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 § 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.
Claims 11 and 12 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.
Claim 11 is indefinite as it depends on canceled claim 2. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended claim 11 to depend on claim 1.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a material of the anti-friction coating comprises…”. This limitation is indefinite as it is unclear if it refers to one or both of the prior claimed anti-friction coatings. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “a material of the anti-friction coatings”.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Royse (US 2005/0129911).
With regard to claim 1, Royse discloses a seal (10) configured to be arranged between a first element and a second element of a propulsion unit in an assembled configuration (i.e. by virtue of being a seal and having the discloses shape it can be arranged between two elements and thus meets this claimed intended use in the preamble. Additionally see Fig. 1), the seal comprising a longitudinal sector (the sectors as seen in Figs. 3, 4, 6, etc.) configured to be in contact with the second element (i.e. as seen in Figs. 3, 4, 6, etc. they are configured to do such by virtue of their disclosed structure), the longitudinal sector being formed of an elastic leak-tight material (48, which Examiner notes is considered a leak-tight material as it is a material that is capable of providing a leak-tight seal depending on how it is structured and used) and comprising, a first zone (a first zone of 40 as seen in Figs. 3, 4, 6, etc.) comprising an anti-friction coating (i.e. the coating of exposed 50s as seen in Fig. 5, see para. [0028] disclosing the exposed 50 are anti-friction elements), a second zone (a first zone of 42 as seen in Figs. 3, 4, 6, etc.) comprising an exposed portion of the leak-tight material (i.e. the coating of 48 shown as exposed in Fig. 5), and a third zone (i.e. a second zone of 40 as seen in Figs. 3, 4, 6, etc.) comprising an anti-friction coating (i.e. the coating of exposed 50s as seen in Fig. 5, see para. [0028] disclosing the exposed 50 are anti-friction elements), wherein a transverse width of the second zone is larger than or equal to 0.1 millimeter (as detailed in para. [0042], [0044], etc. in combination with Figs. such as Fig. 5 a transverse width of the second zone must be greater than the size of the particles (50) which is disclosed as greater than 0.1 mm).
With regard to claim 3, Royse discloses that the anti-friction coating is partially embedded in the leak-tight material or covers the leak-tight material (as seen in Fig. 5 it is partially embedded in the leak-tight material due to embedded 50s).
With regard to claim 5, Royse discloses that the longitudinal sector comprises at least a fourth zone (i.e. a second zone of 42 as seen in Fig. 6) comprising an exposed portion of the leak-tight material (i.e. the coating of 48 with no exposed 50s as seen in Fig. 5, which as noted above is considered a leak-tight material) and a fifth zone (i.e. a third zone of 40 as seen in Fig. 6) comprising an anti-friction coating (i.e. the coating of exposed 50s as seen in Fig. 5, see para. [0028] disclosing the exposed 50 are anti-friction elements).
With regard to claim 7, Royse discloses that the seal comprises an "omega"-type cross-section (as seen in Fig. 6) comprising a substantially planar first portion (e.g. see at 22 in Fig. 6) for fastening to the first element (as seen in Fig. 6 it is capable of such an intended use limitation, as interpreted in the above 112(b) rejection of this claim) and a rounded second portion (i.e. the portion comprising 40 as seen in Fig. 6)) comprising the longitudinal sector (as seen in Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 8, Royse discloses that the second zone comprises a break (as seen in Fig. 6 as there are a plurality of breaks/areas where the leak-tight coating ends) splitting the second zone into two portions on either side of the break (as seen in Fig. 6), the two portions being transversely offset (as see in Fig. 6 in a transverse direction compared to various other portions of the seal).
With regard to claim 11, Royse discloses that the transverse width of the second zone is between 3 and 10 millimeters (as detailed in para. [0042], [0044], etc. in combination with Figs. such as Fig. 5 a transverse width of the second zone must be greater than the size of the particles (50) which is disclosed as up to 3 mm).
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.
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.
Claims 4, 6, and 12, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royse (US 2005/0129911) alone.
With regard to claim 4, Royse discloses that the anti-friction material coating is a synthetic material (see para. [0039], etc.), but is silent as to whether the particles (50) can comprise fibers or not and thus fails to explicitly disclose that the anti-friction coating comprises synthetic fibers. However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the device of Royse such the anti-friction coating comprises synthetic fibers as Examiner hereby takes Official Notice that the art is replete with examples of seals having anti-friction coatings that comprise synthetic fibers (e.g. polyamide fibers, aramid fibers, etc.). Such a modification provides the expected benefits of providing good sealing performance with wear reduction, low friction, and/or low noise, etc.. Additionally and/or alternatively it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the device of Royse such the anti-friction coating comprises synthetic fibers as it has been held to be within the general skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of providing good sealing performance with wear reduction, low friction, and/or low noise, etc..
As applicant has not traversed examiner’s assertion of official notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement relied upon in examiner’s assertion of official notice is hereby taken to be admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP 2144.03.
With regard to claim 6, Royse discloses that the leak-tight material can comprise a polymer, but is silent as to whether it can comprise a ceramic fabric and/or elastomeric material. However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the device of Royse such the leak tight material comprises a ceramic fabric and/or elastomeric material (e.g. in place of or in combination with the disclosed polymer material) as Examiner hereby takes Official Notice that the art is replete with examples of seals having leak tight materials comprising ceramic fabric and/or elastomeric material (e.g. thermoplastic elastomer, rubbers, etc.). Such a modification provides the expected benefits of providing good sealing performance, wear resistance, chemical resistance, etc.. Additionally and/or alternatively it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the device of Royse such that the leak tight material comprises a ceramic fabric and/or elastomeric material (e.g. in place of or in combination with the disclosed polymer material) as it has been held to be within the general skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Such a modification provides the expected benefits of providing good sealing performance, wear resistance, chemical resistance, etc..
With regard to claim 12, the combination (Royse) fails to disclose that the anti-friction material coating comprises a poly(m-phenyleneisophthalamide). However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the device of the combination such the anti-friction coating comprises a poly(m-phenyleneisophthalamide) as Examiner hereby takes Official Notice that the art is replete with examples of seals having anti-friction coatings that comprise a poly(m-phenyleneisophthalamide). Such a modification provides the expected benefits of providing good sealing performance with wear reduction, low friction, and/or low noise, etc.. Additionally and/or alternatively it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the device of the combination such the anti-friction coating comprises a poly(m-phenyleneisophthalamide) as it has been held to be within the general skill in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. Such a modification would have provided the expected benefits of providing good sealing performance with wear reduction, low friction, and/or low noise, etc..
As applicant has not traversed examiner’s assertion of official notice, the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement relied upon in examiner’s assertion of official notice is hereby taken to be admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP 2144.03.
Claims 9-10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunel (US 2011/0024994) in view of Royse (US 2005/0129911).
With regard to claim 9, Bunel discloses a propulsion unit (i.e. as seen in Fig. 2, etc.) for an aircraft (as disclosed in the abstract, etc.) comprising a first compartment (as seen in Figs. 3-4 one of the compartments separated by the seal) configured to be exposed to a fire and a second compartment (as seen in Figs. 3-4 another one of the compartments separated by the seal), the propulsion unit further comprising a seal (1) between the first compartment and the second compartment (as seen in Figs. 3-4, etc.), the seal comprising a longitudinal sector (as seen in Fig. 1) configured to be in contact with the second element (as seen in Figs. 1-4, etc.), the longitudinal sector being formed of an elastic leak-tight material (i.e. the material of the seal 1, which Examiner notes is considered a leak-tight material as it is a material that is capable of providing a leak-tight seal depending on how it is structured and used) and comprising, a first zone (one 3 as seen in Fig. 1) comprising an anti-friction coating (8), a second zone (e.g. 2) comprising a leak-tight material (i.e. as seen in Fig. 1 the base material of the seal which is considered leak-tight material as it is a seal material that can form a leak-tight seal depending on how it is used), and a third zone (the other 3 as seen in Fig. 1) comprising an anti-friction coating (8).
Bunel Fails to disclose that the second zone comprises a leak-tight coating.
Royse discloses a seal (10) configured to be arranged between a first element and a second element of a propulsion unit in an assembled configuration (i.e. by virtue of being a seal and having the discloses shape it can be arranged between two elements and thus meets this claimed intended use in the preamble. Additionally see Fig. 1), the seal comprising a longitudinal sector (the sectors as seen in Figs. 3, 4, 6, etc.) configured to be in contact with the second element (i.e. as seen in Figs. 3, 4, 6, etc. they are configured to do such by virtue of their disclosed structure), the longitudinal sector being formed of an elastic leak-tight material (48, which Examiner notes is considered a leak-tight material as it is a material that is capable of providing a leak-tight seal depending on how it is structured and used) and comprising, a first zone (a first zone of 40 as seen in Figs. 3, 4, 6, etc.) comprising an anti-friction coating (i.e. the coating of exposed 50s as seen in Fig. 5, see para. [0028] disclosing the exposed 50 are anti-friction elements), a second zone (a first zone of 42 as seen in Figs. 3, 4, 6, etc.) comprising an exposed portion of the leak-tight material (i.e. the coating of 48 shown as exposed in Fig. 5), and a third zone (i.e. a second zone of 40 as seen in Figs. 3, 4, 6, etc.) comprising an anti-friction coating (i.e. the coating of exposed 50s as seen in Fig. 5, see para. [0028] disclosing the exposed 50 are anti-friction elements), wherein a transverse width of the second zone is larger than or equal to 0.1 millimeter (as detailed in para. [0042], [0044], etc. in combination with Figs. such as Fig. 5 a transverse width of the second zone must be greater than the size of the particles (50) which is disclosed as greater than 0.1 mm).
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have modified the device of Bunel such that the second zone comprises a leak-tight coating (e.g. the alternating portions of leak-tight and antifriction coatings) as taught by Royse. Such a modification would have provided the expected benefit of providing the desired different surfaces with distinct functions, without requiring incorporation of alternative materials (see Royse para. [0013], etc.).
With regard to claim 10, the combination (Bunel) discloses an aircraft (see paras. [0002], [0010], etc.) comprising the propulsion unit of claim 9 (see the rejection of claim 9 above).
With regard to claim 13, the combination (Bunel) discloses that the second zone of the seal is positioned at a distance from the second compartment smaller than its distance with the first compartment (as seen in Figs. 1, etc. as the second zone has a plurality of distance from the first and second compartments, at least one of which reads on such claim limitation due to the curved shape of the second zone).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 3-13 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. In so much as they may apply to the new/amended grounds of rejections above, Applicant’s arguments, filed 01 April 2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is that because of the different intended uses of Royse and the instant invention “one of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Royse for guidance with respect to the seal of a propulsion unit”. This argument is not persuasive for several reasons. First Applicant merely claims that the instant seal is “configured to be arranged” between elements of a propulsion unit which many seals have a configuration that is capable of such arrangement. Second Applicant does not claim that any specific amount of sealing or other structural features are required for the seal. Third the vehicle of Royse is considered a propulsion unit in the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof. Fourth this appears to be a non-analogous art argument which is only a requirement for 35 USC 103 obviousness rejections and is moot with regards to the rejections above made under 35 USC 102 as these actually disclose each of the claimed elements. Regarding the few dependent claims rejected under 35 USC 103, Royce is considered analogous art as it shares classifications with the instant application (e.g. F16J15/022,027, etc.), is generally the same field of endeavor of flexible seals with anti-friction surface coatings for use between relatively static elements, and is reasonably concerned with the same problem of reducing friction of a seal between relatively static elements.
Applicant’s argument against prior claim 2, now incorporated into claim 1, is that Royse fails to provide specific details of its dimensions and thus fails to disclose that a transverse width of the second zone is greater than or equal to 0.1 mm (and similar for claim 11 requiring 3-10 mm). This argument is not persuasive as Royse indirectly discloses that the second zone has such a transverse width as paras. [0042] and [0044] in combination with Fig. 5 show there must be plural particles per zone, that there must be at least a 1 mm2 of each zone, and that the projecting particles can form surface features of between 0.25 mm to 3 mm (i.e. meaning the dimensions of the second zone must be at least such in combination with Fig. 5 showing plural particles per zone).
Regarding Applicant’s arguments that Royse fails to disclose the anti-capillary function and fire-resistant application, Examiner notes that such are not recited in the present claims. 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).
In the interest of advancing prosecution Examiner recommends Applicant claim that the seal has a bulb shaped main seal body that is made of the leak-tight material, and the anti-friction coatings are coatings placed thereon to make clear what is appears Applicant is attempting to argue in the 01 April 2026 arguments. As such an amendment would still likely be rejected over other grounds of rejection, Examiner recommends additionally claiming the argued but unclaimed features in Applicant’s arguments (e.g. the seal being configured to affect a seal between elements of a turbine engine, that the seal is fire-resistant (i.e. with respect to ignited fuel of the engine), and that the second zone of 3-10mm creates the argued anti-capillary effect).
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 NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-5354. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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 (571) 272-7376. 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.
/NICHOLAS L FOSTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights