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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith et al. (US 2020/0332621).
Regarding claim 1, Smith et al. discloses a metallic dynamic seal 152 Fig. 1, comprising: an annular main body comprising an axial axis, an external peripheral surface (152a of Annotated Fig. 1, below) and an internal peripheral surface (152b of Annotated Fig. 1, below), said internal peripheral surface comprising at least two convex contact surfaces (152c) configured to define a metal-to-metal sealing region, said external peripheral surface comprising at least two concave surfaces (152d of Annotated Fig. 1, below) corresponding to respective ones of said convex contact surfaces, and wherein the external surface comprises a flange (152e of Annotated Fig. 1, below) projecting radially outward from the axial axis of said annular main body 100.
PNG
media_image1.png
618
824
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Smith et al. discloses said two concave surfaces 152d extend around the entire perimeter of the external peripheral surface 152a. Regarding claims 5 and 6, Smith et al. discloses two convex contact surfaces 152c are parallel to each other.
Regarding claim 7, Smith et al. discloses said two convex contact surfaces 152c are separated by an intermediate surface (152f of Annotated Fig. 1, above).
Regarding claim 11, Smith et al. discloses that the convex contact surfaces 152c and the intermediate surface 152f form a sealing test chamber.
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) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al.
Regarding claim 8, Smith et al. discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose a thickness of the convex contact surfaces ranging from 0.1 to 0.35 inches. Nevertheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the thickness of the convex contact surfaces to any number of ranges (i.e. 0.1 to 0.35 inches) disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Regarding claim 9, Smith et al. discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose a that the convex contact surfaces are made of a chromium-nickel alloy. 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)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. in view of Paton (US 2024/0209943).
Regarding claim 10, Smith et al. discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose that the contact surfaces are coated with silver. Paton shows this to be well known in the art. Paton, a metallic dynamic seal 1 Fig. 1, discloses the use of contact surfaces coated with silver (Para. 0011). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the surfaces of Smith et al. with a silver coating as taught by Paton in order to prevent seizing (Para. 0053 of Paton).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In view of a review of the prior art by the Examiner; the prior art of record neither teaches nor suggests all of the claimed subject matter of claim 3 including where the flange has an inclined face that is connected to one of the concave surfaces of the external peripheral surface by means of an intermediate surface. There is no motivation to modify the prior art references, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, in the manner required by the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 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.
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