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 Objections
Claims 1-13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Independent claim should be led by the word “A” and dependent claims should be led by the word “The”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Droscher et al. (DE 102016210202).
Regarding claim 1, Droscher et al. discloses a mechanical seal arrangement 1 Fig. 3, comprising: a mechanical seal having a rotating slide ring 2 having a first sliding surface and a stationary slide ring 3 having a second sliding surface, wherein a sealing gap 4 is defined between the sliding surfaces, a torque device 60 for transmitting a torque between one of the slide rings and a slide ring carrier 6 wherein the torque device comprises a plurality of transmission elements which are configured for transmitting torque between the slide ring carrier and the slide ring such that a total torque is divided over the plurality of transmission elements wherein the slide ring carrier 6 comprises first receiving openings 20 having a cross- section that is curved and the slide ring comprises second receiving openings 20 which have a cross-section that is curved, and wherein the transmission elements are arranged in the first and second receiving opening.
Regarding claim 2, Droscher et al. discloses wherein the transmission elements 60 are rolling elements which are configured for performing a rolling process between the slide ring carrier 6 and the slide ring 2 in the case of torque transmission.
Regarding claim 3, Droscher et al. discloses wherein the rolling bodies are cylinders 60.
Regarding claim 13, Droscher et al. discloses wherein a line contact Fig. 2 is present between the transmission elements 60 and the first receiving opening 20 and the second receiving opening 20.
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) 4, 5, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Droscher et al.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Droscher et al. discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a first radius of the cylinder is smaller than a second radius of the first receiving opening in the slide ring carrier, and/or wherein the first radius of the cylinder is smaller than a third radius of the second receiving opening in the slide ring or where the second radius is the same size as the third radius. 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 that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In re Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)
Regarding claim 10, Droscher et al. discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a torque device is arranged both on the rotating slide ring and on the stationary slide ring for transmitting torque from the slide rings to the slide ring carrier. 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 that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)
Regarding claim 12, Droscher et al. discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the rotating slide ring and/or the stationary slide ring are produced from ceramic material, and/or wherein the rotating slide ring and the stationary slide ring do not have any coating on the sliding surface. 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)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 11 are 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 claims 6-9 and 11 including where the transmission elements comprise a first body, a second body and a connection device which connects the first body to the second body. There is no motivation to modify the prior art references, absent the applicant’s own disclosure, in the manner required by the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Relevant prior references such as Matsushita et al. (JP 03177661) disclose a mechanical seal Fig. 4 having a rotating slide ring 2 having a first sliding surface and a stationary slide ring 5 having a second sliding surface, wherein a sealing gap is defined between the sliding surfaces (30, 40), and a torque device Fig. 4 for transmitting a torque between one of the slide rings and a slide ring carrier 16.
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