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.
Claims 1-5 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kunishima et al (US 2016/0068779).
With regard to claim 1, Kunishima discloses a sealing device (1) comprising: an annular metal ring (3); and an annular seal lip (14) provided on the metal ring (as seen in Fig. 1), wherein: a rotary shaft (2) rotatable clockwise and counterclockwise is inserted into the seal lip (as seen in Fig. 1, disclosed in para. [0017], etc.), and the seal lip is configured to come into contact with the rotary shaft (as seen in Fig. 1) and to withstand sliding against the rotary shaft when the rotary shaft is rotated at a circumferential speed of 50m per second (Examiner notes that as this is a capability of the sealing device that the sealing device of Kunishima is capable of by virtue of its disclosed structure (i.e. shape, size, coating, etc.), even if such a speed were detrimental to the seal).
With regard to claim 2, Kunishima discloses that the seal lip is provided with a coating layer (9) that reduces a coefficient of friction between the seal lip and the rotary shaft (as disclosed in para. [0030], etc.).
With regard to claim 3, Kunishima discloses that the seal lip includes a first slope (18) and a second slope (7) that meet to form an edge (as seen in Fig. 1), the first slope and the second slope divide a gap between the rotary shaft and the outer member into an internal space in which oil is present and an external space (as disclosed in para. [0005], seen in Fig. 1, etc.), the first slope is adjacent to the internal space (as seen in Fig. 1 as the dust lip (17) on the external side), and the second slope is adjacent to the external space (as seen in Fig. 1) and is covered by the coating layer (as seen in Fig. 1, etc.).
With regard to claim 4, Kunishima discloses that the coating layer is a layer in which fluororesin particles are dispersed in a binder (as disclosed in para. [0022], etc.).
With regard to claim 5, Kunishima discloses that a main material of the seal lip is a fluororubber (as disclosed in the abstract, etc.).
With regard to claim 8, Kunishima discloses sealing device (1) comprising: an annular metal ring (3); and an annular seal lip (14) provided on the metal ring (as seen in Fig. 1), wherein: a rotary shaft (2) rotatable clockwise and counterclockwise is inserted into the seal lip (as seen in Fig. 1, disclose din para. [0017], etc.), and the seal lip is configured to come into contact with the rotary shaft and to withstand sliding against the rotary shaft when the rotary shaft is rotated at a circumferential speed of 80m per second (Examiner notes that as this is a capability of the sealing device that the sealing device of Kunishima is capable of by virtue of its disclosed structure (i.e. shape, size, coating, etc.), even if such a speed were detrimental to the seal).
With regard to claim 9, Kunishima discloses that a main material of the seal lip is a fluororubber (as disclosed in the abstract, etc.).
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 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunishima et al (US 2016/0068779) in view of Matsui (US 2010/0109252).
With regard to claim 6, Kunishima fails to disclose discloses the second slope comprises a return portion for returning to the internal space, oil that flows from the internal space toward the external space, the return portion includes a plurality of first protrusions, and the plurality of first protrusions are covered by the coating layer.
Matsui discloses a similar lip seal (1) with a second slope (8) having a return portion (including 9s) for returning to the internal space, oil that flows from the internal space toward the external space (as seen in Figs. 1-2 and described in the abstract, etc.), the return portion includes a plurality of first protrusions (9s).
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 Kunishima to have the second slope comprises a return portion for returning to the internal space, oil that flows from the internal space toward the external space, the return portion includes a plurality of first protrusions as taught by Matsui. Such a modification would provide the expected benefits of returning leaking oil to the oil side of the seal (see Matsui abstract, etc.) thus improving sealing performance.
Additionally such a combination would disclose that the plurality of first protrusions are covered by the coating layer (i.e. as the protrusions of Matsui are disclosed as part of the rubber main material).
With regard to claim 7, the combination discloses a dust lip (17 of Kunishima and 5 of Matsui) that is positioned close to the external space as viewed from the second slope (as seen in Fig. 1 of each reference) and comes into contact with the rotary shaft (as seen in Fig. 1), but fails to disclose that the dust lip is provided with a second protrusion that secures a gap between the dust lip and the rotary shaft.
Matsui discloses a similar lip seal (1) comprising a dust lip (5) with a second protrusion (i.e. the protrusion as seen in Fig. 1 on dust lip 5) that secures a gap between the dust lip and the rotary shaft (as seen in Fig. 1).
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 combination to have the dust lip be provided with a second protrusion that secures a gap between the dust lip and the rotary shaft as taught by Matsui. Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of reducing friction, equalizing pressure between the environment and the oil recovery chamber to increase the pumping effectiveness of the return portion projections, etc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provide additional examples of similar lip seals.
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