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 .
The amendment filed 9/15/258 has been entered.
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) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zechmeister et al. (DE3444175C1) in view of Itadani et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0306327) and Labarge et al. (US Pub. No. 2002/0112687).
Regarding claim 1, the Zechmeister et al. (hereinafter Zechmeister) reference discloses slide ring (3) of a mechanical seal assembly (Fig. 1), comprising
a ring body (3) having a slide surface (4), which ring is made of an electrically non-conductive material (Para. [0008]), and
an electrical contact body (13), which is configured for electrical contacting and is arranged in the ring (Figs. 1,2),
wherein the electrical contact body is electrically conductive (Para. [0001]), and
wherein the electrical contact body is arranged in a recess (10) in the ring and fills the recess (Figs. 1,2).
However, the Zechmeister reference fails to explicitly disclose the ring and electrode being made of sintered ceramic.
The Itadani et al. (hereinafter Itadani) reference, a seal, discloses making a mechanical seal ring of sintered ceramic (Para. [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the ring of sintered ceramic in the Zechmeister reference in view of the Itadani reference in order to provide optimal sealing pressure and life.
The Labarge et al. (hereinafter Labarge) reference, an electrode, discloses making an electrode from sintered ceramic (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to make the electrode of sintered ceramic in the Zechmeister reference in view of the Labarge reference in order to provide increased life.
Regarding claim 2, the Zechmeister reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses the structure, as claimed. 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 2 is anticipated by the modified Zechmeister reference. The process by which the electrical contact body and the ring are bonded is not a patentable distinction.
Regarding claim 3, the Zechmeister reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses the recess is a through-recess which extends from a rear surface (Zechmeister, rear surface of 3) to the slide surface or extend from an inner circumferential surface or an outer circumferential surface to the slide surface ((Zechmeister, e.g. when the wear layer is removed).
Regarding claim 4, the Zechmeister reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses the contact body comprises a blind hole (Zechmeister, hole of 12) on an exit side of the contact body which is facing away from the slide surface and is filled with an electrically conductive metal material (Zechmeister, e.g. material of 13).
Regarding claim 5, the Zechmeister reference, as modified in claim 4, discloses the electrically conductive metal material is a metal pin (13), wherein a press fit (Zechmeister, Figs. 1,2) is formed between the metal pin and the blind hole (Zechmeister, Figs. 1,2).
Regarding claim 6, the Zechmeister reference, as modified in claim 4, discloses an electrical line (Zechmeister, 14) is electrically connected to the electrical contact body at a terminal (Zechmeister, terminal of 13) formed by an exposed region of the electrical metal material (Zechmeister, Figs. 1,2).
Regarding claim 7, the Zechmeister reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses a sensor (Zechmeister, e.g. 15) which is arranged on the slide ring and is electrically connected to the electrical contact body (Zechmeister, Figs. 1,2).
Regarding claim 8, the Zechmeister reference, as modified in claim 7, discloses the sensor is arranged on the slide surface of the slide ring (Zechmeister, e.g. when wear layer is removed).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Zechmeister reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 7, including the slide ring being a stationary slide ring of the mechanical seal assembly (Zechmeister, Figs. 1,2).
However, the modified Zechmeister fails to explicitly disclose two electrical contact bodies are provided in the ring for electrically contacting the sensor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide two contact bodies, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and in order to provide redundancy in case of failure. St. Regis Paper Col. V. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 10, the Zechmeister reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses the slide surface of the ring is coated with a coating (Zechmeister, e.g. wear layer).
Regarding claim 11, the Zechmeister reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses the ring is made of SiC (Itadani, Para. [0042]).
However, the modified Zechmeister reference fails to explicitly disclose the electrical contact body is made of Si-SiC or doped SiC or SiC-C-Si.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make the electrical contact body of the claimed material, 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 mechanical expedience and in order to allow for optimal conductivity. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, the Zechmeister reference, as modified in claim 1, discloses mechanical seal assembly (Zechmeister, Figs. 1,2), comprising a stationary slide ring (Zechmeister, 3) in accordance with claim 1 and a measuring apparatus (Zechmeister, e.g. wear indicator), which is electrically connected to the contact body of the slide ring (Zechmeister, Figs. 1,2).
The method claims 13-16 are rejected in view of the rejection of claims 1-12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/15/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the applicant’s argument of ceramic material, the argument is not persuasive because any mechanical/face seal with a nose will inherently wear down because of the friction caused by the mating surfaces. The purpose of the electrodes of the Zechmeister reference is only to calculate the electrical resistance between the two poles, the graphite is not necessary, as argued.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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