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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 03/12/26 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 11,719,366 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chiproot et al (US 9,310,002)
As to claim 1, Chiproot et al discloses a gasket assembly comprising: a primary gasket (12) defining an outer sealing surface (top surface) and an inner sealing surface (with indigitations 30) opposite the outer sealing surface; and a secondary gasket (22) disposed radially inward of the primary gasket, the secondary gasket defining a secondary outer sealing surface (with interdigitations 30) and a secondary inner sealing surface (bottom surface), the secondary outer sealing surface engaging the inner sealing surface of the primary gasket; wherein: the inner sealing surface of the primary gasket defines a first axial length (Figs. 1 and 2); the secondary outer sealing surface of the secondary gasket defines a second axial length that is substantially the same as the first axial length of the inner sealing surface of the primary gasket (Figs. 1 and 2); one of the inner sealing surface of the primary gasket and the secondary outer sealing surface of the secondary gasket defines an engagement groove (of interdigitations); the other one of the inner sealing surface of the primary gasket and the secondary outer sealing surface of the secondary gasket defines an engagement flange (of interdigitations); and the engagement flange engages the engagement groove to prevent the secondary gasket from sliding axially relative to the primary gasket.
As to claim 2, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 1, wherein the engagement groove is an annular engagement groove, and wherein the engagement flange is an annular engagement flange (of 30).
As to claim 3, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 2, wherein the inner sealing surface of the primary gasket defines the annular engagement groove, and wherein the secondary outer sealing surface of the secondary gasket defines the annular engagement flange. Refer to Fig. 2.
As to claim 4, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 3, wherein: the annular engagement groove is one of a plurality of axially-spaced annular engagement grooves (of 30) defined by the inner sealing surface of the primary gasket; the annular engagement flange is one of a plurality of axially-spaced annular engagement flanges (of 30) defined by the secondary outer sealing surface of the secondary gasket; and each of the axially-spaced annular engagement flanges engages one of the axially-spaced annular engagement grooves. Refer to Fig. 2.
As to claim 5, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 4, wherein: the primary gasket defines a first axial end (left end in figures) and a second axial end (right end in figures) opposite the first axial end; a first one of the plurality of axially-spaced annular engagement grooves is arranged adjacent to the first axial end (Fig. 2); and a second one of the plurality of axially-spaced annular engagement grooves is arranged adjacent to the second axial end (Fig. 2).
As to claim 6, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 5, wherein a third one of the plurality of axially-spaced annular engagement grooves is arranged between the first one and the second one of the plurality of axially-spaced annular engagement grooves. Refer to Fig. 2.
As to claim 7, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 1, wherein the primary gasket defines a first axial end (left end) and a second axial end (right end) opposite the first axial end, and wherein a gasket groove (18) extends into the primary gasket at the first axial end.
As to claim 8, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 7, wherein the gasket groove is an annular gasket groove. Refer to Fig. 2.
As to claim 9, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 8, wherein the annular gasket groove is defined radially between the outer sealing surface of the primary gasket and the inner sealing surface of the primary gasket. Refer to Fig. 2.
As to claim 10, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 9, wherein the annular gasket groove extends into the first axial end in a substantially axial direction. Refer to Fig. 2.
As to claim 11, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 1, wherein the secondary inner sealing surface defines a void (inner annulus) configured to receive a pipe, and wherein the secondary inner sealing surface is configured to grip the pipe.
As to claim 12, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 11, wherein each of the primary gasket and the secondary gasket comprise a resilient material. Refer to col. 3, ll. 28-33.
As to claim 13, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 12, wherein the resilient material of the primary gasket is the same as the resilient material of the secondary gasket. Refer to cross-hatching in the figures.
As to claim 14, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 12, except that the resilient material of the primary gasket is different than the resilient material of the secondary gasket. Refer to col. 3, ll. 28-33.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiproot et al (US 9,310,002) in view of Krausz et al (US 7,654,486).
As to claim 15, Chiproot et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 12, except that the resilient material comprises a rubber material.
However, Krausz et al teaches a similar gasket assembly, wherein the resilient material comprises a rubber material. Refer to col. 3, l. 47.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chiproot et al such that the resilient material the resilient material comprises a rubber material, as taught by Krausz et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative, yet viable configuration dependent upon the requirements of a particular design application.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiproot et al in view of Krausz et al, and further in view of Official Notice.
As to claim 16, Chiproot et al/Krausz et al discloses the gasket assembly of claim 15, except that the rubber material is neoprene.
However, Examiner takes Official Notice of the use of neoprene as a rubber material.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Bird et al such that the rubber material of the gasket assembly is neoprene, as taught by Official Notice, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide an alternative, yet viable configuration dependent upon the requirements of a particular design application.
Examiner’s Note:
The italicized portions in the foregoing claims are functional recitations. These clauses, as well as other statements of intended use do not serve to patently distinguish the claimed structure over that of the reference(s), as long as the structure of the cited reference(s) is capable of performing the intended use. See MPEP 2111-2115.
See also MPEP 2114, which states:
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 USPQ 2d 1647;
Claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531; and
[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 15 USPQ2d 1525,1528.
Any one of the systems in the cited reference(s) is capable of being used in the same manner and for the intended or desired use as the claimed invention. Note that it is sufficient to show that said capability exists, which is the case for the cited reference(s).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 James M Hewitt II whose telephone number is (571)272-7084. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730am-930pm (MST), mid-day flex.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
James M. Hewitt II
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3679
/JAMES M HEWITT II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679