DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 06/06/2024. Claims 1-14, 16 and 21-25 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
In view of the appeal brief filed on 08/05/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/MINNAH L SEOH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 lines 1-2 recite the limitation “the lid external surface”. First, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Second, it is unclear if this limitation is referring to the lid external surface recited in claim 2, or if this limitation is introducing a lid external surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, 10-12, 16, 21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jaeger (DE 102008039313 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Jaeger discloses a base structure (see Fig. 1 and 4-5; 1) having an opening (see Fig. 1; opening in 1 where 2 is inserted); a lid (2) configured to fit in the opening (see Fig. 1, wherein lid 2 is configured to fit in the opening in 1); and a static external seal (see Fig. 5; 10) bridging a gap between the base structure and the lid when the lid is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 4, wherein 10 bridges a gap between 1 and 2), the external seal being disposed entirely within the gap (see Fig. 4, wherein 10 is entirely disposed within the gap between 1 and 2); wherein the external seal forms within the gap a closed path entirely visible from a single perspective (see Fig. 4, wherein 10 forms within the gap between 1 and 2 a closed path entirely visible from a top/down perspective in the figure). Note that if the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020). In this instance, the body of the claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble, i.e., an industrial robot, merely states the purpose or intended use of the invention rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Therefore, an industrial robot is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to the claim construction. See MPEP 2111.02(II) for additional case law regarding a preamble reciting purpose or intended use in a claim.
Regarding claim 2, Jaeger discloses the base structure (1) comprises a base external surface (see Fig. 4; upper surface of 1 in the figure), wherein the lid (2) includes a lid external surface (see Fig. 4; upper surface of 2 in the figure), and wherein the base external surface and the lid external surface are substantially flush with each other immediately adjacent to the external seal when the lid is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 4, wherein the upper surface of 1 and the upper surface of 2 are substantially flush with each other immediately adjacent to 10 when 2 is fitted into the opening in 1).
Regarding claim 4, Jaeger discloses the opening (opening in 1 where 2 is inserted) defines a depth direction (see Fig. 1; up/down direction in the figure).
Regarding claim 5, Jaeger discloses the lid external surface (upper surface of 2 in the figure) is substantially transverse to the depth direction (up/down direction) when the lid (2) is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 1, wherein the upper surface of 2 in the figure is substantially transverse to the up/down direction in the figure).
Regarding claim 6, Jaeger discloses the external seal (10) is compressed in a direction parallel with the depth direction (up/down direction) when the lid (2) is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 4, wherein when lid 2 is inserted into the opening, the external seal 10 is compressed in the up/down direction).
Regarding claim 7, Jaeger discloses the external seal (10) is compressed in a direction transverse to the depth direction (up/down direction) when the lid (2) is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 4, wherein when lid 2 is inserted into the opening, the external seal 10 is compressed in the left/right direction in the figure).
Regarding claim 10, Jaeger discloses the base structure (1) comprises a base groove (groove between inner and outer walls of 1) for receiving the external seal (10).
Regarding claim 11, Jaeger discloses a secondary seal (9) configured to seal between the base structure (1) and the lid (2) when the lid is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Jaeger discloses the opening (opening in 1 where 2 is inserted) defines a depth direction (see Fig. 1; up/down direction in the figure), and wherein the secondary seal (9) is compressed in a direction (see Fig. 4; left/right direction in the figure) transverse to the depth direction when the lid (2) is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 4, wherein 9 is compressed in the left/right direction when the lid 2 is fitted in the opening).
Regarding claim 16, Jaeger discloses the lid (2) includes a lid external surface (see Fig. 4; upper surface of 2 in the figure), and wherein the base groove (groove between inner and outer walls of 1) faces in a direction towards a position of the lid external surface when the lid is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 4, wherein the groove between the inner and outer walls of 1 faces the upper surface of 2 when the lid 2 is fitted in the opening).
Regarding claim 21, Jaeger discloses the lid (2) includes a lid external surface (see Fig. 4; upper surface of 2 in the figure) which is entirely flat (see Fig. 1, wherein the external surface of 2 is entirely flat).
Regarding claim 25, Jaeger discloses the external seal (10) comprises a seal external surface (see Fig. 5, upper surface of 10 in the figure); an internal circumference of the external seal (see Fig. 5, lower surface of 10 in the figure) is larger at the seal external surface than below the seal external surface (see Fig. 5, wherein the circumference of the lower surface of 10 is larger at a point when it connects to the upper surface of 10, and is smaller when the lower surface of 10 is below the upper surface of 10).
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 3, 8-9, 13 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaeger (DE 102008039313 A1) in view of Sugasawa (US 20210178611 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Jaeger fails to disclose the external seal comprises a seal external surface that is substantially flush with the base external surface and the lid external surface when the lid is fitted in the opening. However, Sugasawa teaches the external seal (see Fig. 4B; 160) comprises a seal external surface (external surface of 160) that is substantially flush with the base external surface (external surface of 111) and the lid external surface (external surface of 125) when the lid is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 4B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Jaeger with the external seal surface to be substantially flush with the external base surface and the external lid surface, as taught by Sugasawa, to eliminate a depression in which foreign matter can build up between the lid and the base.
Regarding claim 8, Jaeger fails to disclose the lid comprises a lid groove for receiving the external seal. However, Sugasawa teaches the lid (see Fig. 4B; 125) comprises a lid groove (112b) for receiving the external seal (160). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Jaeger with a lid groove, as taught by Sugasawa, to increase the complexity of the path between the lid and the seal, e.g., a labyrinth, which helps reduce the chance of contaminates entering the base structure.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of claim 8 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the lid (Sugasawa; 125) includes a lid external surface (Sugasawa; external surface of 125), and wherein the lid groove (Sugasawa; 112b) faces in a direction away from a position of the lid external surface (Sugasawa; see Fig. 4B, wherein 112b faces in a direction away from the external surface of 125).
Regarding claim 13, Jaeger fails to disclose the lid comprises a secondary groove, and wherein the secondary seal is seated in the secondary groove. However, Sugasawa teaches the lid (125) comprises a secondary groove (112b), and wherein the secondary seal (160) is seated in the secondary groove (see Fig. 4B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Jaeger with a secondary groove, as taught by Sugasawa, to increase the complexity of the path between the lid and the seal, e.g., a labyrinth, which helps reduce the chance of contaminates entering the base structure.
Regarding claim 22, Jaeger fails to disclose the base structure includes a base groove formed in the gap and configured to receive the external seal; the lid includes a lid groove formed in the gap and configured to receive the external seal; and the base groove and the lid groove are configured to compress the external seal in both an axial direction and a radial direction with respect to a central axis of the opening. However, Sugasawa teaches the base structure (see Fig. 4B; 111) includes a base groove (112a) formed in the gap (gap between 111 and 125) and configured to receive the external seal (160); the lid (125) includes a lid groove (112b) formed in the gap and configured to receive the external seal; and the base groove and the lid groove are configured to compress the external seal in both an axial direction and a radial direction with respect to a central axis of the opening (see Fig. 4B, wherein the seal 160 is compressed in the axial and radial directions by bringing 111 and 125 together). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Jaeger with a base groove and a lid groove, as taught by Sugasawa, to increase the complexity of the path between the lid and the seal, e.g., a labyrinth, which helps reduce the chance of foreign matter entering the base structure.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of claim 22 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the base groove (Sugasawa; 112a) and the lid groove (Sugasawa; 112b) are both concave (Sugasawa; see Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of claim 22 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the base groove (Sugasawa; 112a) and the lid groove (Sugasawa; 112b) face each other (Sugasawa; see Fig. 4B).
Claim 1-2, 4-7, 10-12, 14, 16, 21 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashiro (US 20190105786 A1) in view of Jaeger (DE 102008039313 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashiro discloses an industrial robot (see Fig. 1; 1) comprising: a base structure (see Fig. 2; 3) having an opening (see Fig. 2; opening in 3 where 18 is provided); a lid (18) configured to fit in the opening (see Fig. 2). Yamashiro fails to disclose a static external seal bridging a gap between the base structure and the lid when the lid is fitted in the opening, the external seal being disposed entirely within the gap; wherein the external seal forms within the gap a closed path entirely visible from a single perspective. However, Jaeger teaches a static external seal (see Fig. 1 and 4-5; 10) bridging a gap between the base structure (1) and the lid (2) when the lid is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 4, wherein 10 bridges a gap between 1 and 2), the external seal being disposed entirely within the gap (see Fig. 4, wherein 10 is entirely disposed within the gap between 1 and 2); wherein the external seal forms within the gap a closed path entirely visible from a single perspective (see Fig. 4, wherein 10 forms within the gap between 1 and 2 a closed path entirely visible from a top/down perspective in the figure). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Yamashiro with an external seal, as taught by Jaeger, to provide a lid that is cheaper to produce while at the same time ensure a moisture-proof closure of the housing (see attached English translation, page 2, lines 1-2); to improve the seal between the housing and the lid by creating a kind of labyrinth seal (see attached English translation, page 2, lines 11-13); and to join the housing and cover together while preventing leakage, containing pressure and excluding contamination.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the base structure (Yamashiro; 3) comprises a base external surface (Yamashiro; upper surface of 3), wherein the lid (Yamashiro; 18) includes a lid external surface (Yamashiro; upper surface of 18), and wherein the base external surface and the lid external surface are substantially flush with each other immediately adjacent to the external seal (Jaeger; 10) when the lid is fitted in the opening (Yamashiro; see Fig. 4, wherein the upper surface of 3 and the upper surface of 18 are substantially flush with each other).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashiro discloses the opening (opening in 3 where 18 is provided) defines a depth direction (see Fig. 2; direction along A).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashiro discloses the lid external surface (upper surface of 18) is substantially transverse to the depth direction (direction along A) when the lid (19) is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 2, wherein the upper surface of 18 is substantially transverse to the direction along A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the external seal (Jaeger; 10) is compressed in a direction parallel with the depth direction (Jaeger; Fig. 4, up/down direction) when the lid (Jaeger; 2) is fitted in the opening (Jaeger; see Fig. 4, wherein when lid 2 is inserted into the opening, the external seal 10 is compressed in the up/down direction).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the external seal (Jaeger; 10) is compressed in a direction transverse to the depth direction (Jaeger; Fig. 4, up/down direction) when the lid (Jaeger; 2) is fitted in the opening (Jaeger; see Fig. 4, wherein when lid 2 is inserted into the opening, the external seal 10 is compressed in the left/right direction in the figure).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the base structure (Jaeger; 1) comprises a base groove (Jaeger; groove between inner and outer walls of 1) for receiving the external seal (Jaeger; 10).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: a secondary seal (Jaeger; 9) configured to seal between the base structure (Jaeger; 1) and the lid (Jaeger; 2) when the lid is fitted in the opening (Jaeger; see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the opening (Jaeger; opening in 1 where 2 is inserted) defines a depth direction (Jaeger; see Fig. 1; up/down direction in the figure), and wherein the secondary seal (Jaeger; 9) is compressed in a direction (Jaeger; see Fig. 4; left/right direction in the figure) transverse to the depth direction when the lid (Jager; 2) is fitted in the opening (Jaeger; see Fig. 4, wherein 9 is compressed in the left/right direction when the lid 2 is fitted in the opening).
Regarding claim 14, Yamashiro discloses the industrial robot (1) comprises a plurality of links (see Fig. 1; 2, 3, 4) interconnected by a plurality of joints (see Fig. 1; joints at A and B), and wherein the base structure (3) is fixed to one of the links (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the lid (Jaeger; 2) includes a lid external surface (Jaeger; see Fig. 4; upper surface of 2 in the figure), and wherein the base groove (Jaeger; groove between inner and outer walls of 1) faces in a direction towards a position of the lid external surface when the lid is fitted in the opening (Jager; see Fig. 4, wherein the groove between the inner and outer walls of 1 faces the upper surface of 2 when the lid 2 is fitted in the opening).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the lid (Jaeger; 2) includes a lid external surface (Jaeger; see Fig. 4; upper surface of 2 in the figure) which is entirely flat (Jaeger; see Fig. 1, wherein the external surface of 2 is entirely flat).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the external seal (Jaeger; 10) comprises a seal external surface (Jaeger; see Fig. 5, upper surface of 10 in the figure); an internal circumference of the external seal (Jaeger; see Fig. 5, lower surface of 10 in the figure) is larger at the seal external surface than below the seal external surface (Jaeger; see Fig. 5, wherein the circumference of the lower surface of 10 is larger at a point when it connects to the upper surface of 10, and is smaller when the lower surface of 10 is below the upper surface of 10).
Claim 1-14, 16 and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashiro (US 20190105786 A1) in view of Sugasawa (US 20210178611 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yamashiro discloses an industrial robot (see Fig. 1; 1) comprising: a base structure (see Fig. 2; 3) having an opening (see Fig. 2; opening in 3 where 18 is provided); a lid (18) configured to fit in the opening (see Fig. 2). Yamashiro fails to disclose a static external seal bridging a gap between the base structure and the lid when the lid is fitted in the opening, the external seal being disposed entirely within the gap. However, Sugasawa teaches a static external seal (see Fig. 4B; 160) bridging a gap between the base structure (111) and the lid (125) when the lid is fitted in the opening, the external seal being disposed entirely within the gap (see Fig. 4B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Yamashiro with a static external seal, as taught by Sugasawa, to provide a seal between the housing body and the cover to protect the internal components from dust and moisture (see paragraph [0003]); and to join the housing and cover together while preventing leakage, containing pressure and excluding contamination. The combination above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the external seal (Sugasawa; 160) forms within the gap (Yamashiro; gap between 3 and 18) a closed path entirely visible from a single perspective (Yamashiro; top/down direction in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the base structure (Yamashiro; 3) comprises a base external surface (Yamashiro; external surface of 3), wherein the lid (Yamashiro; 18) includes a lid external surface (Yamashiro; external surface of 18), and wherein the base external surface and the lid external surface are substantially flush with each other immediately adjacent to the external seal (Sugasawa; 160) when the lid is fitted in the opening (Sugasawa; Fig. 4B, wherein the lid external surface and the base external surface are flush with each other).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the external seal (Sugasawa; 160) comprises a seal external surface (Sugasawa; external surface of 160) that is substantially flush with the base external surface (Yamashiro; external surface of 3) and the lid external surface (Yamashiro; external surface of 18) when the lid is fitted in the opening (Sugasawa; Fig. 4B, wherein the seal external surface is substantially flush with the base external surface and the lid external surface).
Regarding claim 4, Yamashiro discloses the opening (opening in 3 where 18 is provided) defines a depth direction (see Fig. 2; direction along A).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashiro discloses the lid external surface (upper surface of 18) is substantially transverse to the depth direction (direction along A) when the lid (19) is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 2, wherein the upper surface of 18 is substantially transverse to the direction along A).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the external seal (Sugasawa; 160) is compressed in a direction parallel with the depth direction when the lid is fitted in the opening (Sugasawa; Fig 4B, wherein the seal 160 is compressed in the up/down direction and the left/right direction).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the external seal (Sugasawa; 160) is compressed in a direction transverse to the depth direction when the lid is fitted in the opening (Sugasawa; Fig 4B, wherein the seal 160 is compressed in the up/down direction and the left/right direction).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the lid (Sugasawa; 125) comprises a lid groove (Sugasawa; 112b) for receiving the external seal (Sugasawa; 160).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the lid (Sugasawa; 125) includes a lid external surface (Sugasawa; external surface of 125), and wherein the lid groove (Sugasawa; 112b) faces in a direction away from a position of the lid external surface (Sugasawa; Fig. 4B, wherein 112b faces away from the external surface of 125).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the base structure (Sugasawa; 111) comprises a base groove (Sugasawa; 112a) for receiving the external seal (Sugasawa; 160).
Regarding claim 11, Yamashiro in view of Sugasawa fails to disclose a secondary seal configured to seal between the base structure and the lid when the lid is fitted in the opening. However, Sugasawa teaches a secondary seal (see Fig. 8B; 160) configured to seal between the base structure (111) and the lid (125) when the lid is fitted in the opening (see Fig. 8B). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date to modify Yamashiro with a secondary seal, as taught by Sugasawa, to provide a seal between the housing body and the cover to protect the internal components from dust and moisture (see paragraph [0003]); and to join the housing and cover together while preventing leakage, containing pressure and excluding contamination. Additionally, it has been held that a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). In this instance, duplicating the seal 160 of Sugasawa would produce the same expected results of dual sealing arrangements well known in the art.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of claim 11 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the opening defines a depth direction, and wherein the secondary seal (Sugasawa; 160) is compressed in a direction transverse to the depth direction when the lid is fitted in the opening (Sugasawa; Fig 8B, wherein the seal 160 is compressed in the up/down direction and the left/right direction).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of claim 11 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the lid (Sugasawa; 125) comprises a secondary groove (Sugasawa; Fig. 8B; 112b), and wherein the secondary seal (Sugasawa; 160) is seated in the secondary groove (Sugasawa; Fig. 8B).
Regarding claim 14, Yamashiro discloses the industrial robot (1) comprises a plurality of links (see Fig. 1; 2, 3, 4) interconnected by a plurality of joints (see Fig. 1; joints at A and B), and wherein the base structure (3) is fixed to one of the links (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the lid (Sugasawa; 125) includes a lid external surface (Sugasawa; external surface of 125), and wherein the base groove (Sugasawa; 112a) faces in a direction towards a position of the lid external surface when the lid is fitted in the opening (Sugasawa; Fig. 4B, wherein 112a faces in a direction toward a position of the external surface of 125).
Regarding claim 21, Yamashiro discloses the lid (18) includes a lid external surface (flat external surface of 18) which is entirely flat (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the base structure (Sugasawa; 111) includes a base groove (Sugasawa; 112a) formed in the gap and configured to receive the external seal (Sugasawa; 160); the lid (Sugasawa; 125) includes a lid groove (Sugasawa; 112b) formed in the gap and configured to receive the external seal; and the base groove and the lid groove are configured to compress the external seal in both an axial direction and a radial direction with respect to a central axis of the opening (Sugasawa; Fig. 4B, wherein the seal 160 is compressed in both the axial and radial directions).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the base groove (Sugasawa; 112a) and the lid groove (Sugasawa; 112b) are both concave (Sugasawa; see Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the base groove (Sugasawa; 112a) and the lid groove (Sugasawa; 112b) face each other (Sugasawa; see Fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of claim 1 elsewhere above would necessarily result in the following limitations: the external seal (Sugasawa; 160) comprises a seal external surface (Sugasawa; Fig. 4B, external surface of 160); an internal circumference of the external seal (Sugasawa; Fig. 4B; lower surface of 160 in the figure) is larger at the seal external surface than below the seal external surface (Sugasawa; see Fig. 4B, wherein the circumference of the lower surface of 160 in the figure is larger at the lower right hand corner than it is in the lower left hand corner).
Response to Arguments
Without acquiescing to the merits of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief filed 08/05/2026, and solely to expedite prosecution of the application, the previous rejection has been withdrawn and a new grounds of rejection has been included.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14, 16 and 21-25 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH BROWN whose telephone number is (313)446-6568. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-357-2384. 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.
/JOSEPH BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights