Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/787,612

SEAL WASHER AND MOUNTING STRUCTURE OF THE SAME

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 29, 2024
Examiner
BYRD, EUGENE G
Art Unit
3675
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
UCHIYAMA MANUFACTURING CORP.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 12m
To Grant
79%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
580 granted / 836 resolved
+17.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 12m
Avg Prosecution
37 currently pending
Career history
873
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
59.5%
+19.5% vs TC avg
§102
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§112
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 836 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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) 1-3 and 7-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dimitry (US 3726178) in view of Baxi et al. (US 8186691). Regarding claim 1, Dimitry discloses an attachment structure of a seal washer 10 Fig. 1 to be provided in a space between a fastening portion of a fixture 33 and a member 36 to be fastened, the fixture fixing the member to be fastened to an attachment member 36, the member to be fastened having an insertion hole 35 through which a shaft portion 34 of the fixture is inserted, the attachment structure sealing the space between the fastening portion 33 and the member to be fastened the seal washer 10 comprising an annular core member 11 and an inner seal portion 12 made of an elastic material and fixed to an end portion of the core member 11 on an inner peripheral side 20, and the core member comprising a core member body 11, wherein the inner seal portion 12 comprises an inner seal body to be fixed to an end portion of the core member on an inner peripheral side, and a convex portion 25 on a fixture side protruding from the inner seal body toward a fastening portion side further than a surface on the fastening portion side of the core member body, and wherein an entire of the convex portion on the fixture side is provided on an inner diameter side further than the end portion on the inner peripheral side of the core member body, and an outer diameter of the fastening portion is larger than the inner diameter of the core member wherein the shaft portion of the fixture to be inserted into the insertion hole and an inner peripheral surface of the insertion hole having a larger diameter than the inner diameter of the core member define an annular space, the convex portion elastically contacts the fastening portion to make elastic deformation accompanied with fastening of the fixture, and a part of the inner seal and portion enters the annular space capable of not contacting the inner peripheral surface of the insertion hole. However, Dimitry fails to explicitly disclose an outer seal portion made of an elastic material and fixed to an end portion of the core member on an outer peripheral side and wherein a diameter of the insertion hole 35 is larger than an inner diameter of the core member 11. Baxi et al., an attachment structure of a seal washer 20 Fig. 3, discloses the use of an outer seal portion 26 made of an elastic material and fixed to an end portion of a core member 22 on an outer peripheral side and a seal base 30 extending to an outer peripheral side from the core member body wherein the outer seal portion 58, 60 is provided on one of two surfaces of the seal base in thickness direction so as to protrude further than a surface of the core member body, the one surface facing the member to be fastened, and an inner diameter of the outer seal portion is larger than a diameter of the insertion hole 88. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Dimitry with an outer seal portion as taught by Baxi et al. in order to provide additional sealing against leakage past or through a primary sealing element. Dimitry also fails to explicitly disclose the size of the insertion hole 35 of the member to be fastened. 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 that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984) Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses a fitting piece 27 protruding inward from an end face of the inner seal portion 12 on an inner peripheral side, wherein the fitting piece is thinner than the inner seal body 24 and a tip end of the fitting piece is fitted to a peripheral surface of the shaft portion 34 at least when the inner seal portion is not elastically deformed. Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses wherein the fitting piece 27 is intermittently formed (Fig. 5 of Baxi et al.) along a peripheral direction. Regarding claims 4-6, the combination discloses wherein the shaft portion 34 comprises a screw groove and a tip end of the fitting piece 27 is fitted to the screw groove. Regarding claims 13-18, the combination discloses seal washer 10 to be provided in a space between a fastening portion of a fixture 33 and a member 36 to be fastened, wherein the seal washer is used for the attachment structure. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Dimitri reference insertion hole is not larger than the inner diameter of the core member. This is not persuasive, since as discussed above, it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. Moreover, [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) Conclusion 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 29, 2024
Application Filed
May 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 02, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 08, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 08, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 06, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Feb 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 21, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595847
ENERGIZING ELEMENT AND METHODS OF MAKING AND USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595848
SOLID PLATE AND STUFFING BOX COMPRISING THE SOLID PLATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584416
O-RING FOR GAS TURBINE ENGINE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578017
PISTON RING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12577947
JUNK RING FOR RECIPROCATING PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
79%
With Interview (+9.8%)
2y 12m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 836 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month