With regard to claim 18, the combination (Richter) discloses that a third seal structure (another of 5 or another one of 6) extending around a second opening (7 or one of 8 respectively) of the one or more openings (as seen in Figs. 4A-B).
The prior combination fails to disclose that the third seal structure is a bellows structure.
Seryi discloses a similar seal (as seen in Figs. 1-2) having a plurality of openings each surrounded by a bellows (see each 24/25 surrounding each 16).
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the seal of Richter with the teaching of Seryi such that the third seal structure is a bellows structures. Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of allowing greater flexibility to the seal and preventing leakage/breakage when an element run through the opening is moved.
With regard to claim 21, the combination (Richter) discloses that the first bellows has a truncated rectangular shape (i.e. it is a square/rectangle with rounded off (i.e. a form of truncated) corners).
With regard to claim 22, the combination (Richter) discloses that the first bellow structure includes a first side having the curvature (i.e. the side including the corner with the curvature as seen in Figs. 4A-B), a second side (i.e. the side including the opposite corner from the curvature) opposite to the first side and being substantially perpendicular to the major axis (as seen in Figs. 4A-B as at least a majority of it is substantially perpendicular thereto), a third side (i.e. including one of the other corners) being substantially parallel with the major axis (as seen in Figs. 4A-B as at least a majority of it is substantially parallel thereto), and a fourth side (i.e. including the last corner) opposite to the third side and being substantially parallel with the major axis (as seen in Figs. 4A-B as at least a majority of it is substantially parallel thereto).
With regard to claim 23, the combination (Richter) discloses that the first bellow structure further includes a fifth side (i.e. one of the straight sides) angled inwards from the fourth side (as seen in Figs. 4A-B) to connect the fourth side to the second side (as seen in Figs. 4A-B).
With regard to claim 24, the combination fails to discloses that at least one of the plurality of coupling apertures is outside of the first bellows structure. However it would have been considered obvious, to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the combination such that it includes at least one coupling aperture outside of the first bellows structure as Examiner hereby takes Official Notice that the art is replete with examples of flat seals with coupling apertures near their outer periphery and outside of a continuous perimeter seal thereon. Such a modification would provide for at least one of the plurality of coupling apertures is outside of the first bellows structure and would provide the expected benefit of providing more secure mounting of the seal to a part it will be mounted to (e.g. by fasteners).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-2, 4-12, 14, 16-18, and 21-24 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. In so much as they may apply to the instant grounds of rejection, Applicant’s arguments filed 23 December 2025, have been fully but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first main argument against the prior art rejections of claims 1 and 10 is that the Seryi and Richter references fail to disclose the new limitation that the first (claim 1) or third (claim 10) bellow structure includes a curvature centered at a major axis of the seal. This argument is not persuasive since, as detailed above, the new grounds of rejection disclose this feature. Additionally Examiner notes that it appears Applicant is arguing a more specific definition of “major axis” than what is currently recited as the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term would refer to any large axis of a shape, a largest axis of a shape, etc.. This is especially true as many of the claims do not recite the shape of the seal such that the well-known shapes with known in the art definitions for major axes (e.g. an ellipse or possibly a rectangle) have not been recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With additional regard to claim 10 Applicant also argues that Richter in view of Seryi fails to disclose the new limitation “the third bellow structure separate from the first bellow structure and the second bellow structure”. Examiner notes that Richter discloses separate first, and second seal structures and a third bellow structure (see above) and Seryio makes obvious (see above) making the first and second seal structures bellow structures (e.g. bellow seal structures). The new/amended combination thus teaches/makes obvious these newly claimed limitations.
Claim 16 is rejected under two new grounds of rejection and thus arguments against the prior grounds of rejection are not persuasive.
Other arguments asserting allowability of dependent claims by virtue of depending on an argued claim are not persuasive as all claims currently stand rejected.
In the interest of advancing prosecution Examiner recommends further claiming that the main body is metal, substantially planar, and substantially has the shape of a truncated rectangle with the first and second bellows extending “directly” from the first side of the main body, and each bellows structure including a plurality of pleats. Additionally Applicant may reference the prior suggestions at the end of the Non-Final Office action for similar recommendations. Examiner notes that though such would be believed to overcome the instant grounds of rejection if claimed with sufficient specificity in each of the independent claims additional search and/or consideration would be required to ascertain allowability of any such amended claims and such a determination would depend on the exact claim language of such.
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 NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5354. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, 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.
/NICHOLAS L FOSTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675