Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/708,346

LINEAR SEALING COMPONENTS AND METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS FOR ADDITIVELY MANUFACTURING THEREOF

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 08, 2024
Priority
Nov 10, 2021 — provisional 63/277,646 +1 more
Examiner
LEE, GILBERT Y
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
PPG Industries Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2m
Est. Remaining
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
1099 granted / 1397 resolved
+26.7% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
27 currently pending
Career history
1437
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
73.5%
+33.5% vs TC avg
§102
3.5%
-36.5% vs TC avg
§112
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1397 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Election/Restrictions Claim 43 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/22/26. 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) 24-42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raspic (US Pub. No. 2012/0248713) in view of McCarthy et al. (US Patent No. 10,202,183). Regarding claim 24, the Raspic reference discloses an additively manufactured sealing component, comprising: an elongated body (32) comprising: a first recess (15) and a second recess (16) opposite from the first recess, the first recess and the second recess defining a center line (Fig. 14); a first volume (e.g. left volume of 32) on a first side of the center line; a second volume (e.g. right volume of 32) on a second side of the center line; and a third volume (volume of 32 between channels 39) between the first recess and the second recess such that the center line runs through the third volume (Fig. 14); wherein the first recess is outlined by a first recess opening (opening of 15), a first tip section (e.g. tip of 17) of the first volume, a second tip section (e.g. tip section of 18) of the second volume, and a first wall (e.g. bottom wall of 15) of the third volume; wherein the second recess is outlined by a second recess opening (opening of 16), a third tip section (e.g. tip of 19) of the first volume, a fourth tip section (e.g. tip of 20) of the second volume, and a second wall of the third volume (e.g. top wall of 16). However, the Raspic reference fails to explicitly disclose the elongated body comprises a thermoset polymer. The McCarthy et al. (hereinafter McCarthy) reference, a seal, discloses making an elongated body of elastomer or a polymer (Col. 9, Lines 5-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the Raspic reference of a polymer in view of the teachings of the McCarthy reference in order to allow for a seal that provides excellent sealing properties in different environments and since change in materials would provide predictable results. MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims states that "If the product in the product-by-process claim is that same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process." Claim 24 is anticipated by the modified Raspic reference. The process by which the polymer is made is not a patentable distinction. Regarding claim 25, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the first recess and the second recess are configured to each receive a panel having a thickness of one to ten times the size of the recess openings of the recesses (Raspic, Fig. 14). Regarding claim 26, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the first recess and the second recess extend the entire length of the elongated body (Raspic, Fig. 14). Regarding claim 27, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses substantial portion of the elongated body has a uniform cross-sectional geometry (Raspic, Fig. 14). Regarding claim 28, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the elongated body has a porous structure (Raspic, Fig. 14). Regarding claim 29, the modified Raspic reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 24. However, the modified Raspic reference fails to explicitly disclose the first recess and the second recess are triangular. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the recesses triangular, a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art and in order to accommodate a panel with a triangular projection. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Regarding claim 30, the Rapsic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the first recess is configured such that upon receiving a panel having a thickness greater than the first recess opening, the first tip section, the second tip section, and the first wall secure the panel via a three-point-contact; and the second recess is configured such that upon receiving a panel having a thickness greater than the second recess opening, the third tip section, the fourth tip section, and the second wall secure the panel via a three-point-contact (Raspic, e.g. Fig. 3). Regarding claim 31, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the first recess is configured such that upon receiving a panel having a thickness greater than the first recess opening, the first tip section and the second tip section elastically deform to widen the first recess opening; and the second recess is configured such that upon receiving a panel having a thickness greater than the second recess opening, the third tip section and the fourth tip section elastically deform to widen the second recess opening (Raspic, Fig. 3). Regarding claim 32, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the third volume is compressible at least along the center line such that the distance between the first recess and a second recess is reduced when the third volume is compressed (Raspic, Fig. 3). Regarding claim 33, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the elongated body is configured to: receive a first panel in the first recess and a second panel in the second recess; wherein the distance between the first recess and the second recess is variable at least a minimum of twice a wall thickness of the sealing component (Raspic, e.g. Fig. 3). Regarding claim 34-41, the Raspic reference, as modified in claim 24, discloses the sealing component. MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims states that "If the product in the product-by-process claim is that same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process." Claim 24 is anticipated by the modified Raspic reference. The process by which the polymer is made is not a patentable distinction. Regarding claim 42, the modified Raspic reference, discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 24, including using the sealing element in an aircraft component (Raspic, Fig. 1, Abstract). MPEP 2113 Product-by-Process Claims states that "If the product in the product-by-process claim is that same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process." Claim 24 is anticipated by the modified Raspic reference. The process by which the polymer is made is not a patentable distinction. 42. (New) An aircraft component, comprising: a first panel; a second panel; and an elongated seal component having: a first recess and a second recess opposite from the first recess, the first recess and the second recess defining a center line, the first recess securely coupled to the first panel, the second recess securely coupled to the second panel; a first volume on a first side of the center line; a second volume on a second side of the center line; and a third volume between the first recess and the second recess such that the center line runs through the third volume; wherein the first recess is outlined by a first recess opening, a first tip section of the first volume, a second tip section of the second volume, and a first wall of the third volume; wherein the second recess is outlined by a second recess opening, a third tip section of the first volume, a fourth tip section of the second volume, and a second wall of the third volume; wherein the elongated seal component comprises a thermoset polymer formed by: forming a reactive mixture by at least mixing at least a first co-reactive component and a second co-reactive component, the first co-reactive component comprising a thiol-terminated polythioether, the second co-reactive component including a polyvinyl ether; depositing the reactive mixture layer-by-layer to form the elongated seal component; and curing the deposited reactive mixture via an actinic radiation source. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERT Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm. 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 at (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. /GILBERT Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 08, 2024
Application Filed
Jun 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12680628
A GUARD SENSOR DEVICE FOR USE WITH A CABLE, PIPE OR WIRE TRANSIT, AND A METHOD OF GUARDING A CABLE, PIPE OR WIRE TRANSIT
3y 3m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12680046
Low Friction Coatings
2y 11m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12663080
GASKET
3y 10m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12663015
HIGH PRESSURE GAS SEALING
1y 7m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12655914
Cylindrical Valve Slider Seal with Raised Contact Ribs
2y 5m to grant Granted Jun 16, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
79%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+10.6%)
2y 4m (~2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1397 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month