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) 1-7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (WO 2016140754).
Regarding claim 1, Chen discloses a metallic dynamic seal 100 Fig. 2C, comprising: an annular main body comprising an axial axis 110, an external peripheral surface 114 and an internal peripheral surface 131, said internal peripheral surface comprising at least two convex contact surfaces (at 131) configured to define a metal-to-metal sealing region, and wherein the external surface comprises a flange 104 projecting radially outward from the axial axis 110 of said annular main body 100.
Regarding claim 2, Chen discloses said external peripheral surface 114 comprises at least two concave surfaces 118 separated from each other by said flange 104.
Regarding claim 3, Chen discloses said flange 104 has an inclined face (1040 of Annotated Fig. 2C, below) that is connected to one of the concave surfaces 118 of the external peripheral surface 114 by means of an intermediate surface 116.
PNG
media_image1.png
696
862
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Chen discloses said two concave surfaces 118 extend around the entire perimeter of the external peripheral surface 114. Regarding claim 5, Chen discloses two convex contact surfaces 131 Fig. 2E are parallel to each other.
Regarding claim 6, Chen discloses that the two convex surfaces 131 are parallel to each other.
Regarding claim 7, Chen discloses said two convex contact surfaces 131 are separated by an intermediate surface 126.
Regarding claim 11, Chen discloses that the convex contact surfaces 131 and the intermediate surface 123 form a sealing test chamber (area below 126).
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 Chen.
Regarding claim 8, Chen 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, Chen 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 Chen in view of Paton (US 2024/0209943).
Regarding claim 10, Chen 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 Chen with a silver coating as taught by Paton in order to prevent seizing (Para. 0053 of Paton).
Conclusion
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