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 § 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) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morvant (US 5165703), in view of Murphree et al. (US 2017/0342797 A1) (“Murphree”).
With respect to claim 1, Morvant teaches a composite article comprising a lattice structure ( col. 1, lines 64-66, col. 2, lines 14-16, col. 3, lines 27-30, col. 5, lines 1-7, 19-26) including a plurality of members that form an open-mesh frame defining a plurality of voids between adjacent members of the frame, the lattice structure being devoid of flexibility (abstr., col. 2, lines 66-68, col. 3, lines 17-27, col. 5, lines 2-4, 22-23, Figs. 2 and 3), and an elastomeric section formed of an elastomer disposed about the lattice structure (col. 2, lines 66-68, col. 3, lines 3-4, 23-27). Morvant is silent with respect to the elastomer being disposed within internal voids of the lattice structure. Murphree discloses a composite article wherein a seal is formed by a lattice structure including an elastomer disposed within internal voids of the lattice structure, the elastomer within the voids helping to expand the lattice structure in the radial direction and increasing the outer circumference of the seal (abstr., 0024, 0032). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the elastomer disposed about the lattice structure within internal voids of the lattice structure of Morvant to expand the lattice structure of rings 40 to adjust the contact of the lattice structure with the casing wall 135 of Morvant, (Morvant, col.3, lines 22-43, 49-53, col. 5, lines 19-24, Figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 3, Morvant and Murphree teach the article of claim 1. Regarding the lattice structure being formed from materials as recited in the claim, Murphree discloses that the lattice can be formed from metals or thermoplastics (0052), thus since metals and thermoplastic are interchangeable in lattice structures in the area of well tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the lattice structure of Morvant of a thermoplastic.
Claims 2, 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morvant, in view of Murphree and further in view of Munson (US 2019/0211700 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Morvant and Murphree teach the article of claim 1, however, the references are silent with respect to the lattice being monolithically formed. Munson discloses an article – a seal assembly - comprising a lattice structure, wherein the lattice – honeycomb - is monolithically formed (0013, 0072). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the lattice of Morvant monolithically as it is known in the art of seal rings (Morvant, col. 3, lines 15-27) to form the lattices monolithically.
With respect to claim 9, Morvant and Murphree teach the article of claim 1, but are silent with respect to a body as recited in the claim. Munson teaches an article – a seal assembly - comprising a body monolithically formed with a lattice structure (0013, 0048, 0049, 0072, Fig. 5C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form in the article of Morvant a body monolithically formed with the lattice structure as disclosed in Munson, as such seals are known in the art of seal assemblies.
Claim 10, Morvant, Murphree and Munson teach the article of claim 9. Munson discloses the body forming a ring, and the lattice structure extending inward from an inner surface of the ring (0013, 0048, 0049, 0072, Fig. 5C).
Regarding claim 11, Morvant, Murphree and Munson teach the article of claim 10. As in Munson the body is monolithically formed with the lattice structure (0013, 0048, 0049, 0072, Fig. 5C), the elastomeric section of Morvant would extend over the body, as the elastomeric section of Morvant extends over the entire article (Morvant, col. 2, lines 66-68, col. 3, lines 3-4, 23-27, Figs. 2 and 4).
As to claim 12, Morvant, Murphree and Munson teach the article of claim 11. Munson teaches an article – a seal assembly - comprising a body monolithically formed with the lattice (0013, 0048, 0049, 0072, Fig. 5C).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morvant, in view of Murphree and further in view of Achten et al. (US 2018/0071979 A1) (“Achten”).
With respect to claim 3, Morvant and Murphree teach the article of claim 1, but are silent with respect to the size of voids. Achten teaches a lattice wherein voids have a size of from 200 µm to 50 mm (abstr.). The range of size overlaps the range recited in claim 3; overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness (MPEP 2144.05). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the voids of the lattice structure of Morvant having a size of voids of Achten as changes in size are within the purview of a person skilled in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claims 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morvant, in view Murphree, and further in view of Morvant (US 5615896) (“Morvant 2”).
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Morvant and Murphree teach the article of claim 1. Murphree discloses the elastomeric section (col. 3, lines 23-27), but is silent with respect to the thermoset elastomer, the thermoset elastomer comprising silicone. Morvant 2 teaches an article comprising a lattice structure and an elastomeric section (abstr., col. 3, lines 28-40), wherein the elastomeric section comprises a thermoset elastomer such as silicone (col. 4, lines 19-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the elastomeric section of Morvant of a thermoset elastomer such as silicone as it has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
With respect to claims 7 and 8, Morvant and Murphree teach the article of claim 1. Morvant discloses the elastomeric section (col. 3, lines 23-27), but is silent with respect to the elastomeric section comprising a thermoplastic elastomer, the thermoplastic elastomer comprising a block polymer of styrene-isobutylene-styrene or polyurethane. Morvant 2 teaches an article comprising a lattice structure and an elastomeric section (abstr., col. 3, lines 28-40), wherein the elastomeric section comprises a thermoplastic elastomer such as polyurethane (col. 4, lines 19-43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the elastomeric section of Morvant of a thermoplastic elastomer such as polyurethane as it has been held to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use to be an obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Claims 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morvant, in view of Murphree and Munson and further in view of Hammer (US 1805623).
With respect to claim 11, Morvant, Murphree and Munson teach the article of claim 10, but are silent with respect to the elastomeric section including a flange that extends inward from the lattice structure. Hammer discloses an article which is a seal ring comprising a flange extending inward from the body of the seal ring, the shape of the seal ring conforming to and helping to seal the container (lines 70-86, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the article of Morvant, Murphree and Munson with an elastomeric section including a flange extending inward from the lattice structure in order to help the article to perform its sealing function.
Regarding claim 12, Morvant, Murphree, Munson and Hammer teach the article of claim 11. Hammer teaches a seal ring comprising a rib having a thickness greater than the flange, the rib disposed between the flange and the body of the seal ring, the shape of the seal ring conforming to and helping to seal the container (lines 70-86, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the article of Morvant, Murphree and Munson with an elastomeric section including a rib having a thickness greater than the flange, the rib disposed between the flange and the body in order to help the article to perform its sealing function.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morvant, in view Murphree and Munson, and further in view of Whitney (US 3445024).
Morvant, Murphree and Munson teach the article of claim 10, but are silent with respect to a grip as recited in the claim. Whitney teaches an article which is a sealing ring comprising a grip – element 30 - extending in a direction away from a surface thereof, to provide a means for easily removing the sealing ring (col. 2, lines 14-24, Figs. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the article of Morvant, Murphree and Munson with a grip extending away from the surface of the article to provide a means for easy removal of the article.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morvant, in view of Murphree, and further in view of Amancharla (US 3980134).
Regarding claim 15, Morvant and Murphree teach the article of claim 1. The references are silent with the article as recited in claim 14. Amancharla discloses a well tool (abstr.) comprising a gasket with a grip – the serrations 50 have been interpreted as a grip – the serrations grip the gaskets so that they can sustain high pressure without being extruded (col. 3, lines 40-52, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gasket of Morvant with a grip to further ensure that it will sustain high pressure without being extruded.
Claim(s) 16, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morvant (US 5165703) in view of Murphree et al. US 2017/0342797 A1) (“Murphree”).
With respect to claim 16, Morvant teaches a composite article comprising a lattice structure (col. 1, lines 64-66, col. 2, lines 14-16, col. 3, lines 27-30, col. 5, lines 1-7, 19-26) including a plurality of members that form an open-mesh frame defining a plurality of voids between adjacent members of the frame, the lattice structure being inflexible (abstr., col. 2, lines 66-68, col. 3, lines 3-4, 17-27, col. 5, lines 2-4, 22-23, Figs. 2 and 3), and an elastomeric section formed of an elastomer disposed about the lattice structure (col. 2, lines 66-68, col. 3, lines 3-4, 23-27). Morvant is silent with respect to the elastomer being within the voids of the lattice structure.
Murphree discloses a composite article wherein a seal is formed by a lattice structure including an elastomer disposed within internal voids of the lattice structure, the elastomer being within the voids, helping to expand the lattice structure in the radial direction and increasing the outer circumference of the seal (abstr., 0024, 0032). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the elastomer disposed about the lattice structure within the voids of the lattice structure to expand the lattice structure of rings 40 to improve the contact of the lattice structure with the casing wall 135 of Morvant (Morvant, col. 4, lines 22-26, 49-53, col. 5, lines 19-24, Figs. 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 18, Morvant and Murphree teach the article of claim 16. Morvant teaches the elastomeric section is disposed about the entire lattice structure (Figs, 2, 4).
Regarding claim 20, Morvant and Murphree teach the article of claim 16. Morvant teaches the article being a circular gasket (abstr.).
Claims 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morvant, in view of Murphree and further in view of Munson (US 2019/0211700 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Morvant and Murphree teach the article of claim 16. The references are silent with respect to the lattice structure being monolithically formed. Munson discloses an article – a seal assembly - comprising a lattice structure, wherein the lattice – honeycomb - is monolithically formed (0013, 0072). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the lattice of Morvant monolithically as it is known in the art of seal rings (Morvant, col. 3, lines 15-27) to form lattices monolithically.
With respect to claim 19, Morvant and Murphree teach the article of claim 16, but are silent with respect to a body as recited in the claim. Munson teaches an article – a seal assembly - comprising a body monolithically formed with a lattice structure (0013, 0048, 0049, 0072, Fig. 5C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form in the article of Morvant a body monolithically formed with the lattice structure as disclosed in Munson, as such seals are known in the art of seal assemblies.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Morvant, in view of Murphree, and further in view of Amancharla (US 3980134).
Regarding claim 20, Morvant and Murphree teach the article of claim 16. The references are silent with the article as recited in claim 20. Amancharla discloses a well tool (abstr.) comprising a gasket with a grip – the serrations 50 have been interpreted as a grip – the serrations grip the gaskets so that they can sustain high pressure without being extruded (col. 3, lines 40-52, Fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the gasket of Morvant with a grip to further ensure that it will sustain high pressure without being extruded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on July 21, 2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the recent amendment 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
The Applicant has argued that Morvant and Murphree fail to teach or suggest a composite structure including “the lattice structure being devoid of flexibility.” The Applicant has argued the cited portions discuss a degree of rigidity or the compression and flexing of rings 40. The Applicant stated that as best understood rings 40 are being characterized as the lattice structure of claim 1. The Examiner notes the lattice structure corresponds to wire mesh ring 5 (col. 2, lines 66-68) or wire mesh 60 (col. 3, lines 17-20).
The Applicant argued that since the mesh ring 40 must deform in use, it must be flexible and cannot be “devoid of flexibility” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner notes if a structure such as a lattice structure is “devoid of flexibility” it does not mean that the structure cannot deform. The instant specification does not disclose the phrase “devoid of flexibility.” The instant specification discloses that “frame 20 may be rigid or may be flexible” (par. [0051]). It is generally known that there are degrees of flexibility and degrees of rigidity. Morvant discloses the lattice structure having “increased” or “greater” rigidity. As the phrase “devoid of flexibility” is very broad, the lattice structure of Morvant having “increased” rigidity corresponds to the “devoid of flexibility” limitation.
The Examiner reiterates the arguments above with respect to Applicant’s arguments regarding rejection of claim 16, specifically “the lattice structure being inflexible.”
The Applicant stated that rejections of claims 18 and 19 were not “explicitly listed” but it appears that claims 18 and 19 were also rejected. The Examiner acknowledges claims 18 and 19 were omitted in the rejections’ headings, but the claims were rejected on p.10 of the last Office Action.
Regarding the missing foreign patent documents that were listed on the IDS of Nov. 18, 2024 at Cite Nos. 11 and 12, the Applicant did not provide copies of the documents as required by 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2) stating that the references are already on file or they are cumulative. The Examiner notes that since the references were listed on the IDS their copies should be submitted as required.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
The information disclosure statement filed on Nov. 18, 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Foreign Patent Documents listed on the IDS at Cite Nos. 11 and 12 are missing in the application file as well as in the parent application file.
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 JOANNA PLESZCZYNSKA whose telephone number is (571)270-1617. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~ 11:30-8.
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, Maria Veronica Ewald can be reached at 571-272-8519. 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.
/Joanna Pleszczynska/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights