July 23, 2026
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 § 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hoover (U.S. Patent No. 3,170,701).
PNG
media_image1.png
156
146
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
150
174
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
116
262
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As for Claim 1, Hoover teaches a floating seal washer for protection from electromagnetic effects, comprising:
a washer 11 having an annular shape that defines a height, an inside diameter and an outside diameter along a longitudinal axis; and
a seal 12 having a circular shape comprising a central aperture, the circular shape defines an elevation (see annotated Fig. 5), an inner surface and an outer surface along the longitudinal axis, the seal being set into the inside diameter of the washer, wherein the seal and the washer float relative to each other.
As for Claim 3, Hoover teaches that both edges of the outer surface of the seal are chamfered.
As for Claim 4, Hoover teaches that the seal 12 is symmetrical in relation to a diameter and the longitudinal axis.
As for Claim 12, Hoover teaches that the washer comprises a metallic material.
As for Claims 14-15, Hoover further comprises: a retention feature to prevent the seal from dislodging from the washer prior to use of the floating seal washer in a fastener assembly; wherein the retention feature comprises at least one of mating notches in the washer and the seal, one or more mating grooves in the washer and the seal, an interference fit between the washer and the seal and an adhesive between the washer and the seal (see the specification where it reads “Webs 20 of the elastomeric material are thereby formed through the openings 18 and serve as integral connecting and locking portions thus forming a mechanical interlocking connection of the sealing ring 12 with the support ring 11.”)
Claims 1-5, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Morden et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,587,107 B2).
PNG
media_image4.png
232
330
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
154
278
media_image5.png
Greyscale
As for Claim 1, Morden et al. teach a floating seal washer for protection from electromagnetic effects, comprising:
a washer 10a having an annular shape that defines a height, an inside diameter and an outside diameter along a longitudinal axis; and
a seal 18a having a circular shape comprising a central aperture, the circular shape defines an elevation 36 (see Fig. 6), an inner surface and an outer surface along the longitudinal axis, the seal being set into the inside diameter of the washer, wherein the seal and the washer float relative to each other.
As for Claim 2, Morden et al. teach that the electromagnetic effects comprise effects from lightning strikes.
As for Claim 3, Morden et al. teach that both edges of the outer surface of the seal 18a are chamfered.
As for Claim 4, Morden et al. teach that the seal 18a is symmetrical in relation to a diameter and the longitudinal axis
As for Claim 5, Morden et al. teach that the seal comprises an electromagnetic energy isolating seal.
As for Claim 12, Morden et al. teach that the washer comprises a metallic material.
As for Claims 14-15, Morden et al. further comprises: a retention feature 42 to prevent the seal from dislodging from the washer prior to use of the floating seal washer in a fastener assembly; wherein the retention feature comprises an interference fit 42 between the washer and the seal
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.
Claims 10 -11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morden et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,587,107 B2) in view of Hohmann (U.S. Patent No. 8,516,763 B2).
Morden et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed but is silent as to whether or not the seal comprises a nonconductive material. However, Hohmann teaches the of a series of seals, such as wallboard seal 56, insulation seal 58, and tubule seal 51, composed of compressible nonconductive material such as neoprene. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art for the seal, as taught by Morden et al., to include nonconductive material, such as the washers taught by Hohmann, since the seal made of nonconductive material would thermally-isolate the washer.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morden et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,587,107 B2) in view of Tanner et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,551,373 B2).
Morden et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed but is silent as to whether or not the metallic material comprises at least one of a corrosion-resistant steel and a stainless steel. However, Tanner et al. teach the concept of a washer 218 comprised of corrosion-resistant material 254, such as corrosion-resistant steel, titanium, and other metals to be old. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art for the metallic material of the washer, as taught by Morden et al., to include nonconductive material, such as corrosion-resistant steel, titanium, and other metals, taught by Tanner et al., since the corrosion-resistant steel would prevent corrosion of washer.
Claims 16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morden et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,587,107 B2) in view of Albrecht et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0198450 A1).
Morden et al. teach the structure substantially as claimed but does not specify if the floating seal washer is used with a bolt configured to be inserted into bores through at least two workpieces and a nut having a through hole along the longitudinal axis, the nut comprising a first portion defining a cavity formed by internal walls and a second portion with internal threads, the nut configured for threaded engagement with the bolt such that the cavity faces the floating seal washer. However, Albrecht et al. teach a fastener system that includes a nut and bolt configured to be inserted into bores in which a floating seal washer can be used. The nut is configured to compress the floating seal washer between the at least two workpieces and the nut upon further threaded engagement such that the washer is spaced from the shank of the bolt by the seal and such that the seal prevents the shank from contacting the internal walls of the nut that define the cavity, as defined in claim 24. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to use the floating seal washer, as taught by Morden et al., with a nut and bolt fastening system, as taught by Albrecht et al., since the floating seal washer of Morden et al. would provide protection from electromagnetic effects.
Claims 21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morden et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,587,107 B2) in view of Albrecht et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0198450 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Salter (U.S. Patent No. 4,048,898).
Morden et al. in view of Albrecht et al. teaches the structure substantially as claimed but does not tach that the volt is tapered bolt. However, Salter teaches tapered bolts to be old. Salter also teaches that the bolt comprises a head opposing the threaded portion of the shank and a sleeve 12 installed on the shank from the threaded portion and slid toward the head. It would have been obvious and well within the level of ordinary skill in the art to use a tapered bolt, as taught by Salter, since the advantages of using tapered bolts include high vibration resistance, even load distribution, and easy removability and reuse.
Claims 50 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over any of the references discussed above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the method for protection from electromagnetic effects, as recited, as this would be the normal and logical manner for protecting from electromagnetic effects, as taught by the combination of references discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 are 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure because it teaches structures and concepts and similar to those of the present invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rodney B. White whose telephone number is (571)272-6863. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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, David R. Dunn can be reached at (571) 272-6670. 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.
/Rodney B White/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3636
Prosecution Insights