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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 - 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hogg et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20050104300).
Regarding Claim 1, Hogg discloses a sealing device (fig 1) comprising : a sealing member (1) that is disposed between a rotating member of a rotating machine (3) and a stationary member ( 2) disposed on a radial outer side of the rotating member with respect to the rotating member (2 on radial outer side of 3), and that seals between the rotating member and the stationary member (1 seals between 2 and 3); and a biasing member (basing member within 6 as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) that biases the sealing member toward the radial outer side (biasing member biases 1 radially outwards), wherein the sealing member includes a base portion (6) that extends in a circumferential direction of the rotating member ( 6 extends circumferentially), a rib that extends in the circumferential direction (rib of 6 extends circumferentially), and that protrudes from the base portion toward the radial outer side (rib of 6, protrudes from base of 6 radially outwards), the base portion and the rib being formed as a single monolithic structure ( rib 6 with base portion at the bottom and rib at the top), and
a seal fin that extends in the circumferential direction (seal fin extends circumferentially as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) and that protrudes from the base portion toward a radial inner side of the rotating member (seal fin radially inwards), and wherein the rib has a notch portion (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) in which the biasing member is disposed between one end of the rib and an opposite end of the rib in the circumferential direction (biasing member between two ends by numerals as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below).
Regarding Claim 12, Hogg discloses a rotating machine comprising : the rotating member (12); the stationary member ( 14); and the sealing device (fig 2B).
PNG
media_image1.png
554
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
404
583
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogg alone.
Regarding Claim 2, Hogg discloses the sealing device wherein a distance from a surface on the radial inner side of the base portion to an end surface on a radial outer side of the rib is more than a distance from the surface on the radial inner side of the base portion to a surface on a radial outer side of the base portion (distance from a surface on the radial inner side of the base portion of 6 to an end surface on the radial outer side of the rib is more than a distance from the surface on the radial inner side of the base portion of 6 to a surface on the radial outer side of the base portion of 6).
Hogg does not disclose a distance from a surface on the radial inner side of the base portion to an end surface on the radial outer side of the rib is three times or more a distance from the surface on the radial inner side of the base portion to a surface on the radial outer side of the base portion.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the distance limitation 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, to provide a base for the sealing member that is retained in the groove of the stationary member and seals against the shaft. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding Claim 3, Hogg discloses the sealing device wherein the base portion includes an insertion portion (insertion portion of 6) inserted into an opening portion of a groove portion formed in an inner peripheral portion of the stationary member (insertion portion of 6, inserted into groove of stationary member 2) and extending in the circumferential direction (fig 1).
Hogg does not disclose a dimension of the rib of the rotating member in an axial direction is 0.3 times or less a dimension of the insertion portion in the axial direction.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the distance limitation 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, to provide a base for the sealing member that is retained in the groove of the stationary member and seals against the shaft, to provide ribs with better retention of the spring that biases the sealing member. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 4, 5 and 9 - 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogg in view of Chevrette et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20070274829).
Regarding Claim 4, Hogg discloses the sealing device.
Hogg does not disclose further comprising : a restricting member that is a member different from the sealing member and that restricts deformation of the base portion at a circumferential position where the notch portion is present.
However, Chevrette teaches
a restricting member (238, 210, fig 2A) that is a member different from the sealing member (22, 202, 222, 224, fig 2A) and that restricts deformation of the base portion at a circumferential position where the notch portion is present (238 restricts deformation of 22, 202, 222, 224).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the restricting member of Chevrette with the sealing device of Hogg with a reasonable expectation of success so that the biasing member pushes radially outwardly against the restricting member, which tends to move the seal radially outwardly away from the shaft (Chevrette Para 0012).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hogg and Chevrette discloses the sealing device wherein the rib includes a first rib on one side in the circumferential direction and a second rib on an opposite side in the circumferential direction with the notch portion interposed therebetween ( as seen in examiner annotated Hogg fig 1 below), and the restricting member is joined to the first rib and the second rib (Chevrette 238, 210 joined to first and second ribs as seen in examiner annotated Chevrette fig 3 below).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Hogg and Chevrette discloses the sealing device wherein the restricting member is fixed to the base portion on one side in the circumferential direction and to the base portion on an opposite side in the circumferential direction with the notch portion interposed therebetween by a joining member (Chevrette 238, 210 fixed to Hogg - base portion of 6 on one side in the circumferential direction and to the base portion of 6 on an opposite side in the circumferential direction with the notch portion interposed therebetween, similar to Chevrette 238, 210 fixed to 220 by 242, fig 3).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Hogg and Chevrette discloses the sealing device wherein the restricting member extends from one side of the rotating member to an opposite side of the rotating member in an axial direction with the rib interposed therebetween (Chevrette 238, 210 extends axially with rib of Hogg interposed).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Hogg and Chevrette discloses the sealing device wherein the restricting member is a pressing plate that presses the biasing member from the radial outer side against a biasing force of the biasing member (Chevrette 210 presses Hogg biasing member radially inwards).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogg in view of Chevrette and in further view of Schlemmer et al. (U.S. Patent # 10808561).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Hogg and Chevrette discloses the sealing device.
Hogg does not disclose wherein the first rib is provided with a first through-hole penetrating the first rib in an axial direction of the rotating member, the second rib is provided with a second through-hole penetrating the second rib in the axial direction, the restricting member is provided with third through-holes penetrating the restricting member in the axial direction, and fourth through-holes penetrating the restricting member in the axial direction at a position separated from the third through-holes in the circumferential direction, the sealing device further comprises at least two joining pins joining the restricting member to the first rib and the second rib, at least one of the joining pins is inserted into the first through-hole and the third through- holes, and at least another one of the joining pins is inserted into the second through-hole and the fourth through-holes.
However, Schlemmer teaches wherein the first rib (60, fig 1) is provided with a first through-hole (58, fig 1) penetrating the first rib (60, fig 1) in an axial direction of the rotating member (fig 1) , the second rib (62, fig 1) is provided with a second through-hole (52, fig 2) penetrating the second rib (52) in the axial direction (fig 1), the restricting member (48, fig 1) is provided with third through-holes (54, fig 1) penetrating the restricting member in the axial direction (fig 1), and fourth through-holes penetrating the restricting member in the axial direction (fourth through hole of 48 as seen in examiner annotated fig 2 below) at a position separated from the third through-holes in the circumferential direction (third through hole of 48 as seen in examiner annotated fig 2 below), the sealing device further comprises at least two joining pins (50, 50) joining the restricting member to the first rib and the second rib (50 at first rib and 50 at second rib as seen in examiner annotated fig 2 below), at least one of the joining pins is inserted into the first through-hole and the third through- holes (as seen in examiner annotated fig 2 below), and at least another one of the joining pins is inserted into the second through-hole and the fourth through-holes (as seen in examiner annotated fig 2 below).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the through holes and joining pin of Schlemmer with the ribs and restricting member of Hogg with a reasonable expectation of success so that the ribs and the restricting member do not slide circumferentially against each other.
PNG
media_image3.png
815
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hogg in view of Chevrette and in further view of Pikovsky et al. (FR 3049980).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Hogg and Chevrette discloses the sealing device.
Hogg does not disclose wherein a first recessed portion recessed toward the radial inner side is formed in the first rib, a second recessed portion recessed toward the radial inner side is formed in the second rib, and the restricting member has a first protrusion portion fitted to the first recessed portion and a second protrusion portion fitted to the second recessed portion.
However, Pikovsky teaches wherein a first recessed portion (recess between 3a and 3a, fig 5) recessed toward the radial inner side (fig 5), a second recessed portion (recess between 3a and 3a, fig 5) recessed toward the radial inner side is formed in the second rib (fig 5), and the restricting member has a first protrusion portion (4a, fig 5) and a second protrusion portion (4a, fig 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the recessed portions and protrusion of Pikovsky with the ribs and restricting member respectively of Hogg with a reasonable expectation of success so that the ribs and restricting member are interconnected and distributed circumferentially.
The combination of Hogg, Chevrette and Pikovsky discloses a first recessed portion (Pikovsky - recess between 3a and 3a, fig 5) recessed toward the radial inner side is formed in the first rib (first rib of Hogg), a second recessed portion (Pikovsky - recess between 3a and 3a, fig 5) recessed toward the radial inner side is formed in the second rib (second rib of Hogg), and the restricting member has a first protrusion portion fitted to the first recessed portion and a second protrusion portion fitted to the second recessed portion (protrusions fit into the recess portions respectively).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest the sealing device as claimed in independent claims of the application. The examiner can find no motivation to combine or modify the reference without the use of impermissible hindsight.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Hogg, Chevrette and Schlemmer discloses the sealing device.
The prior art does not disclose wherein the restricting member has the third through-holes provided on opposite sides of the restricting member in the axial direction with the first rib interposed therebetween, and the fourth through- holes provided on the opposite sides of the restricting member in the axial direction with the second rib interposed therebetween.
PNG
media_image4.png
554
766
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
815
722
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to L. Susmitha Koneru whose telephone number is 571.270.5333. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/L. SUSMITHA KONERU/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights