DETAILED ACTION
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) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda (US 6145841).
Regarding claim 1, Maeda discloses a mechanical seal Fig. 1, comprising: a seal ring 1 held by a casing 3 with an elastic body 2 interposed between the seal ring and the casing, wherein the casing includes an axial wall 3a extending in an axial direction along a peripheral surface of the seal ring, and a radial wall A extending in a radial direction along a back surface of the seal ring, the elastic body includes an axial portion (2ax of Annotated Fig. 1, below) sandwiched between the peripheral surface of the seal ring and the axial wall of the casing, and a radial portion (2rd of Annotated Fig. 1, below) sandwiched between the back surface of the seal ring and the radial wall of the casing, and the elastic body further includes a tapered portion (223 of Annotated Fig. 1, below) which is formed between a peripheral surface of the axial portion and a back surface of the radial portion and which extends from the axial portion to a back surface position of the seal ring such that the tapered portion overlaps with the back surface of the seal ring in an axial directional view.
PNG
media_image1.png
860
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Maeda discloses wherein the tapered portion 223 includes a flat surface.
Regarding claim 3, Maeda discloses wherein the tapered portion 223 includes two tapered surfaces 223a, 223b.
Regarding claim 4, Maeda discloses wherein the tapered portion 223 has an inner diameter side end which is positioned between the axial portion and a radial center of the seal ring 1 in a radial width of the seal ring. Regarding claim 5, Maeda discloses wherein a corner portion of the seal ring 1 covered by the elastic body 2 is chamfered (223c of Annotated Fig. 1, above).
Regarding claim 7, Maeda discloses wherein a cutout portion (223d of Annotated Fig. 1, above) is formed at a tip portion of the peripheral surface of the axial portion.
Regarding claim 8, Maeda discloses wherein the tapered portion 223 has an inner diameter side end which is positioned between the axial portion and a radial center of the seal ring 1 in a radial width of the seal ring.
Regarding claim 9, Maeda discloses wherein the tapered portion 223 has an inner diameter side end which is positioned between the axial portion and a radial center of the seal ring 1 in a radial width of the seal ring.
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda.
Regarding claim 6, Maeda discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose where the corner portion is chamfered to a larger extent than the other corner portions of the seal. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art reference to Itadani et al. (US 9581248) discloses a mechanical seal used, e.g., as a shaft-sealing device in a pump or the like, having various shaped cup gaskets.
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
Prosecution Insights