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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07 August 2026 has been entered.
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 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mullins et al. (US 2022/0403839).
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 below) comprising a first downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Figs. 3B below); and a second ring (as labeled in Examiner annotated Figs. 3B below) comprising: an upstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Figs. 3B below) configured to engage the first downstream surface of the first ring (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.); a second downstream surface opposite the upstream surface (e.g. one of the surfaces defining the “extension” as labeled in the first Examiner annotated Fig. 3B below (first interpretation), or the surface labeled “tapered downstream surface” in the second Examiner annotated Fig. 3B below (second interpretation)); and an inner surface (e.g. the entire surface labeled in Examiner annotated first Fig. 3B below including the arcuate and tapered portions (first interpretation), or a surface including the arcuate portion and an upstream tapered portion as seen in Figs. 3B (second interpretation). Examiner notes as these portions are continuous they can be considered to be a single surface) that in cross-section along its axial length (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.), is arcuate and convex (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc. as it has an arcuate portion and is convex), and initiates directly from the upstream surface in a downstream direction (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.) directly to the second downstream surface (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.).
PNG
media_image1.png
479
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
720
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 10, Mullins discloses a third ring (as labeled in Examiner annotated Figs. 3B below) comprising a tapered upstream surface (as labeled in third Examiner annotated Figs. 3B below) configured to engage the second 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_image3.png
482
532
media_image3.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 first 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 14, Mullins discloses that the upstream surface of the second ring is arcuate (i.e. as seen in Figs. 3B, etc. as it is an annular ring it is arcuate).
With regard to claim 15, Mullins discloses that the downstream surface of the first ring is planar (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc.).
Claims 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnhouse (US 2022/0282719).
With regard to claim 16, Barnhouse discloses a sealing ring (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 4 below) for a packing arrangement of a reciprocating pump (as seen in Figs. 2-3, etc., as described in the abstract, etc.), the sealing ring comprising: an upstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 4 below); a downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 4 below); and an inner surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 4 below) that is arcuate alon its entire length and extends directly from the upstream surface directly to the downstream surface (as seen in Fig. 4) such that the inner surface and the upstream surface cooperatively form a vertex (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 4 below), wherein the inner surface is configured to engage with a reciprocating element of the reciprocating pump (as seen in Figs. 2-3, etc. it engages with plunger 214).
PNG
media_image4.png
676
462
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 21, Barnhouse discloses an extension extending from the downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 4 above).
Claims 16, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiani et al. (US 2022/0034402).
With regard to claim 16, Kiani discloses a sealing ring (502) for a packing arrangement of a reciprocating pump (as seen in Figs. 1, etc., as described in the abstract, etc.), the sealing ring comprising: an upstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 5C below); a downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 5C below); and an inner surface (comprising 518 and 520) that is arcuate along its entire length (as seen in Figs. 5C as it has a completely curving profile made of arc sections) and extends directly from the upstream surface directly to the downstream surface (as seen in Fig. 5C) such that the inner surface and the upstream surface cooperatively form a vertex (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 5C below), wherein the inner surface is configured to engage with a reciprocating element of the reciprocating pump (as seen in Figs. 1, etc. it is configured to engage with plunger 202).
PNG
media_image5.png
492
582
media_image5.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 19, Kiani discloses that the upstream surface is planar (as seen in Figs. 5C, etc. it is planar in cross-section).
With regard to claim 21, Kiani discloses an extension (508) extending from the downstream surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 5C).
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 directly 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), and an extension (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B below) extending from the tapered downstream surface in a downstream direction (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 3B above).
PNG
media_image6.png
720
612
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Mullins fails to disclose that the arcuate inner surface is curved in cross-section along its entire axial length thereof from the planar upstream surface to the tapered downstream surface as it discloses an apparent conical portion in between the arcuate portion and the planar upstream surface (see Fig. 3B, etc.).
However it would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have the arcuate inner surface curved in cross-section along its entire axial length thereof from the planar upstream surface to the tapered downstream surface (e.g. changing the apparent conical portion to have slight curve) 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). Such a modification would provide the expected result of a substantially similar function with a simpler to produce shape (i.e. of a continuous curved portion versus a conical portion and a curved portion).
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 that the extension comprises an arcuate portion (as seen in Figs. 3B, etc. in the illustrated cross-section at the free end thereof).
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 surface (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.).
Claims 17 is 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 17, Mullins fails to disclose that the upstream surface is at least partially 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)).
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mullins et al. (US 2022/0403839) in view of Chase et al. (US 2019/0085978).
With regard to claim 18, Mullins fails to disclose that the upstream surface is at least partially concave.
Chase discloses a similar second ring (308) comprising an at least partially concave upstream surface (as seen in Figs. 4 at 408) to engage a chevron shaped first ring (306).
It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the device of Mullins such that the second ring has at least partially concave upstream surface interfacing with a chevron shaped surface of the first ring as taught by Chase. Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of better connection/support between the adjacent rings.
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnhouse (US 2022/0282719).
With regard to claim 20, Barnhouse discloses an outer surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 4 above) extending opposite of the inner surface (as seen in Fig. 4 it is radially opposite), but fails to disclose a tapered portion extending from the upstream surface to the outer surface (i.e. as it discloses a sharp corner therebetween).
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 Barnhouse 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 Barnhouse 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.
As applicant has not sufficiently traversed examiner’s assertion of official notice ( “To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal” see MPEP 2144.03(c)), the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement relied upon in examiner’s assertion of official notice is hereby taken to be admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP 2144.03.
With regard to claim 22, the combination (Barnhouse) discloses that the outer surface is cylindrical (as seen in Fig. 4).
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiani et al. (US 2022/0034402).
With regard to claim 20, Kiani discloses an outer surface (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 4 above) extending opposite of the inner surface (as seen in Fig. 4 it is radially opposite), but fails to disclose a tapered portion extending from the upstream surface to the outer surface (i.e. as it discloses a sharp corner therebetween).
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 Kiani 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 Kiani 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.
As applicant has not sufficiently traversed examiner’s assertion of official notice ( “To adequately traverse a finding based on official notice, an applicant must specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner’s action, which would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art. A mere request by the applicant that the examiner provide documentary evidence in support of an officially-noticed fact is not a proper traversal” see MPEP 2144.03(c)), the common knowledge or well-known in the art statement relied upon in examiner’s assertion of official notice is hereby taken to be admitted prior art in accordance with MPEP 2144.03.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 9-22 have been considered but are moot in view of the new/amended ground(s) of rejection presented above. Applicant’s arguments filed 07 August 2026 regarding claims 1-6 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Additionally, in so much as they may apply to the new/amended grounds of rejection above, Applicant’s arguments filed 07 August 2026 regarding claims 9-22 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Specifically regarding claims 1-6 Examiner notes that not all of the recommended actions regarding claim 1 were incorporated into the response (i.e. the proposed amendment was predicated on Applicant also proving there is some sort of unexpected results regarding the configuration of the arcuate inner surface being curved in cross-section along its entire axial length thereof from the planar upstream surface to the tapered downstream surface), thus as only the subject matter of prior claim 4, previously rejected, was incorporated into claim 1 these claims are still rejected and such arguments are not persuasive. Examiner further notes that other rejections would be anticipated even if such evidence of unexpected results were provided.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 9 (and its dependents) are not persuasive since after further consideration Examiner notes that the Mullins reference teaches (see the detailed explanation in the rejection above) the amended claim language as it does not require that the inner surface is arcuate along its entire axial length.
Applicant’s argument regarding claim 16 (and its dependents) are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection (see above).
In the interest of advancing prosecution Examiner recommends claiming (in each independent claim) that the inner surface is both arcuate and convex all along its entire axial length, from its planar upstream surface (with a vertex therebetween) to its tapered downstream surface (with no vertex therebetween). It is believed if done with sufficient specificity that such should overcome the above grounds of rejection and may result in an allowable claim. However Examiner does not that as this is a somewhat crowded field any final determination on patentability would require additional search and/or consideration and would depend on the exact claim language of any amendments.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights