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 .
Application Status
Claims 1-19 are pending and have been examined in this application
This communication is the first action on the merits
Claims 1-19 are rejected herein
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 2/18/2025 and reviewed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation 1-20 bar, and the claim also recites 5-15 bar which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The claim has been interpreted to require between 1 and 20 bar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsuji (U.S. Pat. No.20210025497 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tsuji teaches a compression sealing gasket, comprising: a ring-shaped main body made of an elastomer material(made of an elastic material such as fluoro rubber, see paragraph 0020) and having a main axis(A), the main body having a generally planar configuration that extends perpendicular to the main axis(main body is planar and perpendicular to A) and comprising a radially outer side, a radially inner side(1 includes a radially inner and outer side), and end faces which delimit the main body along the main axis and connect the inner side and the outer side(support surface 20s); and a lip(12) projecting from the main body in axial direction parallel to the main axis beyond one of the end faces, the lip arranged in a distance to both the inner side and the outer side of the main body(the lip is a distance from both the inner and outer side of the main body).
Regarding claim 2, Tsuji teaches the gasket according to claim 1, wherein the main body has an annular shape in a plane perpendicular to the main axis(the shape of the seal is a ring, which is an annular shape).
Regarding claim 3, Tsuji teaches the gasket according to claim 1, wherein the main body has a generally rectangular cross-section in an axial plane including the main axis(the main body 20 has a generally rectangular shape).
Regarding claim 4, Tsuji teaches the gasket according to claim 1, wherein the outer side and the inner side each have a tapering shape and/or the end faces have a convexly curved or wavy shape at least in a section thereof(the inner and outer dimensions have a tapering shape, see Fig.2, the corners are rounded and not pointed).
Regarding claim 5, Tsuji teaches the gasket according to claim 1, wherein the main body has a cross-sectional constriction approximately in the middle of its planar extension in the radial direction perpendicular to the main axis(22).
Regarding claim 6, Tsuji teaches the gasket according to claim 1, wherein the lip is arranged in the middle of the radial extension of the main body and extends as a complete ring over the entire circumference of the main body.
Regarding claim 7, Tsuji teaches the gasket according to claim 1, wherein the lip is integrally formed with the main body and is made of the same material as the main body (see Fig. 2, lip is integrally formed).
Regarding claim 8, Tsuji teaches the gasket according to claim 1, wherein the lip comprises a rounded head(12 is a rounded head) and a connecting portion connecting the head to the main body(30), the connecting portion having a width in a radial direction perpendicular to the main axis that is smaller than the corresponding width of the head(the width is smaller than the head, see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, Tsuji teaches the gasket according to claim 1, wherein the main body has a ratio of its length in the radial direction perpendicular to the main axis to its thickness in the axial direction (the main body has a ratio of its length compared to the thickness in the axial direction).
Regarding claim 10, Tsuji teaches 10. the gasket according to claim 9, wherein the height of the lip in the axial direction is greater than the thickness of the main body. (see Fig. 3)
Regarding claim 11, Tsuji teaches A sealing system of a gas-insulated portion of a high or medium voltage apparatus, comprising: two components fastened together(2 and 3), wherein each of the components comprises an assembly face that faces the assembly face of the other component(2 and 3 have faces facing each other); and a compression sealing gasket according to claim 1, wherein the gasket is arranged and is compressed axially between the assembly faces of the components(gasket is between 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 12, Tsuji teaches the sealing system according to claim 11, wherein at least one of the assembly faces comprises a recess in which the compression sealing gasket is located (see Fig. 10, recess in 2).
Regarding claim 13, Tsuji teaches the sealing system according to claim 11, wherein one of the assembly faces comprises a ring-shaped fixation groove arranged to receive the lip of the gasket with slight compression in the radial direction perpendicular to the main axis (see Fig. 10, there is a ring-shaped fixation groove that receives the lip of the gasket with slight compression in the radial direction perpendicular to the main axis).
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) 14 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji (U.S. Pat. No.20210025497 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Tsuji teaches the sealing system according to claim 11, wherein, in the operating state of the gasket, the main body has an average compression rate comprised, but it does not explicitly teach the compression rate between 10 and 30% or the average compression rate of the main body being higher than the average compression rate of the lip. However, choosing a compression rate is within ordinary skill in the art and may be chosen by the user due to their needs as well as compressing the main body more than compressing the lip (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A), also see TREIER (Euro. Pat. No. EP 4306825 A1) paragraph 0022). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use the sealing system taught by Tsuji and have a compression rate between 10 and 30% as well as having the average compression rate of the main body be higher than the average compression rate of the lip.
Regarding claim 19, Tsuji teaches the gasket according to claim 10, but it does not explicitly teach wherein the height of the lip in the axial direction is at least 1.5 times as great as the thickness of the main body. Tsuji does teach that the height of the lip may be taller than the thickness of the main body(see Fig. 3). It is within ordinary skill and routine optimization to determine the exact dimensions of the lip relative to the thickness of the main body. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to dimension the gasket of claim 10 so the height of the lip in the axial direction is at least 1.5 times as great as the thickness of the main body.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji (U.S. Pat. No.20210025497 A1) in view of TREIER (Euro. Pat. No. EP 4306825 A1)
Regarding claim 15, Tsuji teaches the sealing system according to claim 11, but it does not teach wherein the gas insulated portion forms part of a gas-insulated switch, circuit-breaker, disconnector, transformer, surge arrester, a gas- insulated substation or a gas-insulated line; and/or wherein the gas-insulated portion contains a gas comprising at least one of: - SF6 gas, - heptafluoroisobutyronitrile and/or heptafluoroisopropyl trifluoromethyl ketone (also named 2-butanone, 1,1,1,3,4,4,4-heptafluoro-3-(trifluoromethyl)- (CAS No 756-12-7)), possibly mixed with a gas or a dilution gas comprising at least CO2 and/02 and/or N2 and/or an oxygenated compound, and - a gas comprising at least CO2 and/or 02 and/or N2 and/or an oxygenated compound and/or water vapor; and/or wherein the gas is contained in the apparatus at a pressure between 1 bar and 20 bar, preferably between 5 bar or 15 bar.
Treier teaches a compression sealing gasket wherein the gas insulated portion forms part of a gas-insulated switch, circuit-breaker, disconnector, transformer, surge arrester, a gas- insulated substation or a gas-insulated line(see technical field description), and/or wherein the gas-insulated portion contains a gas comprising at least one of: - SF6 gas, - heptafluoroisobutyronitrile and/or heptafluoroisopropyl trifluoromethyl ketone (also named 2-butanone, 1,1,1,3,4,4,4-heptafluoro-3-(trifluoromethyl)- (CAS No 756-12-7)), possibly mixed with a gas or a dilution gas comprising at least CO2 and/02 and/or N2 and/or an oxygenated compound(see prior art description of gases used), and - a gas comprising at least CO2 and/or 02 and/or N2 and/or an oxygenated compound and/or water vapor(gas contains carbon dioxide(CO2) see prior art description of gases used), ; and/or wherein the gas is contained in the apparatus at a pressure between 1 bar and 20 bar, preferably between 5 bar or 15 bar.(see paragraph 0021, preference is between 1 and 20 bar)
Tsuji and Treier are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure for sealing a system. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the sealing system of Tsuji with the applications of Treier, the gases of Treier, and in the pressure constraints of Treier. The motivation would have been to provide an improved sealing gasket with lower permeability to certain gases in electrical applications (see prior art section in Treier).
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuji (U.S. Pat. No.20210025497 A1) in view of Leigh(U.S. Pat. No. US 4854597 A) .
Regarding claim 16, Tsuji teaches the gasket according to claim 9, but it does not teach wherein the ratio is at least 5.
Leigh teaches a metal gasket wherein the ratio is at least 5.(see column 2 lines 35-41, the length is .21 and the thickness is .027, so the ratio is 7.777)
Tsuji and Leigh are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure sealing an area) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ratio taught by Leigh with the gasket as taught by Tsuji. The motivation would have been to have a large surface area sealed while using less material.
Regarding claim 17, Tsuji teaches the gasket according to claim 9, but it does not teach wherein the ratio is at least 7.
Leigh teaches a metal gasket wherein the ratio is at least 7. (see column 2 lines 35-41, the length is .21 and the thickness is .027, so the ratio is 7.777)
Tsuji and Leigh are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure sealing an area) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ratio taught by Leigh with the gasket as taught by Tsuji. The motivation would have been to have a large surface area sealed while using less material.
Regarding claim 18, Tsuji teaches the gasket according to claim 9, but it does not teach wherein the ratio is at least 8-12.
Leigh teaches a metal gasket wherein the ratio is at least 8-12.(see column 2 lines 35-41, the length is .21 and the thickness is .027, so the ratio is 7.777, it is within routine optimization to determine the ratio of the length of the gasket compared to its thickness depending on the needs of the application see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Tsuji and Leigh are analogous because they are from the same field of endeavor or a similar problem-solving area e.g. providing a structure sealing an area) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ratio taught by Leigh and to optimize that ratio to be between 8 and 12 with the gasket as taught by Tsuji. The motivation would have been to have a large surface area sealed while using less material.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM DONALD JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571) 272-9214. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th between 7:30 AM and 5:30 PM.
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, Jonathan Liu can be reached at 5712728227. 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.
/W.D.J./Examiner, Art Unit 3631
/ANNA M MOMPER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights