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 .
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument that examiner has used intended use and section 2113-2114 of MPEP is correct since applicant does not positively recite limitation of gland element, stationary equipment or other structure where the mechanical packing sealing assembly can be use. Furthermore the reference of Quevedo teaches a single, unitary and axially movable pressure adjustment element (PAE). Furthermore pressure as indicated P acts on PAE to compress the packing elements that contact the shaft.
PNG
media_image1.png
376
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicants’ argument that anticipation under 35 USC 102 require that every limitation of a claim be found, expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference which is the case by Ouevedo.
Applicant argument that figure 31 assembly in Quevedo describes as a variation of the figure 28 embodiment is connect where the element PAE in figure 31 act or is a piston that can compress the packing elements axially.
Applicant argument that figure 31 in Quevedo does not disclose a single, unitary pressure adjustment element is false, element PAE in figure above is a monolithic or single unitary element.
Applicant argument with regard to Quevedo is not persuasive since the figure 31 does teach a piston as PAE in figure above similar to figure 28 element 790.
As shown in figure 31 of Quevedo the element PAE provide same cross-hatching and is a single, unitary element.
Applicant argument that the mapping of examiner is incorrect is not persuasive as shown in figures above and below.
Applicants’ argument with regard to “wrong geometry”, “wrong mating component”, “wrong surface type” are not persuasive in view of radially outwardly extending flange and single, unitary element shown by Quevedo. The 1st flange of PAE in figure above and below extend radially outwardly from the central axis of the sealing assembly.
As stated in rejection before and now applicant is only claiming a packing sealing assembly and other structure are recited as intended use. Furthermore applicant can consider the other follower as the stationary structure which can contact radial surface of the first flange. Furthermore the flange is contacting the stationary equipment via other element and applicant has not preclude this interpretation.
Applicant argument with regard to claim 2 is not persuasive since the reference of Quevedo provides force by G and pressure provides force to PAE (similar to what is shown in figure 3 of application).
Applicants’ argument with regard to claim 3 is not persuasive since all the structural elements are taught by Quevedo. Again noted that process fluid or stationary equipment or system that uses the packing assembly is not positively claimed.
Applicant argument with regard to claim 10 is not persuasive since entire radial surface of the flange element extending radially inward faces fluid pressure P.
Applicants’ argument that examiner has used intended use and section 2113-2114 of MPEP is correct since applicant does not positively recite limitation of gland element, stationary equipment or other structure where the mechanical packing sealing assembly can be use. Furthermore the reference of Bassinger teaches a single, unitary and axially movable pressure adjustment element (PAE). Furthermore pressure as indicated P acts on PAE to compress the packing elements that contact the shaft.
Applicants’ argument that Bassinger does not disclose “the first and second flanges are formed on the same main body” is not persuasive since this is taught by Bassinger in figure below. Furthermore the first flange is capable of contacting the stationary equipment via the main body of PAE.
PNG
media_image2.png
436
401
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicants’ argument with regard to “wrong geometry”, “wrong mating component”, “wrong surface type” are not persuasive in view of radially outwardly extending flange and single, unitary element shown by Bassinger. The 1st flange of PAE in figure above and below extend radially outwardly from the central axis of the sealing assembly.
Applicants’ argument with regard to piston area is not persuasive since Bassinger provides piston area which is adjacent to 345 which is exposed to fluid in space 46.
Applicant argument that Prichard fails to disclose the second flange extending radially inward is not persuasive since Bassinger teaches the first and second flanges.
Applicants’ argument with Prichard is not persuasive since Prichard in short is used to teach that the element that is translating can provide groves to hold sealing rings therein.
It is noted that applicant has not positively recited any structure regarding axial force (e.g. configure to selectively apply an axial force, for use with a fluid regulating device having a gland element and a stationary element).
Applicants’ argument with regard to Barnhouse is not persuasive since the reference is used to teach interaction of a sliding member with another that have cooperating projection and recesses.
Applicants’ argument with regard to motivation to combine Prichard is not persuasive, see (to provide a sealing between two members (e.g. see description of 46 in Prichard)
Applicants’ argument with regard to motivation to combine Barnhouse is not persuasive, see (to assist in insertion of the axially movable pressure adjustment element (e.g. inherent do to indents can be gripped by a tool and see Barnhouse).).
If and when applicant wants to claim a machine having the mechanical packing sealing assembly or stationary equipment having the mechanical packing sealing assembly should be done in a divisional application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quevedo (US. 4795171).
Quevedo discloses a mechanical packing sealing assembly (e.g. figure 31) suitable for use with a fluid regulating device having a gland element (e.g. intended use see MPEP 2113-2114, the mechanical packing sealing assembly is capable of being used with a gland element G) and a stationary equipment (e.g. again intended use see MPEP 2113-2114, the mechanical packing sealing assembly is capable of being used with stationary equipment SE) having a recess (e.g. intended use see MPEP 2113-2114, the mechanical packing sealing assembly is capable of being used with a recess similar to recesses shown in figures 1-29 and etc) formed along an inner surface (e.g. inner surface shown by way of example in other figures), comprising a plurality of packing elements forming a packing assembly (see packings on inner diameter of the pressure adjustment element PAE), a single, unitary and axially movable pressure adjustment element (e.g. PAE) having a main body (e.g. main body of PAE) that is sized and configured for seating within the recess (e.g. intended use see MPEP 2113-2114 but recess having S, see figure below) formed in the stationary equipment, wherein the main body has a radially outwardly extending first flange element (e.g. 1st F) formed at a first end of the main body that is sized and configured for engaging with a radial surface of the stationary equipment (e.g. again intended use see MPEP 2113-2114, the mechanical packing sealing assembly is capable of being used with stationary equipment SE) and a radially inwardly extending second flange element (e.g. 2nd F) formed at an opposed second end of the main body and forming a piston area (e.g. PA, see figure below) that is sized and configured for being exposed to a pressure of a process fluid in the stationary equipment (e.g. again intended use see MPEP 2113-2114, the mechanical packing sealing assembly is configured for being exposed to a pressure, see figure below P), wherein the first flange element and the second flange element are formed on the same main body of the pressure adjustment element (the first and second flanges are of PAE), wherein the second flange element is configured to selectively apply an axial force to the packing assembly when coupled to the main body (e.g. that is the case since the 2nd F is capable of being by a pressure force of the pressure P), and wherein the pressure adjustment element is movable axially as a function of the pressure of the process fluid applied to the piston area.
Regarding claim 2: Wherein the gland element is configured to apply an axial pressure to the packing assembly in first direction during use, and wherein the second flange element is configured to selectively apply an axial force to the packing assembly in a second direction opposite to the first direction (e.g. this is capable since the gland uses bolts/nuts N to provide force downward and pressure force which is upward, see P).
Regarding claim 3: Wherein the pressure adjustment element is configured to move axially within the recess based on the pressure of the process fluid applied to the piston area to form a pressure self-regulating mechanism that regulates the axial pressure applied to the packing assembly during use (e.g. again intended use or method limitation given no or little patentable weight in an apparatus claim see MPEP 2113-2114 and the pressure adjustment element is capable of this).
PNG
media_image1.png
376
344
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 1-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bassinger (US. 5636688).
Bassinger discloses a mechanical packing sealing assembly (e.g. figure 4 and figure below) suitable for use with a fluid regulating device having a gland element (e.g. intended use see MPEP 2113-2114, the mechanical packing sealing assembly is capable of being used with a gland element G) and a stationary equipment (e.g. again intended use see MPEP 2113-2114, the mechanical packing sealing assembly is capable of being used with stationary equipment SE) having a recess (e.g. intended use see MPEP 2113-2114, the mechanical packing sealing assembly is capable of being used with a recess R) formed along an inner surface (e.g. inner surface shown by way of example in other figures), comprising a plurality of packing elements forming a packing assembly (see packings on inner diameter of the pressure adjustment element PAE), a single, unitary and axially movable pressure adjustment element (e.g. PAE) having a main body (e.g. main body of PAE) that is sized and configured for seating within the recess (e.g. intended use see MPEP 2113-2114 but recess is in the stationary equipment SE, see figure below) formed in the stationary equipment, wherein the main body has a radially outwardly extending first flange element (e.g. 1st F) formed at a first end of the main body that is sized and configured for engaging with a radial surface of the stationary equipment (e.g. again intended use see MPEP 2113-2114, the mechanical packing sealing assembly is capable of being used with stationary equipment SE) and a radially inwardly extending second flange element (e.g. 2nd F) formed at an opposed second end of the main body and forming a piston area (e.g. PA, see figure below) that is sized and configured for being exposed to a pressure of a process fluid in the stationary equipment (e.g. again intended use see MPEP 2113-2114, the mechanical packing sealing assembly is configured for being exposed to a pressure from space 46 to compression or variable chamber 345), wherein the first flange element and the second flange element are formed on the same main body of the pressure adjustment element (the first and second flanges are of PAE), wherein the second flange element is configured to selectively apply an axial force to the packing assembly when coupled to the main body (e.g. that is the case, see description of 345), and wherein the pressure adjustment element is movable axially as a function of the pressure of the process fluid applied to the piston area.
Regarding claim 2: Wherein the gland element is configured to apply an axial pressure to the packing assembly in first direction during use, and wherein the second flange element is configured to selectively apply an axial force to the packing assembly in a second direction opposite to the first direction (e.g. this is the case since downward force is applied by 364 or G and upward force is applied by the chamber 345).
Regarding claim 3: Wherein the pressure adjustment element is configured to move axially within the recess based on the pressure of the process fluid applied to the piston area to form a pressure self-regulating mechanism that regulates the axial pressure applied to the packing assembly during use (e.g. again intended use or method limitation given no or little patentable weight in an apparatus claim see MPEP 2113-2114 and the pressure adjustment element is capable of this, see description of 345).
Regarding claim 4: Wherein the main body of the pressure adjustment element has an inner surface (e.g. inner surface of PAE) and an opposed outer surface (e.g. outer surface of PAE).
Regarding claim 5: Wherein the outer surface of the main body has a second groove (e.g. groove having 347) formed therein at the second end of the main body corresponding to a location of the second flange element that is sized and configured for seating a second sealing element (e.g. groove capable of receiving the second sealing element, such as 347).
Regarding claim 6: Wherein the second groove formed in the second end is formed in an outer surface of the second flange element (e.g. see figure below).
Regarding claim 7: Wherein an outer peripheral surface of the first flange element (e.g. outer peripheral surface 370).
Regarding claim 9: The mechanical packing sealing assembly further comprising a spacer (e.g. spacer, figure below) element sized and configured for seating adjacent to the second flange element.
Regarding claim 10: Wherein the piston area of the second flange element is sized and configured for converting 100% or more of the pressure of the process fluid into the axial force applied to the packing assembly (e.g. see PA).
PNG
media_image2.png
436
401
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 4-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassinger in view of Prichard (US. 3328040)
Bassinger discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the inner surface has a first groove formed therein at the first end of the main body corresponding to a location of the first flange element that is sized and configured for seating a first sealing element. Prichard discloses a translating sleeve (e.g. 32) having a main body with a first flange (e.g. flange having 46) extending outwardly (e.g. flange 44 extending outwardly of 32) and a second flange (e.g. flange contacting 80) opposite the first flange extending radially inward and the first flange having inner surface with a groove (e.g. groove having 46) with a sealing element (e.g. 46) which contacts another member (e.g. 38). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the inner surface of the first flange of Bassinger to have a groove with a sealing member as taught by Prichard with reasonable expectation of success, to provide a sealing between two members (e.g. see description of 46 in Prichard).
Claim(s) 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bassinger and Prichard and further in view of Barnhouse (US 11965497).
Bassinger discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the outer peripheral surface to have features that are indents. Barnhouse discloses a pressure sleeve (e.g. 200), a flange element having features (e.g. features 602) and the features are indents (e.g. features 602 are intents). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the flange element of Bassinger to have indents on the outer peripheral surface as taught by Barnhouse with reasonable expectation of success to assist in insertion of the axially movable pressure adjustment element (e.g. inherent do to indents can be gripped by a tool and see Barnhouse).
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 VISHAL A PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-7060. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 am to 4:00pm.
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, Christine Mills can be reached at 571-272-8322. 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.
/VISHAL A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights