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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 23 September 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Applicant should provide a copy of each cited foreign patent document; else they will not be considered and could possibly affect the validity of any patent issued on the instant application.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the leakage space side” in line 6 should read “a leakage space side”, there should be a comma after “peaks” in line 6, “protruded” in line 6 should read “protrude”, “a leakage space side” in lines 6-7 should read “the leakage space side”, there should be a comma after the first recitation of “side” in line 7, there should be a comma after “valleys” in line 7, there should be a comma after the second recitation of “side” in line 7. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “adjacent two” should read “an adjacent two”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “adjacent two” should read “an adjacent two”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-9 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 fails to recite a traditional transitional phrase and thus it is unclear if the pair of sliding components are inclusive or exclusive of any unclaimed structure/limitations (i.e. “in which” is not clear as to whether it is akin to “comprising” or “consisting of”). Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended the preamble to read “A pair of sliding components comprising: a pair of sliding surfaces…”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “of the peak”. As plural peaks have been recited in claim 1 it is unclear whether this limitation refers to a specific one of those peaks, all of those peaks, or any one of those peaks. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “of one of the peaks”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the leakage space”. This limitation is indefinite as it lacks antecedent basis and is unclear whether it refers to the prior claimed “leakage space side” or is intended to be a newly claimed limitiaton. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “the leakage space side”.
Claims 5, 7, and 9 each recites the limitation “at least the peak”. As plural peaks have been recited in claim 1, on which these claims ultimately rely, it is unclear whether this limitation refers to a specific one of those peaks (e.g. the “one of the peaks” from claim 1), all of those peaks, or any one of those peaks. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “at least one of the peaks”.
Claims 3-4, 6, and 8 are indefinite at least by virtue of depending on one or more indefinite claims (see above).
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, 3-5, and 8-9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imura (US 2022/0145931).
With regard to claim 1, Imura discloses a pair of sliding components (10 and 20) in which a pair of sliding surfaces (11 and 21) rotate relative to each other to partition a sealed fluid space and a leakage space (as seen in Fig. 1, disclosed in the abstract, etc. they are capable of this intended use),wherein at least one of the sliding surfaces (11) is provided with a plurality of dynamic pressure generation grooves (15) with different radial lengths (as seen in Fig. 2, 8-11, etc.), wherein the plurality of dynamic pressure generation grooves are arranged such that a contour of a tip on the leakage space side draws peaks (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 2 below, the similar portions seen in Figs. 8-11, etc.) each of which protruded toward a leakage space side (as seen in Figs. 2, 8-11, etc.) and valleys (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 2 below, the similar portions seen in Figs. 8-11, etc.) each of which is recessed toward a sealed fluid space side (as seen in Figs. 2, 8-11, etc.) and the peaks and valleys are alternately arranged in a circumferential direction (as seen in Figs. 2, 8-11, etc.), and wherein the one of the sliding surfaces is further provided with at least one fluid recovery groove (173s, which considered a fluid recovery groove as depending on how the sliding components are used it can receive fluid form somewhere, which can be considered recovery) which is located on a downstream side of the peak in a relative rotation direction and on the leakage space side (as seen in Figs. 8-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
796
574
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
460
518
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 3, Imura discloses that a plurality of fluid recovery grooves are formed and extended in a circumferential direction (as seen in Figs. 8-11 as there are plural 173 and they each have circumferential width).
With regard to claim 4, Imura discloses that the fluid recovery groove is disposed between adjacent two of the peaks (as seen in Figs. 8-11 as there is at least one 173 there).
With regard to claim 5, Imura discloses that the fluid recovery groove is disposed at a radial position overlapping with at least the peak (as seen in Figs. 8-11 as there is at least one 173 there).
With regard to claim 8, Imura discloses that the fluid recovery groove is disposed between adjacent two of the peaks (as seen in Figs. 8-11 as there is at least one 173 there).
With regard to claim 9, Imura discloses that the fluid recovery groove is disposed at a radial position overlapping with at least the peak (as seen in Figs. 8-11 as there is at least one 173 there).
Claims 1-9, as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lattin (US 2005/0345641).
With regard to claim 1, Lattin discloses a pair of sliding components (300 and the opposing seal ring as detailed in para. [0033], etc.) in which a pair of sliding surfaces (i.e. the cooperating seal surfaces 312 and the cooperating seal face as described in para. [0033], etc.) rotate relative to each other to partition a sealed fluid space and a leakage space (as described in para. [0033], etc. they are capable of this intended use), wherein at least one of the sliding surfaces (312) is provided with a plurality of dynamic pressure generation grooves (including 331 and 357 as seen in Fig. 4, etc.) with different radial lengths (as seen in Fig. 4, etc.), wherein the plurality of dynamic pressure generation grooves are arranged such that a contour of a tip on the leakage space side draws peaks (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 4 below, etc.) each of which protruded toward a leakage space side (as seen in Figs. 4, etc.) and valleys (as labeled in Examiner annotated Fig. 4 below, etc.) each of which is recessed toward a sealed fluid space side (as seen in Figs. 4, etc.) and the peaks and valleys are alternately arranged in a circumferential direction (as seen in Figs. 4, etc.), and wherein the one of the sliding surfaces is further provided with at least one fluid recovery groove (336s, 346s, 347s, etc. which considered a fluid recovery groove as depending on how the sliding components are used it can receive fluid form somewhere, which can be considered recovery) which is located on a downstream side of the peak in a relative rotation direction and on the leakage space side (as seen in Figs. 4, etc.).
PNG
media_image3.png
802
500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 2, Lattin discloses that the fluid recovery groove does not communicate with the leakage space (as seen in Fig. 4, etc. as none of them extend to the leakage space side).
With regard to claim 3, Lattin discloses that a plurality of fluid recovery grooves are formed and extended in a circumferential direction (as seen in Figs. 4, etc. as there are plural 336s, 346s, 347s, etc., and they each have circumferential width).
With regard to claim 4, Lattin discloses that the fluid recovery groove is disposed between adjacent two of the peaks (as seen in Figs. 4, etc. as there is at least one 336 or 346 there).
With regard to claim 5, Lattin discloses that the fluid recovery groove is disposed at a radial position overlapping with at least the peak (as seen in Figs. 4, etc. as there is at least one 347 there).
With regard to claim 6, Lattin discloses that the fluid recovery groove is disposed between adjacent two of the peaks (as seen in Figs. 4, etc. as there is at least one 336 or 346 there).
With regard to claim 7, Lattin discloses that the fluid recovery groove is disposed at a radial position overlapping with at least the peak (as seen in Figs. 4, etc. as there is at least one 347 there).
With regard to claim 8, Lattin discloses that the fluid recovery groove is disposed between adjacent two of the peaks (as seen in Figs. 4, etc. as there is at least one 336 or 346 there).
With regard to claim 9, Lattin discloses that the fluid recovery groove is disposed at a radial position overlapping with at least the peak (as seen in Figs. 4, etc. as there is at least one 347 there).
Examiner’s Recommendations
Examiner recommends further clarifying that the plurality of dynamic pressure generation grooves are linearly inclining grooves that are consistently/uniformly spaced around the circumferent of the sliding surface as well as claiming the more specific structure of one of the embodiments of the fluid recovery grooves (e.g. that they are linear and inclined grooved that are oppositely inclined with respect to the dynamic pressure generation grooves).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provides additional examples of similar grooved sliding surfaces of sliding components (e.g. mechanical 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
Prosecution Insights