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
Applicants’ argument that none of the references cited alone or in combination teach the compression ring recited in claim 14 is not persuasive in view of rejection below.
Drawings
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 limitation of claim 22 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 22 are rejected as best understood. Furthermore the limitation of claims 22-23 where the butt end regions are formed with two steps or staircase-shaped manner is well known to assignee (e.g. Federal-Mogul Burscheid GmbH). Applicant and/or assignee can provide affidavit and/or arguments that to have butt end regions with two steps or staircase-shape manner are not old and examiner will provide evidence reference that this is old and well known in the art. It is noted applicant should see reference JP06281003 on IDS form 1449.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 14-17, 19-21, 23 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sturm et al (EP3889471A1). See figure below
Sturm discloses a compression ring (e.g. ring 1 in figure 1), comprising a ring running surface (e.g. see butt end region having recess and protrusion below) on a first butt end region (e.g. figures 2-3), a ring running surface (e.g. see butt end region having recess and protrusion below) on a second butt end region (e.g. figures 2-3), a ring inner surface (e.g. inner diameter of the ring shown in figure 1), a top ring flank surface (e.g. top surface of the ring) and a bottom ring flank surface (e.g. bottom surface of the ring), wherein the ring has overlapping butt end regions (e.g. overlapping of 5 and 6), wherein the first butt end region has a protrusion (e.g. tongue 5) in the circumferential direction, and the second butt end region has a recess (e.g. recess 6) in the circumferential direction, wherein the recess lies radially inward of the protrusion (e.g. see figure below and figure 1), wherein the protrusion (e.g. the tongue 5 and figure below) forms an axial overlap surface (e.g. see figure below) and a radial overlap surface (e.g. axial and radial overlap surfaces of the tongue 5 and see figure below), and the recess (e.g. the recess 6 and figure below) forms an axial overlap surface (e.g. see figure below) and a radial overlap surface which lies at least partially opposite and parallel to the radial overlap surface in order to shift parallel to one another in response to a change of the butt play (e.g. overlap surfaces of the recess 6 and figure below), wherein the axial recess surface is provided with an axial wear element and the radial recess surface is provided with a radial wear element (e.g. see figure below and when 31 is applied to recess instead of the protrusion as stated in the reference, “A gas barrier is arranged on at least one of the locking ends, preferably on the tongue, more preferably on the radially inwardly facing sliding surface of the tongue and/or on the axial sliding surface of the tongue. The gas barrier at least partly bridges the radial and/or axial space which exists between the overlapping locking ends without any pressure.”), wherein the wear element (e.g. figure 5) is made of a temperature-resistant metallic material (e.g. coating that is formed by electroplating), wherein the material of the wear element (e.g. figures) has a lower wear resistance than the base material of the compression ring (e.g. direct quotes from reference, “Alternatively the protrusion may have a hardness which is lower than the hardness of the core of the piston ring.” and “The protrusion may comprise a soft metal, for example aluminum, bronze, non-ferrous metal, soft iron”). Direct quotes from reference: “Preferably the gas barrier has a hardness which is lower than the hardness of the core of the piston ring.” and “The surface of the gas barrier rubs flat when the diameter of the piston ring changes and the locking ends move relatively to each other”. Regarding claim 29, applicant should review barrier or coating or layer 31 in figure 15.
Regarding claim 15: Wherein the ring has the overlapping butt end regions in the nominal diameter (e.g. figures 1-5 show this).
Regarding claim 16: Wherein the surfaces, which can be shifted parallel to one another, lie at least partially opposite one another in the nominal diameter (e.g. figure 3 shows this).
Regarding claim 17: Wherein the wear element has a minimum thickness of 0.005 mm (e.g. document states this range, see description of protrusion 20).
Regarding claim 19: Wherein the wear element overlaps or covers, respectively, 10-100 of the surface, on which the wear element is arranged (e.g. see figures 5-6).
Regarding claim 20: Wherein the wear element is arranged in the axial direction and/or radial direction at a distance from an edge of the surface on which the wear element is arranged (e.g. figure 6 shows this, edge 28).
Regarding claim 21: Wherein the butt end regions are formed with a single step (e.g. figures 1-6 show this).
Regarding claim 23: Wherein the butt end regions are formed in a staircase-shaped manner (e.g. figures 1-6 show this).
Regarding claim 25: Wherein a strength of the wear element is in the range of 1-80% less than a strength of the compression ring (e.g. see material of the wear element which is softer metal than iron).
Regarding claim 26: Sturm discloses a method for counter-sinking a compression ring according to claim 14, wherein the method comprises the steps of applying a wear element by means of wire rolling into a groove, laser remelting, laser metal deposition, deposition welding, thermal spraying and/or galvanic or chemical deposition or sintering (e.g. see entire document and rejection of claim 14 above) and moving the butt end regions against one another in order to create a wear of the wear element, until the nominal size in the axial and/or radial direction of the compression ring is reached (e.g. this would occur during operation of a machine with a compression ring and the wear element is softer than the core element of the compression ring).
Regarding claim 27: Wherein the range is 0-40% (again the wear element is made of metal that is softer than the core material of the compression ring).
Regarding claim 28: Wherein the range is 1-20% (again the wear element is made of metal that is softer than the core material of the compression ring).
It is further noted that the reference teaches to have barrier or layer or coating on surface 6 and in other embodiment the coating is placed on plurality of surfaces as shown in figure 15. In conclusion to have coating formed on two of the surface of recess 6 would be well known in the art and considered to be art equivalent.
PNG
media_image1.png
520
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sturm in view of Examiners Official Notice.
Sturm discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the wear element has different wear layers arranged one on top of the other, which include different materials. Examiner takes official notice that to have a coating on a member, where the coating is formed by multiple layers where 1st layers is primer layer and 2nd layers is a metallic layers different than the primer layer is well known in the art. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the wear element of Sturm be formed of different wear layers as taught by Examiners Official Notice, with reasonable expectation of success to provide better bonding between the core element of the piston ring and the metallic layer (inherent to provide better bonding).
See evidence references provided on form 892.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sturm in view of Dodd (US.1064300).
Sturm discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose wherein the butt end regions are formed with two steps. Dodd teaches to have a piston ring with multiple steps at butt end regions (see figure 4, B or figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the butt end regions to have plurality of steps as taught by Dodd with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a compression with larger thickness (e.g. see thickness of ring taught by Dodd).
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 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
Prosecution Insights