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
Applicant's arguments filed 1/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that LoGiudice does not disclose an axial width of the secondary sealing ring and a radial thickness of the secondary sealing ring. LoGiudice cannot be modified as the snap features 44 and 46 cannot be retained while providing engagement between the seal rings 12 and 18.
Examiner notes that the snap features of LoGiudice would be retained even by modifying the axial width and the radial thickness of the secondary sealing ring 18, so that the secondary sealing ring provides an abutting seal with the primary sealing ring and also provides flexibility of the secondary sealing ring along its axial width.
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 22 recites the limitation "the axial U-shaped primary sealing ring" in 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Castleman et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20100052267).
Regarding Claim 22, Castleman discloses a seal (fig 3), comprising:
a radial U-shaped primary sealing ring ( 212) made of elastic polymer material (Para 0046, 0048, 212 made of polymer material), wherein the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring has a base ring section with two parallel axial outer sides ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 3 below), two sealing lips (222, 222) extending radially away from the base ring section ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 3 below) and being spaced apart from each other (222, 222 spaced apart) and curved outwards in the axial direction (222, 222 curved outwards axially), and an annular groove provided between the sealing lips ( groove with 224 between 222 and 222) and being radially open in the direction away from the base ring section (cavity 242c radially open), and wherein the sealing lips protrude axially beyond the axial outer sides of the base ring section ( as seen in examiner annotated fig 3 below); a circumferential spring (224) disposed within the annular groove for energizing the sealing lips (fig 3); and
a secondary sealing ring (233) made of a material stiffer than the polymer material of the primary sealing ring (233 made of metal), wherein the base ring section of the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring and the secondary sealing ring abut radially each other (fig 3), or wherein the base ring section of the axial U-shaped primary sealing ring and the secondary sealing ring axially abut each other (one of the two limitations is met).
PNG
media_image1.png
875
623
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 1 – 10 and 12 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LoGiudice et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20170328472).
Regarding Claim 1, LoGiudice discloses a seal (fig 1), comprising:
a radial U-shaped primary sealing ring made of elastic polymer material (Para 0045 – 12 may be made of elastic polymer), wherein the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring has a base ring section with two parallel axial outer sides (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below), two sealing lips extending radially away from the base ring section and being spaced apart from each other and curved outwards in the axial direction (sealing lips of 12 curved outwards axially), and an annular groove (20) provided between the sealing lips (fig 1) and being radially open in the direction away from the base ring section (20 open away from base ring section), and wherein the sealing lips protrude axially beyond the axial outer sides of the base ring section ( sealing lips of 12 protrude axially beyond the axial outer sides of the base ring section as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) (one of the two limitations is met), or,
an axial U-shaped primary sealing ring made of elastic polymer material, wherein the axial U-shaped primary sealing ring has a base ring section with a radial inner side and a radial outer side, two sealing lips extending axially away from the base ring section and being spaced apart from each other and curved outwards in the radial direction, and an annular groove provided between the sealing lips and being axially open in the direction away from the base ring section, and wherein the sealing lips protrude radially beyond the radial inner and outer sides of the base ring section (one of the two limitations above is met);
a circumferential spring (36) disposed within the annular groove for energizing the sealing lips (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below);
and a secondary sealing ring (18 as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) made of a material stiffer than a polymer material of the primary sealing ring ( Para 0045 – 18 made of PTFE stiffer than 12 made of the elastic polymer material), wherein the base ring section of the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring and the secondary sealing ring abut radially each other (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) (one of the two limitations is met), or
wherein the base ring section of the axial U-shaped primary sealing ring and the secondary sealing ring axially abut each other, and where a radial width of the secondary sealinq rinq is at least twice an axial thickness of the secondary sealinq rinq (one of the two limitations above is met).
LoGiudice discloses an axial width of the secondary sealing ring and a radial thickness of the secondary sealing ring ( axial width of the secondary sealing ring and a radial thickness of the secondary sealing ring of 18).
LoGiudice does not disclose where an axial width of the secondary sealing ring is at least twice a radial thickness of the secondary sealing ring.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the axial width and the radial thickness of the secondary sealing ring limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, so that the secondary sealing ring provides an abutting seal with the primary sealing ring and also provides flexibility of the secondary sealing ring along its axial width. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
PNG
media_image2.png
870
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, LoGiudice discloses the seal, wherein the annular groove of the radial U- shaped primary sealing ring is radially open inwards (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) and the base ring section of the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring is surrounded by and in contact with the secondary sealing ring, or, wherein the annular groove of the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring is radially open outwards and the secondary sealing ring is surrounded by and in contact with the base ring section of the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring.
Regarding Claim 3, LoGiudice discloses the seal, wherein the sealing lips of the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring are curved convexly in the axial direction (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) (one of the two limitations is met), or
wherein the sealing lips of the axial U-shaped primary sealing ring are curved convexly in the radial direction (one of the above two limitations is met).
Regarding Claim 4, LoGiudice discloses the seal, wherein the base ring section of the radial U- shaped primary sealing ring and the secondary sealing ring are held on each other in an axially non-displaceable manner (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below).
Regarding Claim 5, LoGiudice discloses the seal, wherein the base ring section of the radial U- shaped primary sealing ring and the secondary sealing ring radially abut each other by radial end sides (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) one of which is curved convexly in the radial direction and the other one is curved concavely in the radial direction (base ring section curved convexly and the secondary sealing ring 18 curved concavely as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) (one of the two limitations is met), or,
wherein the base ring section of the axial U-shaped primary sealing ring and the secondary sealing ring axially abut each other by axial end sides one of which is curved convexly in the axial direction and the other one is curved concavely in the axial direction (one of the two limitations above is met).
Regarding Claim 6, LoGiudice discloses the seal, wherein the secondary sealing ring is axially flush with the axial outer sides of the base ring section of the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring or protrudes over the axial outer sides on both sides ( 18 protrudes over both axial outer sides of the base ring section as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) (one of the two limitations is met), or,
wherein the secondary sealing ring is radially flush with the radial inner and outer sides of the base ring section of the axial U-shaped primary sealing ring or radially protrudes over the radial inner and outer sides on both sides (one of the two limitations above is met).
Regarding Claim 7, LoGiudice discloses the seal, further comprising a backup ring made of a high strength polymer material (Para 0045 – 16 made of carbon filled PEEK), wherein the secondary sealing ring of the radial U- shaped primary sealing ring and the backup ring radially abut each other (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) (one of the two limitations is met) or
the secondary sealing ring of the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring and the backup ring axially abut each other (one of the two limitations above is met).
Regarding Claim 8, LoGiudice discloses the seal, wherein the secondary sealing ring of the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring and the backup ring are held on each other in an axially non-displaceable manner (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below).
Regarding Claim 9, LoGiudice discloses the seal, wherein the secondary sealing ring of the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring and the backup ring radially abut each other by radial end sides (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) one of which is curved convexly in the radial direction (18 curved convexly as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) and the other one is curved concavely in the radial direction (16 curved concavely as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) (one of the two limitations is met), or,
wherein the secondary sealing ring of the axial U-shaped primary sealing ring and the backup ring axially abut each other by axial end sides one of which is curved convexly in the axial direction and the other one is curved concavely in the axial direction (one of the two limitations above is met).
Regarding Claim 10, LoGiudice discloses the seal, wherein the secondary sealing ring is made from a metallic or polymer material (Para 0045 – 18 made of PTFE).
Regarding Claim 12, LoGiudice discloses a sealing arrangement including the seal for sealing a connecting of two components (Para 0042 - mandrel 8 and bore 6, fig 1), the sealing arrangement comprising a first component (6) and a second component (8) at least one of which has a ring groove (groove of 6) or a stepped recess, and wherein the seal is disposed within the ring groove or the stepped recess (10 within the bore of 6), wherein the end side, facing away from the sealing lips, of the secondary sealing ring or, if available, the backup ring abuts one of the two opposite groove flanks of the ring groove or on a step of the stepped recess (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below), wherein the sealing lips are compressed and elastically deformed between the two components and pressed against the two components by the compressed circumferential spring to seal the connection of the two components (sealing lips of 12 pressed against 6 and 8 as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below).
Regarding Claim 13, LoGiudice discloses the sealing arrangement, wherein a further seal is disposed within the ring groove between the seal and the other of the two groove flanks of the ring groove (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below), wherein the further seal is pressed against the other groove flank by the compressed circumferential spring which protrudes over the sealing lips (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below).
Regarding Claim 14, LoGiudice discloses the sealing arrangement, wherein the further seal comprises a further secondary sealing ring (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) made of metallic or polymer material (Para 0045 – 12 made of PTFE) and a further backup ring (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) made of a high strength polymer material (Para 0045 – 16 made of PEEK), which abut each other with the further secondary sealing ring facing the seal (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) and the further backup ring abutting the other groove flank (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below).
Regarding Claim 15, LoGiudice discloses the sealing arrangement, wherein the further secondary sealing ring is held on the further backup ring in an axially non-displaceable manner (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below).
Regarding Claim 16, LoGiudice discloses the seal, wherein the base ring section of the radial U- shaped primary sealing ring and the secondary sealing ring are held on each other in an axially non-displaceable manner by means of a positive-locking connection (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below).
Regarding Claim 17, LoGiudice discloses the seal, wherein the base ring section of the radial U- shaped primary sealing ring and the secondary sealing ring radially abut each other by radial end sides (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) one of which is curved convexly in the radial direction (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) and the other one is curved concavely in the radial direction (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below), with the same curvature (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) (one of the two limitations is met), or,
wherein the base ring section of the axial U-shaped primary sealing ring and the secondary sealing ring axially abut each other by axial end sides one of which is curved convexly in the axial direction and the other one is curved concavely in the axial direction with the same curvature (one of the two limitations above is met).
Regarding Claim 18, LoGiudice discloses the seal, wherein the secondary sealing ring of the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring and the backup ring are held on each other in an axially non-displaceable manner by means of a positive-locking connection (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below).
Regarding Claim 19, LoGiudice discloses the seal, wherein the secondary sealing ring of the radial U-shaped primary sealing ring and the backup ring radially abut each other by radial end sides (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) one of which is curved convexly in the radial direction and the other one is curved concavely in the radial direction with the same curvature (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below) (one of the two limitations is met), or,
wherein the secondary sealing ring of the axial U-shaped primary sealing ring and the backup ring axially abut each other by axial end sides one of which is curved convexly in the axial direction and the other one is curved concavely in the axial direction with the same curvature (one of the two limitations above is met).
Regarding Claim 20, LoGiudice discloses the sealing arrangement, wherein the further secondary sealing ring is held on the further backup ring in an axially non-displaceable manner by means of a positive-locking connection (as seen in examiner annotated fig 1 below).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LoGiudice in view of Rowe et al. (U.S. Patent # 9458691).
Regarding Claim 11, LoGiudice discloses the seal.
LoGiudice does not disclose wherein the secondary sealing ring is plated with a material softer than the metallic material.
However, Rowe teaches wherein the secondary sealing ring is plated with a material softer than the metallic material (Col 10, Lines 9 – 10, metal seal may be coated).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the secondary sealing ring of LoGiudice with the coating of the sealing ring of Rowe with a reasonable expectation of success so that the secondary sealing ring provides less wear and tear when compressed.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LoGiudice in view of Castleman et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20100052267).
Regarding Claim 21, LoGiudice discloses the sealing arrangement, wherein the circumferential spring is a coiled metallic energizing helical spring.
LoGiudice does not disclose wherein the circumferential spring is a coiled metallic energizing helical spring.
However, Castleman teaches wherein the circumferential spring is a coiled metallic energizing helical spring (224, fig 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the primary sealing ring of LoGiudice with the coiled helical spring of Castleman with a reasonable expectation of success so that the sealing lips of the primary sealing ring surround the coiled helical spring for a contiguous energizing force.
PNG
media_image2.png
870
610
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to L. SUSMITHA KONERU whose telephone number is (571) 270-5333. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 9 A.M. – 4 P.M.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/L.S.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
/CHRISTINE M MILLS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights