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 .
The amendment filed 10/2/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 23 and 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 19 and 23 recites “the sealing element is a sealing lip with a sealing edge” and seems to be directed to the embodiment of Fig. 14. The wording between claims 19,23 and Fig. 14 is not consistent because claim 19 seems to be claiming that the sealing element and retaining parts are separate elements and not different portions of a single element.
Claim 20-37 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the counter ring" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 36-37 are rejected for depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, “if” must be amended to --is--. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 19-21, 25-28, and 30-33 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Carlisle et al. (US Patent No. 5,375,854).
Regarding claim 19, the Carlisle et al. (hereinafter Carlisle) reference discloses a sealing arrangement, comprising
a sealing element (24) which is held in the sealing arrangement by a retaining part (20),
wherein the retaining part has an air-side and/or medium-side outer side (Fig. 6), and
wherein the retaining part is provided on its air-side and/or medium- side outer side with an air-tight and/or medium-tight protective layer (Col. 4, Lines 13-18), and
wherein the protective layer protects the retaining part against a chemical attack (Col. 4, Lines 13-18),
wherein the protective layer is complete or at least partial (e.g. Col. 4, Lines 13-18, to prevent corrosion it would have to be complete).
Regarding claim 20, the Carlisle reference discloses the sealing arrangement is a mechanical seal configured to use in coolant units (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 21, the Carlisle reference discloses the protective layer is a sheathing of the retaining part (Col. 4, Lines 13-18).
Regarding claim 25, the Carlisle reference discloses the sealing element is a sliding ring (Fig. 6),
wherein the sliding ring , under axial force, bears with a sealing surface against a further sealing surface of a rotatable counter-ring (28), forming a sealing gap (Fig. 6), and
wherein the sliding ring is connected to the retaining part (Fig. 6),
wherein the retaining part is designed as an annular bellows and has a flexible bellows part (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 26, the Carlisle reference discloses at least the flexible bellows part is completely or at least partially provided with the air-tight and/or medium-tight protective layer on its air- and/or medium-side outer surface (e.g. Col. 4, Lines 13-18, to prevent corrosion it would have to be complete).
Regarding claim 27, the Carlisle reference discloses the protective layer is a sheathing of the annular bellows (Col. 4, Lines 13-18).
Regarding claim 28, the Carlisle reference discloses the protective layer is a protective film (Col. 4, Lines 13-18) or a protective disc.
Regarding claim 30, the Carlisle reference discloses the annular bellows is connected to the protective film (Col. 4, Lines 13-18) or the protective disc.
Regarding claim 31, the Carlisle reference discloses the flexible bellows part interconnects a radially outer casing (21) and a radially inner annular retaining part (23) of the annular bellows (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 32, the Carlisle reference discloses the annular bellows is made of rubber or rubber-like material (e.g. since the bellows has elastic properties).
Regarding claim 33, the Carlisle reference discloses the protective film is clamped between the annular bellows and the sliding ring or the annular bellows and a plate spring (21) as well as between the annular bellows and a housing (22) and/or a sleeve (Col. 4, Lines 13-18; Fig. 6).
Claim(s) 19 and 22 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kobayashi et al. (US Pub. No. 20050151322).
Regarding claim 19, the Kobayashi et al. (hereinafter Kobayashi) reference discloses a sealing arrangement (Fig. 3), comprising
a sealing element (26) which is held in the sealing arrangement by a retaining part (22),
wherein the retaining part has an air-side and/or medium-side outer side (Fig. 3), and
wherein the retaining part is provided on its air-side and/or medium-side outer side with an air-tight and/or medium-tight protective layer (e.g. 24), and
wherein the protective layer protects the retaining part against a chemical attack (24),
wherein the protective layer is complete or at least partial (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 22, the Kobayashi reference discloses the sealing element is a sealing washer which is held by the retaining part (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 19, 23, and 24 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wheeler (US Patent No. 4,526,385).
Regarding claim 19, the Wheeler reference, as best understood, discloses a sealing arrangement, comprising
a sealing element (10) which is held in the sealing arrangement by a retaining part (e.g. radially outer part of 10),
wherein the retaining part has an air-side and/or medium-side outer side (Figs. 2,3,5,6), and
wherein the retaining part is provided on its air-side and/or medium- side outer side with an air-tight and/or medium-tight protective layer (38), and
wherein the protective layer protects the retaining part against a chemical attack (38),
wherein the protective layer is complete or at least partial (Figs. 2,3,5,6).
Regarding claim 23, the Wheeler reference discloses the sealing element is a sealing lip (41) with a sealing edge (42).
Regarding claim 24, the Wheeler reference disclose the sealing element including the retaining part is surrounded by the protective layer (Figs. 2,3,5,6).
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.
Claim(s) 29 and 34-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlisle.
Regarding claim 29, the Carlisle reference discloses the protective layer is formed by a PTFE (Col. 4, Lines 13-18).
However, the Carlisle reference fails to explicitly disclose the PTFE being PTFE foil.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use PTFE foil, 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 use as a matter of mechanical expedience and in order to provide a thicker more resistant layer. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 34, the Carlisle reference discloses an annular space (space between 24 and 20) is provided between the sliding ring and the flexible bellows part (Fig. 6).
However, the Carlisle reference fails to explicitly disclose a grease filling covering the flexible bellows part on a medium side is accommodated as a protective layer.
The examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide grease in order to provide further lubrication.
Regarding claim 35, the Carlisle reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 1.
However, the Carlisle reference fails to explicitly disclose the rotatable counter ring is seated on a fastening sleeve via a sleeve, and wherein the sleeve can be fastened on a shaft to be sealed.
The examiner takes official notice that it is well known in the art to reverse the parts of a mechanical seal in order to reduce maintenance costs.
Regarding claims 36 and 37, the Carlisle reference, as modified in claim 35, discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 35.
However, the modified Carlisle reference fails to explicitly disclose the sleeve is provided with an air- and coolant-impermeable coating at least on an air- and medium-side outer side.
The examiner takes office notice that is well known to provide a coating to a sleeve in order to prevent corrosion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/2/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to the applicant’s argument of the rejection of claims 23 and 24 under 35U.S.C. 112, the argument is not persuasive because claim 19 clearly states that the retainer is a part and not a portion of the sealing element.
With regards to the applicant’s argument of the Carlisle reference, the argument is not persuasive because the protective layer is at least on the exterior surface of the innermost layer. Applicant further argues that the layer is not air-tight nor medium-tight, this is not persuasive because they layer would be a complete layer of PTFE between two other layers and although the Carlisle reference does not specifically recite chemical resistance, PTFE is well known for its resistance to certain chemicals.
With regards to the applicant’s arguments of the Kobayashi reference, the arguments are not persuasive because the PTFE layer of the Kobayashi layer will at least provide chemical resistance where it covers the seal.
With regards to the applicant’s argument of the Wheeler reference, the argument is not persuasive because each lip of the Wheeler reference can be considered “outer side” relative an “inner” portion (e.g. middle portion including 28) and PTFE is well known for its resistance to certain chemicals
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the dimension of the film) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant failed to challenge or adequately traverse the Official Notice taken in the rejection of claims 34-37. The limitations under Official Notice are now taken as admitted prior art.
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 GILBERT Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at (571)272-8322. 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.
/GILBERT Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675