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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the upstream surface being concave in combination with the arcuate inner surface extending from the upstream surface (i.e. claim 18 as dependent on claim 16) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Specifically Examiner notes that the only Fig. showing a concave upstream surface is Fig. 4F which does not show the arcuate inner surface extending from such a concave upstream surface (i.e. as there is shown to be a step portion/surface in between these surfaces).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an additional downstream tapered face” should read “an additional downstream tapered surface” (see the “tapered downstream surface” of claim 1, that is appears this limitation is referring to). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the upstream surface is concave”. Though there is literal antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims and support for this limitation alone in Fig. 4F, the specification does not sufficiently disclose such in combination with the arcuate inner surface extending from such a concave upstream surface (i.e. required by claim 16 on which this claim depends, as there is shown/described to be a step portion/surface in between these surfaces). Appropriate correction is required. Examiner recommends canceling this claim or amending claim 16 to read “an arcuate inner surface extending approximately from the upstream surface”.
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 1-6, 9-13, 15-16, and 19, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mullins et al. (US 2022/0403839).
With regard to claim 1, Mullins discloses a sealing ring (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B below) for a packing arrangement of a reciprocating pump (as seen in Figs. 3A, 7A, as described in the abstract, para. [0003], etc.), the sealing ring comprising: a planar upstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B below); a tapered downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B below) disposed opposite of the planar upstream surface (as seen in Fig. 3B); and an arcuate inner surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B below) extending convexly from the planar upstream surface toward the tapered downstream surface (as seen in Fig. 3B), wherein the arcuate inner surface is configured to engage with a reciprocating element of the reciprocating pump (as seen in Fig. 3A-B it engages with plunger rod 106).
PNG
media_image1.png
720
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Mullins discloses that the planar upstream surface and the arcuate inner surface cooperatively form a vertex (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B above).
With regard to claim 3, Mullins discloses that the tapered downstream surface extends transverse to the planar upstream surface (as seen in Fig. 3B, etc.).
With regard to claim 4, Mullins discloses an extension extending from the tapered downstream surface in a downstream direction (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B above).
With regard to claim 5, Mullins discloses an outer surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B above) extending opposite of the arcuate inner surface (as seen in Fig. 3B, etc.).
With regard to claim 6, Mullins discloses an additional tapered downstream face (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B above) extending from the outer surface toward the tapered downstream surface in a downstream direction (as seen in Fig. 3B, etc.).
With regard to claim 9, Mullins discloses a sealing ring assembly (as seen in Fig. 3A-B, etc.) for a packing arrangement of a reciprocating pump (as seen in Figs. 3A, 7A, as described in the abstract, para. [0003], etc.), the sealing ring assembly comprising: a first ring (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B above) comprising a downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B above); and a second ring (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B above) comprising: an upstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B above) configured to engage the downstream surface of the first ring (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.); and an inner surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B above) extending arcuately and convexly from the upstream surface in a downstream direction (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.).
With regard to claim 10, Mullins discloses that the second ring comprises a tapered downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Figs. 3B above/below) extending from the inner surface (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.), and the sealing ring assembly comprises a third ring (as labeled in Examiner annotated Figs. 3B above/below) comprising a tapered upstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Figs. 3B below) configured to engage the tapered downstream surface of the second ring (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.) and extend over the inner surface of the second ring (as seen in Figs. 3B).
PNG
media_image2.png
478
532
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 11, Mullins discloses that the inner surface of the second ring extends radially inward beyond the first ring (as seen in Fig. 3B, etc.).
With regard to claim 12, Mullins discloses that the upstream surface of the second ring extends radially outward beyond the downstream surface of the first ring (as seen in Fig. 3B, etc.).
With regard to claim 13, Mullins discloses that the upstream surface of the second ring extends toward the downstream surface of the first ring (as seen in Fig. 3B, etc.).
With regard to claim 15, Mullins discloses that the downstream surface of the first ring is planar (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.).
With regard to claim 16, Mullins discloses a sealing ring (as labeled in Examiner annotated first Fig. 3B above) for a packing arrangement of a reciprocating pump (as seen in Figs. 3A, 7A, as described in the abstract, para. [0003], etc.), the sealing ring comprising: an upstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated first Fig. 3B above); an arcuate inner surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated first Fig. 3B above) extending convexly from the upstream surface (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.), wherein the arcuate inner surface is configured to engage with a reciprocating element of the reciprocating pump (as seen in Figs. 3A-B, etc. it engages with plunger 106); and a downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated first Fig. 3B above) extending from the arcuate inner surface (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.).
With regard to claim 19, Mullins discloses that the upstream surface is planar (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.).
Claims 9-11, 14, 16, and 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chase et al. (US 2019/0085978).
With regard to claim 9, Chase discloses a sealing ring assembly (as seen in Fig. 3, etc.) for a packing arrangement of a reciprocating pump (as seen in Figs. 1-2, as described in the abstract, etc.), the sealing ring assembly comprising: a first ring (306) comprising a downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3 below); and a second ring (308) comprising: an upstream surface (408) configured to engage the downstream surface of the first ring (as seen in Fig. 3-4); and an inner surface (404 as seen in Fig. 4) extending arcuately and convexly from the upstream surface in a downstream direction (as seen in Figs. 3-4).
PNG
media_image3.png
690
850
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 10, Chase discloses that the second ring comprises a tapered downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3 above and Fig. 4 below) extending from the inner surface (as seen in Figs. 3-4), and the sealing ring assembly comprises a third ring (310) comprising a tapered upstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Figs. 3 above) configured to engage the tapered downstream surface of the second ring (as seen in Fig. 3) and extend over the inner surface of the second ring (as seen in Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
460
490
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 11, Chase discloses that the inner surface of the second ring extends radially inward beyond the first ring (as seen in Fig. 3, etc.).
With regard to claim 14, Chase discloses that the upstream surface of the second ring is arcuate (as seen in Fig. 4 as 408 includes an arc shaped curved portion at least in the center thereof).
With regard to claim 16, Chase discloses a sealing ring (308) for a packing arrangement of a reciprocating pump (as seen in Figs. 1-2, as described in the abstract, etc.), the sealing ring comprising: an upstream surface (408); an arcuate inner surface (404 as seen in Fig. 4) extending convexly from the upstream surface (as seen in Fig. 4), wherein the arcuate inner surface is configured to engage with a reciprocating element of the reciprocating pump (as seen in Fig. 3 it engages with plunger 202); and a downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 4 above) extending from the arcuate inner surface (as seen in Fig. 4).
With regard to claim 18, Chase discloses that the upstream surface is concave (as seen in Fig. 4 as 408 includes an arc shaped concave curved portion at least in the center thereof).
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.
Claims 7-8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. (US 2022/0403839) in view of Chase (US 2022/0163032).
With regard to claim 7, Mullins fails to disclose an additional inner surface extending from the arcuate inner surface to the tapered downstream surface.
Chase discloses a similar sealing ring (306) for a similar application (see Figs. 1-3, etc.) having an additional inner surface extending from convex inner portion (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 5 below) to a tapered downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 5 below).
PNG
media_image5.png
462
674
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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 Mullins with the additional inner surface extending from the arcuate inner surface to the tapered downstream surface as taught by Chase. Such a modification would have provided the expected result of providing better scraping of the plunger rod.
With regard to claim 8, Mullins fails to disclose that the arcuate inner surface terminates prior to the tapered downstream surface.
Chase discloses a similar sealing ring (306) for a similar application (see Figs. 1-3, etc.) having a convex inner portion (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 5 below) that terminates prior to (as seen in Fig. 5m etc.) a tapered downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 5 below).
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 Mullins such that the arcuate inner surface terminates prior to the tapered downstream surface as taught by Chase. Such a modification would have provided the expected result of providing better scraping of the plunger rod.
With regard to claim 17, Mullins fails to disclose that the upstream surface is convex.
Chase discloses a similar sealing ring (306) with an upstream face (402) that is convex (as seen in Fig. 5 as it comprises plural portions (e.g. 422 with 423) at make a convex shape).
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 Mullins such that the upstream surface is convex as taught by Chase. Such a modification would have provided the expected benefit of better retention between an upstream ring (e.g. 302 in Chase or the “first ring” in Mullins (see above)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. (US 2022/0403839) alone.
With regard to claim 20, Mullins discloses an outer surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated first Fig. 3B above) extending opposite of the arcuate inner surface (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.), but fails to disclose a tapered portion extending from the upstream surface to the outer surface (i.e. as it discloses a sharp corner).
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have modified the device of Mullins such that a tapered portion extending from the upstream surface to the outer surface as a change in the shape of a prior art device is a design consideration within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). 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). Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of easier installation of the ring while preventing scraping of the device the ring is installed in and/or preventing damage of the sharp corner of the ring during installation and is a well-known mechanical alternative to a sharp corner. Additionally and/or alternatively it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to have modified the device of Mullins such that a tapered portion extending from the upstream surface to the outer surface as Examiner hereby takes Official notice that the art is replete with examples of similar seal rings having a tapered portion extending from the upstream surface to the outer surface instead of a sharp corner. Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of easier installation of the ring while preventing scraping of the device the ring is installed in and/or preventing damage of the sharp corner of the ring during installation and is a well-known mechanical alternative to a sharp corner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides additional examples of similar seal rings and seal ring assemblies.
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