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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 8/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As stated below, every limitation of the claims are taught by Lepique.
Applicants’ argument that Lepique does not disclose pressure responsive loading system is not persuasive since applicant is only claiming a mechanical packing sealing assembly with capability of fluid pressure applying load to the axially movable element and furthermore the reference teaches an axially movable pressure adjustment element 1 which is able to move axially via force applied by arrow in figure.
Applicants’ argument that the reference of Lepique having a piston area configured…assembly is not persuasive since Lepique teaches a piston area which is pushed by the force provided by arrow (e.g. see figure below). It is further noted that the elements in Lepique are annular around the shaft.
PNG
media_image1.png
430
490
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argument with regard to “the second flange…ends” is not persuasive since the reference of Lepique teaches two elements 1 and 2 which provide axial compression of the packing elements 8a through 8b (e.g. when 2 translate axially which is stopped by 7 provides axial force that is opposite to axial force provided by arrow and 1 translate axially by force via process fluid indicated by arrow).
Applicant argument that the reference of Lepique packing bushing are structurally different components that perform different functions is not persuasive since applicant is claiming a mechanical packing sealing assembly which is taught by Lepique, see rejection below. It is further noted that the element 1 having a 1st flange as shown in figure above is capable of moving axially between two nuts 5 and 6 via force by arrow (see figure above).
Applicants’ arguments provided i to iii are not persuasive since the reference of Lepique teaches each and every structural limitation of the claims. Applicant should also see that the element 1 is capable moving axially by pump pressure as stated in Lepique.
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.
Claim 7 is 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 7, entire claim, applicant is not stating some area that is capable of converting process fluid to axial force applied to the packing assembly is unclear which applicant tis only claiming a mechanical packing sealing assembly and not method as stated many times in parent applications and current applicant. It is further noted that the reference of Lepique has a piston area that is completely applied by fluid pressure as shown by arrow in figure above hence the piston area is capable of substantially 100 percentage force conversion via pressure fluid.
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) 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lepique (DE965545, see IDS filed by applicant).
Lepique discloses a mechanical packing sealing assembly (e.g. figure) suitable for use with a fluid regulating device (e.g. intended use by the packing assembly of Lepique is capable of being used in fluid regulating device, see MPEP 2113-2114 with regard to intended use limitation) having a gland element (e.g. 2) and a stationary equipment (e.g. 3) having a recess (e.g. recess having inner diameter in 3) formed along an inner surface (e.g. inner surface), wherein the gland element is coupled to the stationary equipment by a plurality of fasteners (e.g. fasteners 4), comprising an axially movable pressure adjustment element (e.g. 1) having a main body (e.g. main body as shown in figure) that has a radially outwardly extending first flange element (e.g. 1st flange having holes that receives the fasteners 4) formed at a first end and a radially inwardly extending second flange element (e.g. 2nd flange facing arrow in figure) formed at an opposed second end and forming a piston area (e.g. piston area facing the arrow), wherein the first flange element has a plurality of fastener-receiving openings (e.g. the holes having the fasteners 4) formed therein that are sized and configured for seating the plurality of fastener (e.g. figure), and wherein the main body is sized and configured for seating within the recess formed in the stationary equipment (e.g. see figure), a plurality of packing elements (e.g. 8a through 8b) forming a packing assembly (e.g. assembly of the packing elements on inner side of 1) that are sized and configured for seating within the recess of the stationary equipment (e.g. recess formed by inner diameter of 3) and about the pressure adjustment element, wherein the second flange element is positioned to contact an axially inboard portion of the packing assembly (e.g. this is the case as see in figure, 8b contacting the second flange element), a packing pressure adjustment element sized (e.g. 6) and configured for seating over one or more of the plurality of fasteners (e.g. figure) and configured to be positioned, when mounted over the fastener, between the first flange element and the stationary equipment (e.g. see figure), wherein the packing pressure adjustment element is axially movable along the fastener so as to selectively move the pressure adjustment element in the axial direction (e.g. nut 6 is axially adjustable), and a position locking element (e.g. 5) sized and configured for seating over one or more of the plurality of fasteners and configured to be positioned, when mounted over the fastener, between the first flange element and the gland element, wherein the position pocking element is axially movable along the fastener and defines an axially outboard most position of the pressure adjustment element (e.g. see figure), wherein the pressure adjustment element is movable axially as a function of a pressure of a process fluid (e.g. the mechanical packing assembly is capable of being used in a process fluid environment, intended use and/or method limitations are given no or little patentable weight in an apparatus claim see MPEP 2113-2114 and the pressure adjustment element is movable with regard to pressure fluid that applies the force on surface pointed by the arrow, see figure) in the stationary equipment applied to the piston area (e.g. the process fluid is intended use and/or method limitation and given little or no patentable weight in an apparatus claim, see MPEP 2113-2114 but process fluid creating force by an arrow indicated in figure) and wherein the gland element is configured to apply an axial pressure to the packing assembly in a first direction during use, and wherein the second flange element is configured to apply an axial force to the packing assembly in a second direction opposite to the first direction (e.g. again intended use and method limitation are given no or little patentable weight in an apparatus see MPEP 2113-2114 and the mechanical packing assembly of Lepique is capable of this, when 2 translate axially which is stopped by 7 and 1 translate axially which provides axial forces in opposite axial directions via process fluid indicated by arrow). Regarding claim 2: Wherein plurality of packing elements (e.g. 8a-8b) forming a packing assembly that are sized and configured for seating within the recess of the stationary equipment and about the pressure adjustment element.
The pressure adjustment element has an inner surface (e.g. inner surface having the packing elements) and an opposed outer surface (e.g. outer surface facing the stationary equipment). Wherein the second flange element is configured to selectively apply an axial force to a packing assembly when coupled to the main body, and wherein the pressure adjustment element is movable axially as a function of a pressure of a process fluid in the stationary equipment applied to the piston area (e.g. this is the case via 7 acting on 2 and pressure defined by arrow acting on the piston area). Wherein the gland element is configured to apply an axial pressure to the packing assembly in a first direction during use (e.g. force opposite the direction of the arrow in figure applied by the gland and 7), 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. force applied in second direction of which is the arrow). Wherein 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. this is the case as do to structures 7, 2, 5, 6, 4, 1, 3 and pressure defined by arrow).
Lepique further discloses sealing elements (e.g. 10) to be used to seal between the stationary equipment and the outer surface of the axially movable pressure adjustment element. The sealing elements (e.g. 10) received in grooves (e.g. grooves having 10) in the stationary equipment (3).
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) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lepique (DE965545, see IDS filed by applicant) in view of Kuc (US.4289317). When applicant provides proper limitation with regard to recess.
Lepique discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose that the recess is formed on the inner surface with two diameters (e.g. 1st diameter facing the shaft and the 2nd diameter facing the pressure adjustment element), the outer surface has a groove formed therein at the second end of the main body that is sized and configured for seating a sealing element, the second end is formed in an outer surface of the second flange element. Kuc teaches a stationary equipment (e.g. 32) receiving an axially movable pressure adjustment element in a recess (e.g. recess having end of 38) formed on an inner surface (e.g. inner surface having 56 and end of 38), the axially movable pressure adjustment element having a first flange that extends outwardly and a second flange that extends inwardly and a recess (e.g. 72) formed in the second flange that is configured to receive a sealing element (e.g. 74). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the outer surface of Lepique to have a groove and a seal element as taught by Kuc with reasonable expectation of success, since changing one static seal to another would be considered to be art equivalent since the resultant is providing fluid tight seal as stated in Kuc and further more easy of manufacturing since the groove is placed on an element outer surface instead of inner surface of the stationary equipment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ellisor et al (US. 11421680, Ellisor teaches that seal 518 and groove 520 are as shown in figures but can also be reversed where the groove in placed on stationary equipment and the seal in the groove of the stationary equipment, see description of 520 and 518) or Mahoney et al (US20050230106) teach to have a groove on a sleeve outer surface to receive a sealing element.
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