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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 11-12 and 17 is/are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "both ends" in line 2. The claim is unclear as to what two ends of the belt are the recited “both ends,” as no “ends” have been introduced and a belt as presently disclosed can have more than two ends. For further examination, any two ends would be considered to correspond to “both ends.” Dependent claim 12 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "both ends" in line 2. The claim is unclear as to what two ends of the second sealing layer are the recited “both ends,” as no “ends” have been introduced and a belt as presently disclosed can have more than two ends. For further examination, any two ends would be considered to correspond to “both ends.”
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) 1-8, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang et al., CN 111299574 A, provided in Applicant’s IDS. An Espacenet translation of Zhang is provided and referenced below.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a container (bed portion 100 including opening 110, Figs. 1-2, [0056], functioning as a processing or supply chamber, [0064]) comprising:
A bottom portion (stage 210 of piston portion 200 forming a bottom surface of the opening 110, Figs. 1-3, [0056], [0065], [0069]-[0070]) movable in a first direction (liftable, [0065], can rise or descend, [0066]-[0067], Figs. 1-2);
A side wall portion (inner wall 111 of bed portion 100, Figs. 1 and 4, [0056]) surrounding a circumference of the bottom portion (Figs. 1-2; note that “circumference” as presently disclosed does not require a circular shape, and the bottom portion is exemplified as being rectangular or another shape, e.g., filed specification, p. 9);
A sealer (sealing portion 300, Figs. 1-3, [0056], [0076]-[0078]) attached to the circumference of the bottom portion (Fig. 3, [0056], inserted into groove 213 and extending along periphery of 210, [0076]-[0078]) to seal a gap between the circumference of the bottom portion and the side wall portion (to seal between piston portion and inner wall 111 of opening 110, [0056], [0076]) in a second direction intersecting the first direction (in the horizontal direction, Figs. 1-4, [0077]),
The sealer including: a first sealing layer (layer 320, Fig. 4, [0056], [0077]) in contact with the side wall portion (Fig. 4) and formed by a first material (formed of a plastic material, [0031]-[0032], [0081]); and a second sealing layer (layer 310, Fig. 4, [0056], [0077]) attached to the bottom portion (Fig. 4) and formed by a second material different from the first material of the first sealing layer (the inner and outer components of the multi-layer sealing component being made of different materials, [0031]-[0032], [0081]).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the sealer surrounds entire of the circumference of the bottom portion (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 3, Zhang discloses the container of claim 2, wherein the sealer moves together with the bottom portion in the first direction parallel to a vertical direction (the seal being connected with the bottom portion such that they move together as the bottom portion moves in the vertical direction, Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1, wherein at least a part of the first sealing layer is in contact with the second sealing layer (layers 320 and 310 are in contact, Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the circumference of the bottom portion has a recess surrounding the circumference of the bottom portion (a sealing portion insertion groove 213 formed by a recessed side surface of the stage 210 is formed in a circumferential direction, [0073], Fig. 3), and the sealer is in the recess of the bottom portion (Fig. 3, inserted into groove 213, [0076]).
Regarding claim 6, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the first sealing layer and the second sealing layer are formed by a heat resistant material (the first layer 320 being made of a plastic material comprising fibers, [0081], [0084], and the second layer 310 being made of an elastic material, such as silicone or rubber, [0081], [0083], note that “silicon” is a typographical error from the translation, each of which is sufficiently heat resistant for their application adjacent heated components, e.g., [0072], and thus meeting the characteristic of heat resistant).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the second sealing layer has a compressibility higher than a compressibility of the first sealing layer (the elastic second/inner sealing member contracts before the first/outer sealing layer is deformed, [0085], [0092], Figs. 4a-b).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the first sealing layer is formed by a slidable material (the outer sealing layer including a plastic material, [0032], [0081], the plastic material being used to regulate friction between the seal and the bed portion to enable the piston portion to be stably raised and lowered, [0038]).
Regarding claim 16, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the circumference of the bottom portion has a recess surrounding the circumference of the bottom portion (a sealing portion insertion groove 213 formed by a recessed side surface of the stage 210 is formed in a circumferential direction, [0073], Fig. 3), and the second sealing layer is buried in the recess of the bottom portion (Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 18, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the container accommodates a fabrication material (Figs. 1-2, powder P) containing metal or metal powder (including metal powder, [0058]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., CN 111299574 A, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Gyory et al., US 3671048 A.
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1. Zhang discloses the first layer 320 being made of a plastic material comprising fibers ([0081], [0084]) and the plastic material is used to regulate friction between the seal and the bed portion to enable the piston portion to be stably raised and lowered ([0038]). Zhang is silent as to the first sealing layer being formed by a polytetrafluoroethylene felt.
In the analogous art, Gyory discloses a composite seal configuration for achieving sealing contact with reduced frictional forces (col. 1, lines 4-7) by application of a low friction polymeric fibrous element at the contact area of the sealing surface (col. 1, lines 4-7; col. 2, lines 1-11; col. 3, lines 1-25) wherein a layer of fibrous polytetrafluoroethylene felt (felt mat 21 made from low friction PTFE fibers, col. 3, lines 6-10) is provided over a resilient elastomeric seal body (rubber body 12, col. 2, lines 45-52). Gyory teaches that the PTFE felt layer provides the seal with the desired low friction in addition to other desirable characteristics such as temperature and pressure resistance, wear resistance, etc. (col. 4, lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the first sealing layer of Zhang is formed by a polytetrafluoroethylene felt in order to achieve a low friction sealing face at the interface between the moving parts that also provided increased temperature, pressure, and wear resistance, as taught by Gyory. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., CN 111299574 A, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Engineered Materials, “Silicone Foam, Sponge, or Solid Rubber: What’s the Best High Temperature Gasket Material” (2023).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1. Zhang discloses the second sealing layer (inner sealing layer 310) being made of an elastic material such as silicone ([0083], note that “silicon” is a typographical error from the translation). Zhang is silent as to the silicone material being a foam.
In the analogous art, Engineered Materials discloses that silicone was a known excellent gasket material available in multiple forms (p. 1, first two paragraphs). Engineered Materials teaches that silicone foam was a known resilient gasketing material made from liquid silicone rubber that can be used in high temperature applications, over a wide range of service temperatures, and with excellent sealing performance (pp. 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the silicone sealing layer of Zhang to specify the silicone material was provided as a foam, since silicone foam was a known resilient gasket material suitable for high temperature applications, a wide range of service temperatures, and for providing excellent sealing performance, as taught by Engineered Materials. Note that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., CN 111299574 A, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Thrane et al., US 4206930 A.
Regarding claim 11, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the sealer includes a belt (belt shape, [0083]-[0084], Fig. 3). Zhang is silent as to the belt having both ends.
In the analogous art, Thrane discloses a two part circumferential sealing assembly (sealing assembly 21) for an annular groove of a reciprocating piston structure (Abstract, Figs. 1-2). Thrane teaches the outer sealing layer 23 being provided as a belt (Fig. 1) having two ends (Figs. 1-4, formed by surfaces 31, 32, 33, and 34, col. 3, lines 17-28). Thrane teaches the assembly results in substantial elimination of gaps and reduction of leakage between opposing reciprocating surfaces, improved sealing, and improved life of the seal (col. 3, lines 40-64; col. 4, lines 60-68; col. 5, lines 46-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the belt shaped sealer of Zhang had two ends in order to provide the capability of achieving a joint assembly that would facilitate installation with no gaps, reduce leakage between the moving surfaces, and improve the life of the seal, as taught by Thrane.
Regarding claim 12, modified Zhang discloses the container of claim 11, and the combination discloses the belt includes a connecting portion connecting said both ends of the belt (Thrane: joint 26, Figs. 1-4), and the connecting portion has a portion extending in a direction intersecting the first direction parallel to a vertical direction (Thrane: has a horizontal extension portion, Figs. 1-4).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., CN 111299574 A, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Parker O-Ring Handbook (2021).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1, wherein the sealer is compressed between the bottom portion and the side wall portion (shown compressed in Fig. 4, [0091]-[0092]). Zhang discloses the sealer is compressed to a reduced thickness L in operation ([0092], Figs. 4a-b). Zhang is silent as to the sealer compressed having a thickness having a compressing ratio of 15% or more and 35% or less of a thickness of the sealer uncompressed. The limitation is interpreted to mean the sealer is compressed by 15-35% of the uncompressed thickness (filed specification, p. 14, last line - p. 15, first line). This parameter is also known as squeeze or compression ratio.
In the analogous art, Parker O-Ring Handbook discloses that a particular squeeze value depends on a number of operational factors (p. 3-9, or p. 55 of 292, section 3.6 Squeeze, see also p. 5-6, or p. 112 of 292, section 5.9 Squeeze) but in dynamic applications the seal squeeze should generally be greater than zero and up to 25% depending on the cross-section size (p. 3-9, or p. 55 of 292, section 3.6 Squeeze). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the sealer compressed had a thickness having a compressing ratio at least within the overlapping portion of the ranges with a reasonable expectation of success in assigning a suitable compression ratio for the dynamic seal, as taught by Parker O-Ring Handbook. Note also that a mere difference in relative dimensions of a claimed device, where a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, is not sufficient to establish patentability (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)).
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., CN 111299574 A, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Parker PTFE Seals Design Guide (2019), listed in Applicant’s IDS dated 12/11/2024.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1. Zhang is silent as to the second sealing layer having a thickness three times or more of a thickness of the first sealing layer when the sealer is not compressed between the bottom portion and the side wall portion.
In the analogous art, Parker PTFE Seals Design Guide discloses typical relative dimensions for piston seals including both an elastomer O-ring component and a PTFE sealing ring (see Slipper Seal®, pp. 91-93, 117-120, 134-137). Standard dimensions for these arrangements of seals include a corresponding second sealing layer (elastomer O-ring) having a thickness three times or more of a thickness of the first sealing layer (PTFE ring at sealing surface) when the sealer is not compressed (as one example, p. 120, for size 1500, seal OD 150 mm, O-ring ID 132.72 mm, O-ring cross section CS 6.99 mm, the seal thickness uncompressed is 8.64 mm, and PTFE ring thickness is 8.64-6.99=1.65 mm, such that the second layer has a thickness of around 4.2 times the thickness of the first layer). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the second sealing layer having a thickness three times or more of a thickness of the first sealing layer when the sealer is not compressed between the bottom portion and the side wall portion with a reasonable expectation of success in assigning suitable relative dimensions for the two parts of the dynamic seal, as taught by Parker Design Guide. Note that a mere difference in relative dimensions of a claimed device, where a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, is not sufficient to establish patentability (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). Note also that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1. Zhang is silent as to the first sealing layer covers at least a portion of both ends of the second sealing layer in the first direction parallel to a vertical direction.
In the analogous art, Parker Design Guide discloses a two part dynamic seal design wherein a corresponding first sealing layer (outer slide ring) covers at least a portion of both ends of the second sealing layer (inner elastomer ring) in the first direction parallel to a vertical direction (in the sliding direction, pp. 134-135). Parker teaches that the design enables smaller grooves, can be used in existing O-ring grooves, and is suitable for dynamic applications requiring optimum sealing performance and friction (p. 134). Parker teaches that relative to a similar configuration where the first sealing layer does not cover the ends of the second sealing layer (e.g., p. 117), this configuration can operate at higher pressure (p. 134, range of application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify that sealer such that the first sealing layer covers at least a portion of both ends of the second sealing layer in the first direction parallel to a vertical direction with a reasonable expectation of success in configuring the two parts of the dynamic seal and in order to render the seal suitable for applications under higher pressure, as taught by Parker Design Guide.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., CN 111299574 A, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Hercules Sealing Products PSM Piston Seal Assemblies (2021).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang discloses the container of claim 1. Zhang is silent as to the sealer having a width in the first direction parallel to a vertical direction twice or more of a thickness of the sealer uncompressed in the second direction.
In the analogous art, Hercules discloses dimensions for two-part piston seals having a width in the first direction parallel to a vertical direction twice or more of a thickness of the sealer uncompressed in the second direction (e.g., for the first product listed, the seal width in the first/sliding direction is C (height) = 0.265, where the thickness uncompressed in the second/perpendicular direction is (B-A)/2 = (1.5-1.25)/2=0.125, such that the width is around 2.12 times the thickness). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the sealer having a width in the first direction parallel to a vertical direction twice or more of a thickness of the sealer uncompressed in the second direction with a reasonable expectation of success in assigning suitable relative dimensions for the sliding piston seal, as taught by Hercules. Note that a mere difference in relative dimensions of a claimed device, where a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, is not sufficient to establish patentability (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). Note also that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al., CN 111299574 A, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Warke et al., US 20210221051 A1.
Regarding claim 19, Zhang discloses a fabricating apparatus (Figs. 1-2) comprising the container according to claim 1. Zhang discloses the fabricating apparatus is configured to practice selective laser sintering SLS ([0004], [0059]) and thus does not disclose a fabrication liquid applicator to apply a fabrication liquid to a fabrication material accommodated in the container to fabricate a fabricated object.
In the analogous art, Warke discloses a configuration for binder jet 3D printing (Fig. 1B) involving the use of a fabrication liquid applicator (print head 136) to apply a fabrication liquid to a fabrication material accommodated in the container to fabricate a fabricated object (using print head 136 to apply a liquid binder to metal particles to form a solidified feedstock at these portions of the layer, [0038]-[0040], [0043]-[0044], Fig. 1B). Warke discloses that binder jet printing is a form of powder-based additive manufacturing that was a known alternative to SLS powder-based additive manufacturing for the layer-by-layer formation of parts from metal powder ([0015], [0057]) and using a highly similar structural configuration with a number of the same structures (Fig. 3B, [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fabricating apparatus of Zhang so that it was configured for binder jet 3D printing, including a fabrication liquid applicator to apply a fabrication liquid to a fabrication material accommodated in the container to fabricate a fabricated object, instead of SLS 3D printing as a simple substitution of one known powder bed fusion configuration for another yielding predictable results of providing a commercially available additive manufacturing apparatus for layerwise construction of 3D objects, as taught by Warke. MPEP 2143(I)(B). Warke teaches that the similar configurations and corresponding techniques were well known and commercially available alternatives for performing powder bed fusion.
Regarding claim 20, modified Zhang discloses a fabricating system comprising the fabricating apparatus according to claim 19. The combination did not address a drying, removing, or sintering apparatus as claimed. Warke further discloses the system includes at least a drying apparatus to dry the fabricated object, a removing apparatus to remove excess fabrication material attached to the object, and/or a sintering apparatus to sinter the fabricated object (debind and sintering oven or furnace, [0041], [0049], which would meet any of the apparatuses; see also [0046]-[0047] which describes using heat to remove applied solvent and form dry binder, as well as [0049] describing the original loose powder being removed and separated from the object) for causing fusing and binder removal ([0040], [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further specify the fabricating system included at least a drying apparatus, a removing apparatus, and/or a sintering apparatus as claimed in order to effect fusing and binder removal of the formed part, as taught by Warke.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 3636824 A, Clark discloses an annular seal assembly including an outer annular member 14a made from PTFE and an inner annular member 14b made from soft rubber (Figs. 1-4).
US 20140291936 A1, Grimanis et al. disclose a seal assembly including an elastomeric energizer made from foam, silicone, rubber, etc., and an adjacent PTFE fiber matrix at the sealing surface.
US 3097893 A, White teaches providing a fibrous PTFE fabric over an elastomeric seal body for lower friction at the moving interface.
US 2968501 A, Tisch discloses an annular seal assembly for a piston including a rubber ring and an outer Teflon ring, the Teflon ring overlapping ends of the rubber ring.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754