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 Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “space state” should read “sparse state”. Appropriate correction is required. However please not the below 112(b) rejection related to this limitation in claim 1 that may necessitate claiming is as a “sparser state”.
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 1-20 are 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 1 recites the limitations “communicates with the leakage space” in line 4 and “communicates with the sealed fluid space in line 6 and line 8. These limitations are indefinite as the sealed fluid and leakage spaces are only previously recited in the intended use of the preamble and this it is unclear if Applicant is not claiming a sliding component installed in a certain manner (e.g. a seal assembly) that requires the arrangement and communication with the spaces for infringement/anticipation to occur, or if this is merely a further limiting of the prior claimed intended use. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “is configured to communicate with the leakage space” in line 4 and “is configured to communicate with the sealed fluid space” in line 6 and line 8.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “disposed in a sparse state with respect to the backward fluid inlet/outlet groove than with respect to the forward fluid inlet/outlet groove” in lines 9-11. This limitation is indefinite as the “than” renders the “sparse state” unclear as such refers to a comparative but a single state is not a comparative. Thus it is unclear if Applicant intended to claim something like a “sparser state” or if Applicant intended to also claim something like a denser/non-sparse state with respect to the forward fluid inlet/outlet groove. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim a “sparser state”.
Additionally Examiner notes that following references to such would also need to be corrected (e.g. see Claims 3-5).
Claim 2 recites the limitation “disposed in a sparse state with respect to a terminating end of the backward fluid inlet/outlet groove than with respect to a terminating end of the forward fluid inlet/outlet groove”. This limitation is indefinite as the “than” renders the “sparse state” unclear as such refers to a comparative but a single state is not a comparative. Thus it is unclear if Applicant intended to claim something like a “sparser state” or if Applicant intended to also claim something like a denser/non-sparse state with respect to the forward fluid inlet/outlet groove. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim a “sparser state”.
Claim 6, 9, 11, 13, and 15 each recite the limitations “communicating with the sealed fluid space” in lines 7 and 10. These limitations are indefinite as the sealed fluid space is only previously recited in the intended use of the preamble and this it is unclear if Applicant is not claiming a sliding component installed in a certain manner (e.g. a seal assembly) that requires the arrangement and communication with the space for infringement/anticipation to occur, or if this is merely a further limiting of the prior claimed intended use. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “is configured to communicate with the sealed fluid space” in line 7 and line 10.
Claims 2-20 are indefinite at least by virtue of depending on an indefinite claim as described above.
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- as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Negishi et al. (WO2021246372).
With regard to claim 1, Negishi discloses a sliding component (as seen in Fig. 1) comprising a pair of sliding rings (10/20 and the later various embodiments thereof such as 1010 in Fig. 17) having sliding surfaces (i.e. the surfaces thereof that face each other) rotatable relative to each other (as seen in Figs. 1, described in English language equivalent US 2023/0228292 para. [0001], etc.) to partition a sealed fluid space (S2) and a leakage space (S1, shown as partitioned in Fig. 1), wherein at least one of the sliding surfaces (i.e. of 1010 shown in Fig. 17) is provided with a plurality of forward dynamic pressure generation grooves (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 17 below) each of which communicates with the leakage space (as seen in Fig. 17 as it is open thereto. Additionally as interpreted in light of the above 112(b) rejection this is a capability that the sliding ring/component/surface has depending on how it is installed), a forward fluid inlet/outlet groove (at and including 1018) which is separated from the forward dynamic pressure generation grooves by a first land portion (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 17 below) and communicates with the sealed fluid space (as seen in Fig. 17 as it is open to S2 via 1017. Additionally as interpreted in light of the above 112(b) rejection this is a capability that the sliding ring/component/surface has depending on how it is installed), and a backward fluid inlet/outlet groove (at and including 1018’) which is separated from the forward dynamic pressure generation grooves by a second land portion (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 17 below) and communicates with the sealed fluid space (as seen in Fig. 17 as it is open to S2 via 1017. Additionally as interpreted in light of the above 112(b) rejection this is a capability that the sliding ring/component/surface has depending on how it is installed), and wherein the forward dynamic pressure generation grooves are disposed in a sparse state with respect to the backward fluid inlet/outlet groove than with respect to the forward fluid inlet/outlet groove (as seen in Fig. 17 as there are there are 3 total dynamic pressure generation grooves proximate the forward fluid inlet/outlet groove and 2 total dynamic pressure generation grooves proximate the backward fluid inlet/outlet groove).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Negishi discloses terminating ends (i.e. the radially outer ends thereof) of the forward dynamic pressure generation grooves (as seen in Fig. 17) are disposed in a sparse state with respect to a terminating end (e.g. the radially inner end of 1018’) of the backward fluid inlet/outlet groove (as seen in Fig. 17) than with respect to a terminating end (e.g. the radially inner end of 1018’) of the forward fluid inlet/outlet groove (as seen in Fig. 17 as there are there are 3 total dynamic pressure generation grooves (and thus terminating ends) proximate the terminating end of forward fluid inlet/outlet groove and 2 total dynamic pressure generation grooves (and thus terminating ends) proximate the terminating end of the backward fluid inlet/outlet groove).
With regard to claim 3, Negishi discloses that the sparse state is configured such that part of the forward dynamic pressure generation grooves close to the backward fluid inlet/outlet groove have a smaller total volume than a total volume of part of the forward dynamic pressure generation grooves close to the forward fluid inlet/outlet groove (as seen in Fig. 17 as there are there are 3 total dynamic pressure generation grooves proximate the forward fluid inlet/outlet groove and 2 total dynamic pressure generation grooves proximate the backward fluid inlet/outlet groove and as they are the same size).
With regard to claim 5, Negishi discloses that a plurality of sparse areas showing the space state are arranged in a circumferential direction of the one of the sliding surfaces (as seen in Fig. 2 and described in the abstract, etc. (see the above listed English language equivalent) as there are plural of the fluid introduction grooves spaced circumferentially there are thus a a plurality of sparse areas showing the sparser state).
With regard to claims 6, 9, 11, and 15, Negishi discloses that each of the forward dynamic pressure generation grooves is a spiral groove extending from a starting end in an arc shape with an inclination with respect to a radial direction (as seen in Fig. 17), the forward fluid inlet/outlet groove includes a fluid guide groove portion (i.e. at least a part of 1017) communicating with the sealed fluid space (as seen in Fig. 17 and in light of the above 112(b) rejection) and a Rayleigh step (1018) extending in a relative forward rotation direction (as seen in Fig. 17), and the backward fluid inlet/outlet groove includes a fluid guide groove portion (i.e. at least a part of 1017) communicating with the sealed fluid space (as seen in Fig. 17 and in light of the above 112(b) rejection) and a reverse Rayleigh step (1018’) extending in a relative backward rotation direction (as seen in Fig. 17.
With regard to claims 7, 10, 12, 14, and 16, Negishi discloses that the forward fluid inlet/outlet groove and the backward fluid inlet/outlet groove as a whole have a substantially T shape and share a groove as the fluid guide groove portions thereof (as seen in Fig. 17).
With regard to claims 8, 17, 18, and 20, Negishi discloses that the forward fluid inlet/outlet groove is disposed on a relative backward rotation direction side of the backward fluid inlet/outlet groove (i.e. as seen in Fig. 17).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 13, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable (i.e. primarily due to the subject matter of claim 4) if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides additional examples of similar sliding components with various similar grooves and Rayleigh steps.
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