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 .
It is noted that applicant should review rejection in parent applicant 17890818 which reject much narrower claims (see non-final office action mailed 1/17/2025). It is further noted that all claims are rejected below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted in the application are given cursory review. Applicant has provided many references and examiner request the applicant to define best references that apply to the elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants’ argument that Stanton rejection is traverse since it does not teach each and every element of the claims is not persuasive in view rejection below. The reference of Stanton teaches all limitations of a packing assembly. As previously stated, many previous rejections intended use of how one can or chooses to use the packing assembly is given little or no patentable weight when the structure of the packing assembly is taught. (The packing assembly of Stanton is capable of being placed in a bore).
Applicants’ argument that the reference of Stanton fails to teach coupling component is not persuasive since applicant has not provided any structure of the coupling component and furthermore the packing assembly of Stanton can be placed partially into a bore as shown by many references by applicant in form 1449 (applicant should review all documents on form 1449). The examiner has also provided many rejection where the length of the packing assembly is longer than a potential bore in previous application and/or reference on form 892 (applicant should review all references on form 892).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claims 14 and 17 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the limitation of oblique angle is not stated in the original disclosure.
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 13-20 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 13, “a sleeve edge and the ring having a ring edge engaged with the sleeve edge”, unclear how this is possible by just claiming a packing assembly. The engagement is done when the packing is placed in a bore and tighten or pushed along the bore. Applicant is missing critical limitations. This applies to dependent claim 14.
Claim 15, “a seal”, unclear what this means in view of “a seal” stated in claim 11? Furthermore unclear how contact between the seal, the ring and the sleeve is possible without being assembled, placed and tighten into the bore? Applicant is missing critical limitations and/or elements.
Claim 16, “one of a tool or cap”, unclear how can a packing assembly now have a tool which may or may not be used to install or provide on the packing assembly. A machine or a kit may comprise this but not a packing assembly.
Claim 17, “a sleeve edge and the ring having a ring edge engaged with the sleeve edge”, unclear how this is possible by just claiming a packing assembly. The engagement is done when the packing is placed in a bore and tighten or pushed along the bore. Applicant is missing critical limitations.
Claim 18, “a seal”, unclear what this means in view of “a seal” stated in claim 11? See rejection of claims above.
Claim 20, “a seal”, unclear what this means in view of “a seal” stated in claim 11? See rejection of claims above.
For examination purpose only a packing assembly is claimed. This was also confirmed by applicant’s representative on 6/11/2026. Also explained to applicant representative that any claims directed to other than a packing assembly must be done in a new divisional application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stanton et al (US.20070273105A).
Stanton discloses a packing assembly (e.g. figure below) to be positioned in a bore (e.g. see figures), comprising a sleeve (PS, figure below) to compress a seal (e.g. 458 or S in figure below) against at least a portion of the bore to block fluid flow from the bore when the packing assembly is received in the bore (e.g. intended use, the reference needs to teach the sleeve that is capable of being placed in a bore, this is the case by Stanton, the sleeve positioned to extend along a sleeve length (e.g. see length of sleeve between 1st End and 2nd End, see figure below), at least a first portion (e.g. 1st portion having part of 410 and 1st End) of the sleeve length positioned within the bore when the packing assembly is received in the bore and at least a second portion of the sleeve length positioned to extend axially beyond the bore (e.g. the second portion having 1st End), the second portion of the sleeve including a coupling component (e.g. the coupling component 414, which would not be in the bore of 12 as shown by way example in figure 14a-14b having threads 1219) and packing components (e.g. PC, figure below) positioned radially inward of at least a portion of the sleeve.
Regarding claim 2: Wherein the coupling component is positioned on a radially outward facing portion of the sleeve (e.g. the coupling component having the 1st End which is radially outward facing portion of the sleeve).
Regarding claim 3: The packing assembly further comprising a ring (e.g. R, figure below) to be positioned within the bore when the packing assembly is received in the bore, the ring to at least partially compress the seal (e.g. see figure below). It is noted that applicant has not provided any relationship of the ring to the packing assembly.
Regarding claim 4: Wherein the packing components are positioned on a ring shelf (e.g. RS, figure below).
Regarding claim 5: Wherein the coupling component is not engaged with the bore when the packing assembly is received in the bore (e.g. as shown by way of example the coupling component 414 is not engaged in the bore of 12 in figure 14a and furthermore as long as the structure of coupling component is taught claims are rejected). How the packing assembly is associated with the bore is intended use and given little or no patentable weight in an apparatus claims, see MPEP 2113-2114.
Regarding claim 6: Wherein the second portion of the sleeve having the coupling component positioned on a radially outward facing portion of the sleeve (e.g. see the coupling component having threads 1219). Wherein the packing components positioned radially inward of at least a portion of the sleeve (see figure below and rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 7: Wherein the packing components are positioned on a ring shelf (see rejection of claims above).
Regarding claim 8: Wherein the coupling component is not engaged with the bore (see rejection of claims above).
Regarding claims 9-12: See rejection of claims above.
PNG
media_image1.png
450
665
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13: see rejection of claim 6-12.
Regarding claim 14: Wherein the ring having a ring edge (e.g. edge of 422 having an angle, figure 7a) defines an oblique angle (angle adjacent to 416).
Regarding claim 15: The seal having an axial face (e.g. face of S contacting 410) and a circumferential face (e.g. circumferential face of S that contacts R), the axial face of the seal in contact with an axial face of the sleeve, and the circumferential face of the seal in contact with a circumferential face of the ring (e.g. see face of sleeve 410 that contacts S and also see circumferential face of R that contacts S).
Regarding claim 16: the packing assembly having one of a tool or a cap, the coupling component of the sleeve at least partially overlapped by the one of the tool or the cap (as shown by many references the on form 1449 and 892 a tool is capable of being placed over end 414). This rejection is in view of 112 rejection and claims are directed only a packing assembly.
Regarding claim 17: see rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 18: see rejection of claims above.
Regarding claim 19: see rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 20: see rejection of claims above.
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) 14, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stanton et al and Stribling (US. 20190247957). As a curtesy, additional rejection when and if applicant fixes all the 112 rejections above.
Stanton discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the sleeve having an edge that is tapered or angled. Stribling teaches a sleeve have a surface that is tapered (e.g. tapered surface of 212b) that face a surface of an annular member (tapered surface between 206 and 208 that is shown in figure 5a and 3) which engage each other. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sleeve edge of Stanton to have a tapered surface complimentary to another tapered surface as taught by Stribling with reasonable expectation of success to provide sliding contact and also stop surfaces (e.g. inherent and concept of tapered surfaces). See figure 4 of Stribling shown tapered contact which provides smooth sliding of members.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. It is noted that many references on IDS read on the current claims (applicant should review all references and office actions of previous applications). Further evidence of tapered contact with two members is taught by 20200041001 (e.g. taper surfaces 610b, 610t2, 610a which contact complementary taper surfaces). Also see 20190017503 which show taper contact of a sleeve to another member (248).
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 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 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