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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the element” should be changed to the electrically conductive element.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the support ring” should be changed to the metal support ring.
The above error may occur in many claims and applicant should review all claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9 and 12 are 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 1, “the first and second sections being integrally connected solely through the plurality of through-holes”, unclear where this is provided in the original disclosure. As shown in figures below the elastomeric portions P are also providing connection to inner and outer surfaces to connect the first section and the second section.
PNG
media_image1.png
402
387
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is noted that the first surface of the support ring is free of elastomer is correct but part of the first surface also has elastomeric material such as P in figure above. Unclear what applicant means by this. It is further noted that only a portion of the first surface is free of elastomer.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-9 and 12 are 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.
Claim 1, “being integrally connected solely through the plurality of through-holes”, unclear what applicant means by this in view of portion P as shown in annotated figure 4?
Claim 1, “the first surface of the support ring is free of the elastomer part”, as shown above in annotated figure 4 portion P of the first surface is free of elastomer part. As such examiner has interpretation that only portion of a surface is free of elastomer part and this is the portion which an electrically conductive element is attached thereto.
Claim 4, “a stationary component”, this is unclear in view of what is stated in claim 1 (e.g. “a stationary component” in claim 1).
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, 4, 6-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieder (US. 5597356) in view of Colineau et al (US. 11002363).
Rieder (figure below) discloses a radial shaft sealing ring comprising a metal support ring having an interior surface (e.g. IS) facing an interior space, an opposing exterior surface (e.g. ES) facing an exterior space and including a first surface (e.g. 1st S), and a plurality of through-holes (e.g. holes 17) extending between the interior surface and the exterior surface, an elastomer part (e.g. 16) partially surrounding the support ring and including a first section (e.g. 1st section) disposed on the interior surface and including a sealing lip (e.g. lip) configured to seal against a rotating component (e.g. rotating component is intended use and the seal of Rieder is capable of being placed against the rotating component, see MPEP 2113-2114) and a second section (e.g. 2nd section) disposed on the exterior surface and including a sealing structure (e.g. sealing structure contacting 2) configured to seal against a stationary component (e.g. stationary component is intended use and the seal of Rieder is capable of sealing against the stationary component, see MPEP 2113-2114), the first and second sections being integrally connected solely through the plurality of through-holes (e.g. connection region 9 which is elastomer that is filled into the openings 17), wherein the first surface (e.g. 1st S) of the support ring is free of the elastomer part and faces the exterior space. Regarding claim 4: The metal support ring further has a second surface (e.g. 2nd S) free of the elastomer part and contactable with the stationary component (e.g. stationary component is intended use and the seal of Rieder is capable of sealing against the stationary component, see MPEP 2113-2114). Regarding claim 12: Wherein the sealing lip has sealing structures or a spring element (e.g. tapered surfaces TS forming the sealing lip).
Rieder discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose an electrically conductive element is attached to the first surface. Colineau discloses in figure 2 a seal assembly having a first surface having a seal ring (e.g. 1) that is of elastomeric material on a 1st surface (e.g. surface of 2 that is connected by 1) of an element (e.g. 2) and a conductive element (e.g. 6) connected on a 2nd surface of the element that is opposite of the 1st surface. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first surface of Rieder to have a conductive element attached thereto as taught combine Colineau with reasonable expectation of success to provide differential potentials (“By means of the sealing ring made of electrically-conductive sealing material, different potentials between the machine elements to be sealed against one another can be compensated for, and voltage breakdowns and resulting damages to the machine elements to be sealed against one another can be avoided.”, see Colineau). It is further noted that Colineau teaches to have woven or non-woven or polymer material to be electrical conductive material (“As stated at the outset, such a potential equalization ring can be formed by an air-permeable and electrically-conductive, non-woven ring. Alternatively, the potential equalization ring can consist of an electrically-conductive polymer material.”).
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Rieder and Colineau teach that the electrically conductive element extends from the support ring and is capable of contacting an element of an electric motor (e.g. noted again an element and electric motor are considered as intended use elements and the invention of Rieder is capable of this intended use).
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Rider and Colineau teach that the electrically conductive element is formed of a flexible conductive material (e.g. see description of 6 in Colineau).
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Rider and Colineau teach that the electrically conductive element is a conductive polymer and/or metal (e.g. see description of 6 in Colineau).
PNG
media_image2.png
371
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieder and Colineau.
Regarding claim 9: Rieder and Colineau discloses the claimed invention except for the conductive polymer stated in claim 9. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide polymer as stated in claim 9 with reasonable expectation of success to withstand environmental conditions (e.g. high heat or salt water or etc). Furthermore 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See US20220186835, US20220235863 paragraph 0037 and further noted that polyaniline is a conductive polymer which is well known in the art of grounding elements.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-8 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieder (see paragraph 0010) in view of Stohr et al (US.11493133B2).
Rieder discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose an electrically conductive element is attached to the first surface and wherein the electorally conductive element is fastened by glue to the support ring. Stohr teaches a radial shaft seal having a support ring (09), an elastomeric portion (e.g. 08) attached to the support ring, the support ring having a surface (e.g. surface contacted by 14) free of the elastomeric portion, the surface having a conductive element (e.g. 14) fastened thereto via glue (Stohr states, “The integrally bonded connection can be realized as an adhesive connection or by vulcanizing the conductive element 14”, see column 4, line 30-50) and the conductive element is made of elastomeric or polymeric material with conductive material (Stohr states, “The conductive element 14 consists of an electrically conductive fiber fabric embedded in an elastomer matrix. The electrically conductive fiber fabric can be made, for example, of carbon fibers, derivatives of carbon fibers, metallic fibers or filled polymer fibers.”, see column 4, line 30-50). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first surface of Rieder to have a conductive element attached to the 1st surface free of elastomer as taught by Stohr with reasonable expectation of success to provide grounding (e.g. inherent function of conductive element and further see description of 14 in Stohr).
Regarding claim 6: The combination of Rieder and Stohr teach that the electrically conductive element extends from the support ring and is capable of contacting an element of an electric motor (e.g. noted again an element and electric motor are considered as intended use elements and the invention of Rieder is capable of this intended use).
Regarding claim 7: The combination of Rider and Stohr teach that the electrically conductive element is formed of a flexible conductive material (e.g. see description of 14 in Stohr)
Regarding claim 8: The combination of Rider and Stohr teach that the electrically conductive element is a conductive polymer and/or metal (e.g. see description of 14 in Stohr).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rieder and Stohr.
Regarding claim 9: Rieder and Stohr discloses the claimed invention except for the conductive polymer stated in claim 9. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide polymer as stated in claim 9 with reasonable expectation of success to withstand environmental conditions (e.g. high heat or salt water or etc). Furthermore 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 use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See US20220186835, US20220235863 paragraph 0037 and further noted that polyaniline is a conductive polymer which is well known in the art of grounding elements.
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 VISHAL A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-7060. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am to 4:00pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
/VISHAL A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights