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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galphin (US 2008/0265523) in view of Ono (US 2020/0018398).
Regarding claim 1, Galphin discloses a gasket 10 Fig. 1 in an annular shape to seal a gap between a first member 14 in which an annular groove 18 is formed and a second member 16 to be overlaid on the first member to close an opening of the groove, the gasket comprising: a body portion 12 in an annular shape having a basal surface 22 to contact a bottom surface of the groove and a top surface to contact the second member and extending over an entire circumferential direction of the gasket; a first protrusion pair 24, 26 protruding from the body portion respectively toward both side surfaces in a radial direction of the groove and extending over the entire circumferential direction; and one or more second protrusion pairs 36 protruding from the first protrusion pair respectively toward both the side surfaces of the groove, wherein: respective protrusions of the second protrusion pair are disposed at a same position in the circumferential direction, and tip ends of the respective protrusions are formed in a planar shape to be along the side surfaces of the groove, and a first gasket width from a tip end of one protrusion of the first protrusion pair to a tip end of another protrusion is smaller than a groove width between both the side surfaces of the groove, and a second gasket width D1 from a tip end of one protrusion of the second protrusion pair to a tip end of another protrusion is larger than the groove width. However, Galphin fails to explicitly disclose the dimensions of the gasket having widths of the basal surface and the top surface is greater than the length in a height direction of each tip of the second protrusion pair. Ono, a gasket in an annular shape to seal gap, discloses a gasket 10 Fig. 5 having widths of the basal surface 13 and the top surface 14 is greater than the length in a height direction of each tip of the second protrusion pair 20b. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the gasket of Galphin with surfaces having a greater length than the protrusions as taught by Ono in order to help prevent the gasket from tilting within the groove (Para. 0038 of Ono). Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses wherein the respective protrusions 36 of the second protrusion pair are provided at a same position in a height direction of the gasket 10.
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses wherein: the basal surface 22 of the body portion 12 is formed in a planar shape to be along the bottom surface of the groove 18, and a length of the tip end of at least one protrusion of the second protrusion pair 36 in a height direction of the gasket is equal to or larger than a width of the basal surface.
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses wherein: the top surface 20 of the body portion 12 is formed in a planar shape to be along a surface of the second member that is to abut on the top surface, and a length D1 of the tip end of at least one protrusion of the second protrusion pair in a height direction of the gasket is equal to or larger than a width of the top surface.
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses wherein in sectional view perpendicular to the circumferential direction of the gasket 10, at least one protrusion of the first protrusion pair 24, 26 is formed in a tapered shape that enlarges as progresses toward the body portion.
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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galphin in view of Ono and further in view of Matsumoto (JP 07-018068).
Regarding claim 5, Galphin and Ono disclose the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose a recessed part recessed to a body portion side is formed at the tip end of at least one protrusion of the first protrusion pair. Matsumoto, a gasket 4 Fig. 1, discloses the use of a recessed part 5 recessed to a body portion side is formed at the tip end of at least one protrusion 3 of a first protrusion pair. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a recess in the protrusion of Galphin as taught by Matsumoto in order to improve stability of the gasket within the groove.
Regarding claim 6, the combination disclose the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein in a width direction of the gasket, a distance from a most recessed portion of the recessed part to the tip end is equal to or less than 0.5 mm. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance to any number of ranges (i.e. equal to or less than 0.5 mm) disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 EUGENE G BYRD whose telephone number is (571)270-1824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 5712727376. 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.
/EUGENE G BYRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675