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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 15-18, 24, 27-30, 36 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hana et al (EP 3 428 480 A2) in view of Ott et al (US 2012/0228870).
As to claim 15, Hana et al discloses a rotary union (Fig. 4), comprising: a female part (22B); a male part (51) seated in the female part and rotatable relative to the female part on an axis of rotation; a first primary conduit, configured to convey a first primary fluid, and comprising a first female conduit portion (22D) formed by the female part of the rotary union, and a first male conduit portion (51C) formed by the male part of the rotary union, wherein the rotary union forms a first coupling between the female conduit portion and the male conduit portion (Fig. 4), the female part forming an annular seat (annulus between male and female parts which the seals serve to seal) facing the male part.
Hana et al fails to teach a primary seal positioned in the annular seat, wherein the primary seal is configured to radially seal to the male part and to shift in position away from the first coupling along the axis of rotation and axially seal to the female part at an increase in pressure of the first primary fluid in the first coupling.
However, Ott et al teaches a radial rotary union/feedthrough comprising a rotatable shaft (40) having an axial passage (42) leading to a radial passage (43). The shaft rotates within a housing (30). The female housing has grooves for sealing rings (50) which effect sealing between the housing and the male shaft assembly.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hana et al, such that the seals are located in grooves in the female part instead of on the male part, as taught by Ott et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 16, Hana et al/Ott et al discloses the rotary union according to claim 15, further comprising: a second primary conduit configured to convey a second primary fluid and comprising a second female conduit portion (22C) formed by the female part of the rotary union, and a second male conduit portion (51D) formed by the male part of the rotary union, wherein the rotary union forms a second coupling between the second female conduit portion and the second male conduit portion of the second primary conduit (Fig. 4), and the annular seat and the primary seal being located between the second coupling and the first coupling, and the primary seal being configured to shift in position away from the second coupling along the axis of rotation and to axially seal to the female part at an increase in pressure of the second primary fluid in the second coupling.
As to claim 17, Hana et al/Ott et al discloses the rotary union according to claim 15, except that the primary seal comprises a seal ring that forms an inner surface and a first side surface, wherein the inner surface cooperates with the male part, and the first side surface cooperates with the female part in response to the increase in pressure of the first primary fluid in the first coupling. Refer to Ott et al.
As to claim 18, Hana et al/Ott et al discloses the rotary union according to claim 17, wherein the seal ring further forms a second side surface, wherein the second side surface and the first side surface face opposite directions, and wherein the second side surface cooperates with the female part in response to the increase in pressure of the second primary fluid in the second coupling. Refer to Ott et al.
As to claim 24, Hana et al/Ott et al discloses the rotary union according to claim 15, wherein the primary seal is fixed to the female part. Refer to Fig. 4.
As to claim 27, Hana et al discloses a shaft arrangement for conveying a first primary fluid to hydraulic components inside a gearbox of a vehicle, wherein the shaft arrangement comprises:(a) a rotary union (Fig. 4), comprising: a female part (22B); a male part (51) seated in the female part and rotatable relative to the female part on an axis of rotation; a first primary conduit, configured to convey a first primary fluid, and comprising a first female conduit portion (22D) formed by the female part of the rotary union, and a first male conduit portion (51C) formed by the male part of the rotary union, wherein the rotary union forms a first coupling between the female conduit portion and the male conduit portion (Fig. 4), the female part forming an annular seat (annulus between male and female parts which the seals serve to seal) facing the male part.
Hana et al fails to teach a primary seal positioned in the annular seat, wherein the primary seal is configured to radially seal to the male part and to shift in position away from the first coupling along the axis of rotation and axially seal to the female part at an increase in pressure of the first primary fluid in the first coupling; and (b) a shaft fixed to the male part of the rotary union, wherein the first primary conduit further comprises a shaft conduit portion extending within the shaft from the male part of the rotary union.
However, Ott et al teaches a radial rotary union/feedthrough comprising a rotatable shaft (40) having an axial passage (42) leading to a radial passage (43). The shaft rotates within a housing (30). The female housing has grooves for sealing rings (50) which effect sealing between the housing and the male shaft assembly.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hana et al, such that the seals are located in grooves in the female part instead of on the male part, as taught by Ott et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art.
As to claim 28, Hana et al/Ott et al discloses the shaft arrangement according to claim 27, further comprising: a second primary conduit configured to convey a second primary fluid and comprising a second female conduit portion (22C) formed by the female part of the rotary union, and a second male conduit portion (51D) formed by the male part of the rotary union, wherein the rotary union forms a second coupling between the second female conduit portion and the second male conduit portion of the second primary conduit, and the annular seat and the primary seal being located between the second coupling and the first coupling, and the primary seal being configured to shift in position away from the second coupling along the axis of rotation and to axially seal to the female part at an increase in pressure of the second primary fluid in the second coupling.
As to claim 29, Hana et al/Ott et al discloses the shaft arrangement according to claim 27, except that the primary seal comprises a seal ring that forms an inner surface and a first side surface, wherein the inner surface cooperates with the male part, and the first side surface cooperates with the female part in response to the increase in pressure of the first primary fluid in the first coupling. Refer to Ott et al.
As to claim 30, Hana et al/Ott et al discloses the shaft arrangement according to claim 29, wherein the seal ring further forms a second side surface, wherein the second side surface and the first side surface face opposite directions, and wherein the second side surface cooperates with the female part in response to the increase in pressure of the second primary fluid in the second coupling. Refer to Ott et al.
As to claim 36, Hana et al/Ott et al discloses the shaft arrangement according to claim 27, wherein the primary seal is fixed to the female part. Refer to Fig. 4.
As to claim 39, Hana et al/Ott et al discloses the shaft arrangement according to claim 27, wherein the gearbox includes a gearbox case, and wherein the female part of the rotary union is configured for attachment to the gearbox case.
Claim(s) 21-23, 25-26, 33-35, and 37-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hana et al (EP 3 428 480 A2) in view of Ott et al (US 2012/0228870), and further in view of Saliger (US 4,555,118).
As to claim 21, Hana et al/Ott et al/Saliger discloses the rotary union according to claim 17, except that the seal ring is biased against the male part.
However, Saliger teaches a sealing assembly between a fixed and a movable part of a rotary union, which includes a spring-biased seal assembly (Figs. 2 and 3) that minimizes the seal extrusion gap (2: 10-14).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hana et al/Ott et al with the sealing assembly as taught by Saliger, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to minimize the extrusion gap between the fixed and rotating parts in Hana et al/Ott et al.
As to claim 22, Hana et al/Ott et al/Saliger discloses the rotary union according to claim 21, wherein the seal ring has one or more cuts (Fig. 2, Saliger) arranged to allow a radially inward deformation of the seal ring.
As to claim 23, Hana et al/Ott et al/Saliger discloses the rotary union according to claim 22, wherein the primary seal comprises a clamping spring (50, Saliger) biasing the seal ring against the male part.
As to claim 25, Hana et al/Ott et al/Saliger discloses the rotary union according to claim 24, wherein the primary seal comprises a recess (in which ring 56 is seated, Saliger, Fig. 3), and the female part comprises a protrusion (56, Saliger) extending into the recess and arranged to prevent a rotation of the primary seal on the axis of rotation relative to the female part.
As to claim 26, Hana et al/Ott et al/Saliger discloses the rotary union according to claim 25, wherein the recess and the protrusion are configured to allow the primary seal to shift in position along the axis of rotation (see Fig. 3, Saliger).
As to claim 33, Hana et al/Ott et al/Saliger discloses the haft arrangement according to claim 29, except that the seal ring is biased against the male part.
However, Saliger teaches a sealing assembly between a fixed and a movable part of a rotary union, which includes a spring-biased seal assembly (Figs. 2 and 3) that minimizes the seal extrusion gap (2: 10-14).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hana et al/Ott et al with the sealing assembly as taught by Saliger, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to minimize the extrusion gap between the fixed and rotating parts in Hana et al/Ott et al.
As to claim 34, Hana et al/Ott et al/Saliger discloses the shaft arrangement according to claim 32, wherein the seal ring has one or more cuts (Fig. 2, Saliger) arranged to allow a radially inward deformation of the seal ring.
As to claim 35, Hana et al/Ott et al/Saliger discloses the shaft arrangement according to claim 34, wherein the primary seal comprises a clamping spring (50, Saliger) biasing the seal ring against the male part.
As to claim 37, Hana et al/Ott et al/Saliger discloses the shaft arrangement according to claim 36, wherein the primary seal comprises a recess (in which ring 56 is seated, Saliger, Fig. 3), and the female part comprises a protrusion (56, Saliger) extending into the recess and arranged to prevent a rotation of the primary seal on the axis of rotation relative to the female part.
As to claim 38, Hana et al/Ott et al/Saliger discloses the shaft arrangement according to claim 37, wherein the recess and the protrusion are configured to allow the primary seal to shift in position along the axis of rotation (Fig. 3, Saliger).
Claim(s) 19 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hana et al (EP 3 428 480 A2) in view of Ott et al (US 2012/0228870), and further in view of Khazanovich et al (US 2009/0120648).
As to claim 19, Hana et al/Ott et al discloses the rotary union according to claim 17, except that the seal ring is made of one of annealed iron and annealed steel.
However, Khazanovich et al teaches a metal sealing ring (40) that is made of annealed steel.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the union of Hana et al/Ott et al with a seal ring made of annealed steel, as taught by Khazanovich et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker 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.
As to claim 31, Hana et al/Ott et al discloses the shaft arrangement according to claim 29, except that the seal ring is made of one of annealed iron and annealed steel.
However, Khazanovich et al teaches a metal sealing ring (40) that is made of annealed steel.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the union of Hana et al/Ott et al with a seal ring made of annealed steel, as taught by Khazanovich et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker 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.
Claim(s) 20 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hana et al (EP 3 428 480 A2) in view of Ott et al (US 2012/0228870), further in view of Khazanovich et al (US 2009/0120648), and even still further in view of Rabhi (US 2015/0354549).
As to claim 20, Hana et al/Ott et al/Khazanovich et al discloses the rotary union according to claim 19, except that the male part has a contact surface in contact with the seal ring, wherein the contact surface is coated with Diamond Like Carbon (DLC).
However, Rabhi teaches a high -pressure rotating coupling having a surface in contact with sealing ring (3, 42) that can be hardened by coating with DLC. Refer to [0061].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hana et al/Ott et al/Khazanovich et al such that the male part has a contact surface in contact with the seal ring, wherein the contact surface is coated with Diamond Like Carbon (DLC), as taught by Rabhi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to harden the contact surface and inhibit wear.
As to claim 32, Hana et al/Ott et al/Khazanovich et al discloses the shaft arrangement according to claim 31, except that the male part has a contact surface in contact with the seal ring, wherein the contact surface is coated with Diamond Like Carbon (DLC).
However, Rabhi teaches a high -pressure rotating coupling having a surface in contact with sealing ring (3, 42) that can be hardened by coating with DLC. Refer to [0061].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Hana et al/Ott et al/Khazanovich et al such that the male part has a contact surface in contact with the seal ring, wherein the contact surface is coated with Diamond Like Carbon (DLC), as taught by Rabhi, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to harden the contact surface and inhibit wear.
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Romero Checa et al discloses a spring-biased seal for sealing between fixed and movable parts.
Vu discloses a clutch assembly with a rotatable shaft with first and second fluid passages (18, 20).
Rhee discloses a linear motion rotary union having a rotatable shaft (100) with a plurality of fluid supply paths.
Bornhorst discloses a rotary union having a threaded shaft and a plurality of fluid passages.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-930pm, mid-day flex 2-4pm.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679