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
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) 1-20, 24 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garlock et al. in view of Thoma et al. (US 2014/0314346).
Regarding claims 1, 24 and 25, Garlock et al. discloses a packing ring 100 Fig. 1A for a fluid valve comprising: a top layer 102 and a bottom layer 104, both the top layer and the bottom layer comprising a flexible graphite and one or more mid-layers 106 comprising a membrane material or the flexible graphite material and the membrane material; wherein the one or more mid-layers are disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer; wherein respective one or more mid-layers are disposed parallel to an adjoining layer; wherein the one or more mid-layers, top layer, and bottom layer are bonded together forming a cylindrical shape; and wherein the cylindrical shape comprises an open center, wherein the open center extends through the formed cylindrical shape, and has an axis perpendicular to the one or more mid-layers, top layer, and bottom layer. However, Garlock et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the membrane material is at least one of indium, aluminum, bismuth, gold, platinum, silver, copper, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polybenzimidazole (PBI),polyetherimide (PEI), Polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), and a silicone. Thoma et al., a packing ring assembly 120 Fig. 3, discloses the use of a flexible graphite material and the membrane material for the packing ring, where the membrane material is polyetheretherketone (PEEK). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the packing ring material of Garlock et al. to include a material such as polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as taught by Thoma et al. in order to provide properties such as, elevated temperature resistance, chemical compatibility, low permeability, high ductility, low softening point or low melting point, and non-toxic. (Para. 0030 of Thoma et al.)
Regarding claim 2, the combination discloses the respective one or more mid-layers 106 comprise alternating layers of the flexible graphite material and the membrane material.
Regarding claim 3, the combination discloses wherein the respective one or more mid-layers 106 comprises one layer of membrane material.
Regarding claim 4, the combination discloses wherein the respective mid-layers 106 comprises two layers of membrane material and one layer of flexible graphite material, wherein the flexible graphite material is oriented perpendicular to the axis of the cylindrical shape Fig. 1A.
Regarding claim 5, the combination discloses wherein the one or more mid-layers 106 and/or the top layer 102 and/or the bottom layer 104 are comprised of a combination of the flexible graphite material and the membrane material that are fused together by a heat treatment (Col. 7, Ln. 26), wherein the flexible graphite material is oriented perpendicular to the axis or the cylindrical shape Fig. 1A.
Regarding claim 6, the combination discloses wherein the open center is fixed to operably dispose the respective layers in contact with a target valve stem in a valve body stuffing box, and form a clearance or interference fit between the valve stem and the stuffing box (Col. 6, Ln. 22-39).
Regarding claim 7, the combination discloses further comprising a first end ring 108 and a second end ring 110, the first end ring disposed on top of the top layer 02, and the second end ring disposed below the bottom layer 104.
Regarding claim 8, the combination discloses wherein the first end ring 108 and the second end ring 110 comprise a flexible graphite material knitted over with metal alloy wire jacketing (Col. 5, Ln. 29-43).
Regarding claim 9, the combination discloses wherein the first end ring 108 and second end ring 110 comprise die formed anti-galling material (Col. 11, Ln. 61-63).
Regarding claim 10, the combination discloses wherein the first end ring 108 and second end ring 110 are comprised of a die molded packing ring with formed metal foil cap anti-extrusion device (Col. 11, Ln. 64-66).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the combination discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose the material selection of a non-flexible carbon for the first and second end rings. 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 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 used as a matter of obvious design choice. Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)
Regarding claim 13, the combination discloses wherein the clearance of the fit between the bonded one or more mid-layers 106, top layer 102, and bottom layer 104 and the stuffing box is about 0.005 inches.
Regarding claim 14, the combination discloses wherein the graphite material comprises a corrosion-inhibited graphite material, and comprises a height/width of about 0.015 inches (Col.12, Ln. 6-8).
Regarding claim 15, the combination discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose the dimensions of the membrane material. 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)
Regarding claim 16, the combination discloses wherein the mid layers 106 comprise 3-40% membrane by weight.
Regarding claim 17, the combination discloses a sealing system Fig. 1A for a fluid valve comprising: a packing ring comprising one or more mid-layers 106, respective mid-layers comprising a flexible corrosion-inhibited graphite material and a membrane material (PEEK of Thoma et al.), a top layer 102 and a bottom layer 104, both the top layer and the bottom layer comprising the flexible graphite material, wherein the one or more mid-layers are disposed between the top layer and the bottom layer, and the mid-layers comprise alternating layers of the flexible graphite material and the membrane material, wherein respective layers are disposed parallel to an adjoining layer, wherein the packing ring is cylindrical in shape Fig. 1A with an open center, the open center extending through the one or more mid-layers, top layer, and bottom layer, and having an axis perpendicular to the one or more mid-layers, top layer, and bottom layer; and a valve stem, wherein the valve stem extends through the open center and the packing ring forms an interference fit between the valve stem and a stuffing box in which the valve stem is disposed (Col. 2, Ln. 10-26).
Regarding claim 18, the combination discloses wherein the valve stem is about 1 inch in diameter, and a fitment between the packing ring and the stuffing box is about 0.5% of the diameter of a stem interference to 1.5% of the diameter of a stem clearance, or is about 0.005 inches interference to about 0.015 inches clearance (Col. 12, Ln. 34-40).
Regarding claim 19, the combination discloses wherein the packing ring 100 further comprises a first end ring 108 and a second end ring 110, the first end ring disposed on top of the packing ring and the second end ring disposed on bottom of the packing ring.
Regarding claim 20, the combination discloses wherein the first end ring 108 and the second end ring 110 comprise one of: a flexible graphite material knitted over with a metal alloy wire jacketing: a non-flexible carbon bushing; or a carbon fiber ring.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20, 24 and 25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 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