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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-11 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 2007/0052181).
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura discloses a high temperature sealing system 2 Fig. 1, comprising: an expandable volume in which first and second cylindrical members 3, 41 translate axially with respect to each other at an annular interface upon transfer of fluid into the expandable volume from an external source; a piston seal 20 positioned in a groove 31 around the annular interface to prevent fluid from leaking out between the first and second cylindrical members; a primary backup seal 10 including a pair of opposing wedge-shaped rings 11, 12 positioned in the groove forward of the piston seal, wherein pressure in the expandable volume exerted on the piston seal produces a force that drives the pair of opposing wedge-shaped rings axially together against a wedge angle, which drives the pair of wedge-shaped rings radially apart to close a gap across the annular interface, wherein the radially expanded pair of wedge-shaped rings generate a torturous flow path that resists the flow of liquified material, a stop (3a of Annotated Fig. 1, below) that provides an end of travel of the axial translation; and a secondary backup seal 1 including metal face seal positioned at the stop to prevent the flow of liquified material and fluid from leaking out. However, Nakamura fails to explicitly disclose wherein the expandable volume operates at temperatures that exceed a temperature rating of the piston seal causing the piston seal begins to liquify. Nevertheless, 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 operating temperatures to any number of ranges (i.e. exceed a temperature rating of the piston seal) 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image1.png
746
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura as modified discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first and second cylindrical members at the annular interface have metal surfaces and the piston seal is formed of a polymer, rubber or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) material. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention 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 used as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
Regarding claim 3, Nakamura as modified discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly wherein the temperature rating of the piston seal is no greater than 600° F and the rated operating temperature of the expandable volume is at least 650° F. Nevertheless, 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 temperature rating and operating temperature to any number of ranges (i.e. no greater than 600° F or at least 650° F, respectively) 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Nakamura as modified discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a temperature rating of the primary backup seal is no greater than 600° F. Nevertheless, 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 temperature rating to any number of ranges (i.e. no greater than 600° F) 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 5, Nakamura as modified discloses wherein the stop (3a of Annotated Fig. 1, above) is formed between an aft facing surface of the first cylindrical member 3 and a forward-facing surface of the second cylindrical member 41.
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Nakamura as modified discloses wherein in a stored position only the piston seal 20 seals the annular interface, in a dynamically translating position both the piston and primary backup seals 11, 12 seal the annular interface and in an extended EOT position, the piston seal, primary and secondary backup seals seal the annular interface.
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Nakamura as modified discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the sealing system is rated for operating temperatures that exceed the rated temperature of the piston seal only in the extended EOT position. Nevertheless, 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 operating temperature rating to any number of ratings 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. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura as modified discloses wherein the fluid is capable of being a liquid fuel.
Regarding claim 9, Nakamura as modified discloses wherein the first and second cylinders 3, 41 are arranged as telescoping cylinders.
Regarding claim 10, Nakamura as modified discloses wherein the first and second cylinders 3, 41 are arranged as a translatable piston in a fixed cylinder Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 11 and 17, Nakamura as modified discloses a plurality of glide seals (4a of Annotated Fig. 1, above) spaced along the annular interface to separate the first and second cylindrical members.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-16, 23 and 24 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: In view of the Applicants amendments and a review of the prior art by the Examiner; the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all of the claimed subject matter of claims 12-16, 23 and 24 including where the sealing system comprises an effector having an expandable fuel tank therein in which first and second cylindrical members translate axially with respect to each other at an annular metal interface upon transfer of liquid fuel into the expandable fuel tank from an external source to fill and pressurize the expandable fuel tank and to extend the length of the effector. There is no motivation to modify the prior art references, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, in the manner required by the claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 21-22 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In view of a review of the prior art by the Examiner; the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all of the claimed subject matter of claims 21 and 22 including where the fuel tank includes an effector in which expansion of the expandable fuel tank extends the length of the effector. There is no motivation to modify the prior art references, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, in the manner required by the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/19/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Nakamura reference does not include a secondary backup seal. This is not persuasive, since the Nakamura reference does in fact disclose an additional seals 1 capable of backing up piston seal 20 at various location axially along the piston 42.
Applicant further argues the intended use of the Nakamura reference stating that the Nakamura reference is using the backup ring 10 to support the seal member 20 (U-shaped packing) from "Cold Flow" distortion within its operational temperatures throughout the long-term operational life of a reciprocation piston assembly. Cold flow is a polymer response of stress relief and the backup ring 10 closes the gap to keep the seal member 20 from flowing in that application. Nevertheless, [A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987)
Examiner notes that while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Furthermore, applicant is advised that recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In other words, even if the prior art does not explicitly disclose the intended use or the function of the apparatus as written in the claims of the instant invention, the prior art may not be patentably distinguishable from the instant invention. Please see MPEP 2106 and 2114.
Further structure should be claimed to further define the sealing system.
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 EUGENE G BYRD whose telephone number is (571)270-1824. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Kristina Fulton can be reached at 5712727376. 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.
/EUGENE G BYRD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675