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
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) 1-4, 8-11 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kupper et al. (US 9388906).
Regarding claim 1, Kupper et al. discloses a joint Fig. 1 comprising: a first part 14 and a second part 12 rotatable relative to each other about a rotation axis 50, the second part having a second surface 46; a dynamic seal 40 (leak proof, Col. 3, Ln. 44) arranged to dynamically seal against the second surface; and a static seal 24 arranged to seal a gap between the first part and the dynamic seal, and arranged to push the dynamic seal against the second surface; wherein the static seal in the gap is exposed to an external region outside the joint Fig. 1 such that the static seal is visible along the entire gap of from the external region.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
870
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kupper et al. discloses wherein the second surface 46 is a substantially axial surface with respect to the rotation axis 50.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Kupper et al. discloses wherein the static seal 24 is made of a material that is softer (thermoplastic) than a material (stellite alloy) of the dynamic seal 40.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Kupper et al. discloses wherein the first part 14 partly overlaps the static seal 24.
Regarding claim 8, Kupper et al. discloses wherein the first part 14 comprises an opening 54, and wherein the static seal 24 is partly received in the opening. Regarding claim 9, Kupper et al. discloses a forcing element 20 arranged to force the static seal 24 against the dynamic seal 40.
Regarding claim 10, Kupper et al. discloses wherein the forcing element 20 is received in the opening 54.
Regarding claim 11, Kupper et al. discloses wherein the forcing element 20 comprises a spring.
Regarding claim 15, Kupper et al. discloses an industrial device Fig. 1 comprising a joint having a first part 14 and a second part 12 rotatable relative to each other about a rotation axis 50, the second part having a second surface 46; a dynamic seal 40 arranged to dynamically seal against the second surface; and a static seal 24 arranged to seal a gap between the first part and the dynamic seal, and arranged to push the dynamic seal against the second surface; wherein the static seal in the gap is exposed to an external region outside the joint such that the static seal is visible along the entire gap from the external region.
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) 5-7, 14 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kupper et al.
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Kupper et al. discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose the arrangement of the seals wherein an external surface of the static seal 24 is flush with an external surface of the dynamic seal 40. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the seals at specific position in order to fit within a system and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claims 6, 19 and 21, Kupper et al. discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein an external surface of the dynamic seal 40 is flush with an external surface of the second part 12. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the seals at specific position in order to fit within a system and since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Regarding claim 7, Kupper et al. discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first static friction coefficient between the static seal and the dynamic seal is larger than each of a second static friction coefficient and a second dynamic friction coefficient between the dynamic seal and the second surface. 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 friction coefficient to any number of ranges 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 14, Kupper et al. discloses wherein the joint Fig. 1 is capable of being used in a robot joint.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 are allowed.
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 12 and 13 including where a static secondary seal positioned radially inside the static seal with respect to the rotation axis and configured to seal between the first part and the dynamic seal. 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 1/2/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the Kupper reference fails to discloses or suggest that the static seal in the gap is exposed to an external region outside the joint such that the static seal is visible along the entire gap from the external region. The Examiner disagrees. The Kupper reference shows that the static seal 24 in the gap is exposed to an external region outside the joint such that the static seal is visible along the entire gap from the external region. (Also see Annotated Fig. 2, above), Applicant further argues that seal ring 24 is not arranged to seal a gap between the first part and the dynamic seal. This is not persuasive since the first member is reference numeral 14 and the second member is reference numeral 12, hence static seal 24 is arranged to seal a gap between the first part 14 and the dynamic seal 40, and arranged to push the dynamic seal against the second surface 46.
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