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 .
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, 7, 8, 12-15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMakin et al. (U.S. 7,389,610).
Regarding claim 1, McMakin et al. teaches a sealable chamber (“pressurizable compartment”; Abstract) comprising a chamber aperture (defined by 24; figure 3), an aperture border 24 comprising a first surface encompassing the chamber aperture (figure 3), a chamber door 22 comprising a second surface (figure 3) configured to at least partially engage against the first surface of the aperture border (figure 6A), and a seal 58 positioned intermediate the first surface and the second surface (figure 6A), wherein the chamber door 22 comprises a non-circular shape (figure 5), at least a portion of the second surface of the chamber door 22 exhibits nonuniform deflection relative to the first surface of the aperture border when a compression force is applied to the chamber door to compress the second surface against the first surface (figures 6A, 6B), and an exposed height of the seal intermediate the first surface and the second surface is configured to vary to compensate for the nonuniform deflection and maintain a hermetic seal between the first surface and the second surface (due to the compressibility of the material of the seal 58).
Regarding claim 7, the non-circular shape of the chamber door comprises at least one of a polygonal shape comprising at least one straight side and a curved shape comprising at least one curved side (figure 5).
Regarding claim 8, McMakin et al. teaches a sealable chamber (“pressurizable compartment”; Abstract) comprising a chamber aperture (defined by 24; figure 3), an aperture border 24 comprising a first surface encompassing the chamber aperture, a chamber door 22 comprising a polygonal shape (figure 5), and a second surface configured to at least partially engage against the first surface of the aperture border (figure 6A), and a seal 58 positioned intermediate the first surface of the aperture border and the second surface of the chamber door (figure 6A), wherein at least a portion of the second surface of the chamber door 22 exhibits nonuniform deflection relative to the first surface of the aperture border when a compression force is applied to the chamber door to compress the second surface against the first surface (figure 6B), and an exposed height of the seal intermediate the first surface and the second surface is configured to vary to compensate for the nonuniform deflection and maintain a hermetic seal between the first surface and the second surface (due to the compressibility of the material of the seal 58).
Regarding claim 12, the polygonal shape of the chamber door 22 comprises at least three sides and at least three corners (figure 5).
Regarding claim 13, the polygonal shape comprises at least one of a triangular shape, a square shape, a rectangular shape, a trapezoidal shape, and a rhomboid shape (rectangular shape; figure 5).
Regarding claim 14, a compression mechanism at 40 configured to apply the compression force to the chamber door to compress the second surface against the first surface (figures 6A, 6B).
Regarding claim 15, McMakin et al. teaches a sealable chamber (“pressurizable compartment”; Abstract) comprising a sealable chamber wall 24 comprising a chamber aperture (defined by 24) formed therethrough, and an aperture border (figure 6A) comprising a first surface encompassing the chamber aperture, a chamber door 22 comprising a curved shape (figure 6B), and a second surface configured to at least partially engage against the first surface of the sealable chamber wall (figure 6A), and a seal 58 positioned intermediate the first surface of the sealable chamber wall and the second surface of the chamber door 22 (figure 6A), wherein at least a portion of the second surface of the chamber door exhibits nonuniform deflection relative to the first surface of the sealable chamber wall when a compression force is applied to the chamber door to compress the second surface against the first surface (figure 6B), and an exposed height of the seal intermediate the first surface and the second surface is configured to vary to compensate for the nonuniform deflection and maintain a hermetic seal between the first surface and the second surface (due to the compressibility of the material of the seal 58).
Regarding claim 19, the curved shape comprises at least one of an oval shape, an ovoid shape, an oblong circular shape, and an elliptical shape (figures 5 and 6B).
Regarding claim 20, the seal comprises at least one of an O-ring, an X-ring, a square-ring and a delta-ring (square ring; figure 5).
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 2, 4-6, 9-11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMakin et al. (U.S. 7,389,610) in view of Fukuda et al. (JP 2003166655A).
Regarding claim 2, McMakin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the groove. Fukuda et al. teaches that it is known to house a seal within a groove (see figures 2, 3, 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sealable chamber of McMakin et al. with the seal housed in a groove, as taught by Fukuda et al., in order to prevent shifting of the groove to ensure a proper seal.
Further regarding claim 2, at least one of the first surface of the aperture border 24, and the second surface of the chamber door 22, comprises a groove (as modified by Fukuda et al. above) configured to at least partially receive the seal therein (figures 2, 3, 5 of Fukuda et al.) and a depth of the groove is configured to vary the exposed height of the seal (figure 5 of Fukuda et al.) to compensate for the nonuniform deflection and maintain the hermetic seal between the first surface and the second surface.
Regarding claim 4, the second surface of the chamber door comprises the groove (as modified by Fukuda et al. above) configured to at least partially receive the seal therein (figures 2, 3,5 of Fukuda et al.) and the depth of the groove in the second surface is configured to vary the exposed height of the seal to compensate for the nonuniform deflection and maintain the hermetic seal between the first surface and the second surface (figures 2, 3, 5 of Fukuda et al.).
Regarding claim 5, the groove (as modified by Fukuda et al. above) comprises a first depth at a first location within the groove (at lead line 15; figure 5 of Fukuda et al.), and a second depth at a second location within the groove (one opposing side of the central portion at lead line 15; figure 5 Fukuda et al.), wherein the depth of the groove is configured to continuously decrease moving from the first depth at the first location toward the second depth at the second location to vary the exposed height of the seal (figure 5 of Fukuda et al.) and compensate for the nonuniform deflection to maintain the hermetic seal between the first surface and the second surface.
Regarding claim 6, the groove (as modified by Fukuda et al.) comprises a first depth at a first location within the groove (at lead line 15; figure 5 of Fukuda et al.), and a second depth at a second location within the groove (one opposing side of the central portion at lead line 15; figure 5 Fukuda et al.), wherein the depth of the groove is configured to discretely decrease moving from the first depth at the first location toward the second depth at the second location to vary the exposed height of the seal and compensate for the nonuniform deflection to maintain the hermetic seal between the first surface and the second surface (figure 5 of Fukuda et al.).
Regarding claim 9, McMakin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the groove. Fukuda et al. teaches that it is known to house a seal within a groove (see figures 2, 3, 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sealable chamber of McMakin et al. with the seal housed in a groove, as taught by Fukuda et al., in order to prevent shifting of the groove to ensure a proper seal.
Further regarding claim 9, at least one of the first surface of the aperture border 24, and the second surface of the chamber door 22, comprises a groove (as modified above by Fukuda et al.) configured to at least partially receive the seal therein (figures 2, 3, 5 of Fukuda et al.), and a depth of the groove is configured to vary the exposed height of the seal to compensate for the nonuniform deflection and maintain the hermetic seal between the first surface and the second surface (figure 5 of Fukuda et al.).
Regarding claim 10, the second surface of the chamber door 22 comprises the groove (as modified by Fukuda et al. above) configured to at least partially receive the seal therein (figure 5 of Fukuda et al.) and the depth of the groove in the second surface is configured to vary the exposed height of the seal to compensate for the nonuniform deflection and maintain the hermetic seal between the first surface and the second surface (figure 5 of Fukuda et al.).
Regarding claim 11, the groove (as modified by Fukuda et al. above) comprises an intermediate depth at an intermediate portion along at least one side of the chamber door 22, and a corner depth at a corner of the chamber door, wherein the depth of the groove is configured to decrease moving from the intermediate depth (towards center at lead line 15; figure 5 of Fukuda et al.) toward the corner depth to vary the exposed height of the seal and compensate for the nonuniform deflection to maintain the hermetic seal between the first surface and the second surface (figure 5 of Fukuda et al.).
Regarding claim 16, McMakin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the groove. Fukuda et al. teaches that it is known to house a seal within a groove (see figures 2, 3, 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the sealable chamber of McMakin et al. with the seal housed in a groove, as taught by Fukuda et al., in order to prevent shifting of the groove to ensure a proper seal.
Further regarding claim 16, at least one of the first surface of the sealable chamber wall 24, and the second surface of the chamber door 22, comprises a groove (as modified by Fukuda et al.) configured to at least partially receive the seal therein (figures 2, 3,5 of Fukuda et al.), and a depth of the groove is configured to vary the exposed height of the seal to compensate for the nonuniform deflection and maintain the hermetic seal between the first surface and the second surface (figure 5 of Fukuda et al.).
Regarding claim 17, the second surface of the chamber door 22 comprises the groove configured to at least partially receive the seal therein (figure 5 of Fukuda et al.), and the depth of the groove in the second surface is configured to vary the exposed height of the seal to compensate for the nonuniform deflection and maintain the hermetic seal between the first surface and the second surface (figure 5 of Fukuda et al.).
Regarding claim 18, the groove (as modified by Fukuda et al. above) comprises at least one of a triangular groove, a square groove, a rounded groove, a half dovetail groove, and a full dovetail groove (rounded groove shown in figure 5 of Fukuda et al.).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMakin et al. (U.S. 7,389,610) in view of Fukuda et al. (JP 2003166655A), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Lewis et al. (U.S. 4,685,586).
Regarding claim 3, the modified sealable chamber of McMakin et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the groove being in the first surface. Lewis et al. teaches that it is known to provide the groove the in the first surface (see element 16; figure 2). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the modified sealable chamber of McMakin et al. with the seal groove being in the first surface, as taught by Lewis et al., in order to prevent shifting of the groove to ensure a proper seal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art is cited for the sealing structure.
THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIKI MARINA ELOSHWAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7: 00 a.m. to 3:00 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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached at 571-270-5531. 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.
/NIKI M ELOSHWAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights