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 7/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ argument that the claim limitation of 14 which is incorporated in claim 1 is not disclosed by Nachtmann is not persuasive since the reference states the O-ring having a core that is formed of elastomeric material and hence the O-ring is PFAS-free.
It is noted that an interview with applicant representative was conducted on 8/20/2026 and the potential limitation of “the O-ring is entirely per-fluoroalkyl substances-free” was discussed but this would ultimately result in an obviousness rejection based Nachtmann and one of Cannioto (US20240200658A1), Morrow et al (US. 20230130234) and Otschik et al (US. 11892082)
It is noted that applicants are using abbreviations for many limitations in the claims, applicant should provide what the abbreviations stand form in the claims.
It is further noted that no claims are allowable, and examiner has no recommendations for any limitation in the specification to place the case in condition for allowance. Many more 103 rejections can be made from references stated above such as morrow and otschik.
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 1-13 are 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.
It is noted that applicants are using abbreviations for many limitations in the claims, applicant should provide what the abbreviations stand form in the claims (PFAS-free ABS, PEEK).
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) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nachtmann (US 10876632B2). It is noted that claim 10 is considered to be product by process
Nachtmann discloses (e.g. see annotated figure below) an O-ring having a cross-section comprising projections (e.g. P) on opposite sides of the O-ring such that pressure applied to the projections causes expansion of the O-ring in a direction orthogonal to the applied pressure (e.g. with regard to pressure applied is considered to be intended use and given or no little patentable weight in an apparatus claim when the O-ring of Nachtmann is capable of this, it is further noted that one skilled in the art can provide the O-ring of Nachtmann to seal which have fluid pressure such as defined by assignee {see references on form 892 and paragraph 0007 above}), wherein the O-ring comprises an elastomeric core (e.g. core of 2 and stated by Nachtmann “A suitable material for the core 2 is any suitable elastomer material”) and a non-elastomeric coating (e.g. film on core 2 which is made of polytetrafluoroethylene) on the elastomeric core. Wherein the O-ring is PFAS-free (e.g. “Rather than PTFE, the fluoropolymer film can consist of a thermoplastic fluoropolymer, in particular of FEP or PFA”). Wherein the O-ring is PFAS-free (e.g. the O-ring comprises a core of elastomeric material as stated in claim 5 hence PFAS free).
Regarding claim 2: Wherein the non-elastomeric coating comprises a plastic (e.g. see column 5, lines 52-60).
Regarding claim 3. Wherein the plastic is selected from the group consisting of ABS, a polyether, a polyamide, a polyaryletherketone, and PEEK (e.g. see column 5, lines 52 to column 6, line 25).
Regarding claim 4: Wherein the elastomeric core comprises a rubber (e.g. column 1, lines 32-55).
Regarding claim 5: Wherein the rubber is selected from the group consisting of: a synthetic rubber, nitrile rubber, an olefin thermoplastic rubber, EPDM rubber, ethylene propylene rubber, styrene butadiene rubber, butadiene rubber, neoprene rubber, silicone rubber, and polyurethane rubber (e.g. column 1, lines 35-55).
Regarding claim 6: Wherein the coating has a thickness of no more than 1000 µm (e.g. column 3, line 45).
Regarding claim 7: Wherein the coating has a thickness of no more than 500 µm (e.g. column 3, line 45).
Regarding claim 8: Wherein the coating has a thickness of no more than 300 µm (e.g. column 3, line 45).
Regarding claim 9: Wherein, relative to a rotational axis of symmetry of the O-ring, the projections extend axially and pressure applied to the projections causes expansion of the O-ring radially, or wherein the projections extend radially and pressure applied to the projections causes expansion of the O-ring axially (e.g. see projections P in figure below).
Regarding claim 10: Wherein the non-elastomeric coating is 3D printed onto the elastomeric core (e.g. coated is 3D printed is product-by-process limitations. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its associated methods, only the end result. See MPEP 2113. Since Nachtmann teaches to have a non-elastomeric coating, the end result is the same regardless of the method which is coating.).
Regarding claim 11: Wherein the coating has a lower thickness on at least one surface of the O-ring orthogonal to those comprising the projections (e.g. projections P have a first thickness which is larger than other coating portion CP in figure below), to facilitate the expansion of the O-ring (e.g. again intended use of expansion is given little or no patentable weight in an apparatus claim see MPEP 2113-2114, furthermore Nachtmann teaches structure of coating thicknesses).
Regarding claim 12: Wherein the O-ring is an O-ring for providing a seal in a mechanical seal system (e.g. mechanical system is considered to be intended use and given or no little patentable see MPEP 2113-2114, furthermore Nachtmann O-ring is capable of being placed in mechanical systems, it is further noted that one skilled in the art can provide the O-ring of Nachtmann to mechanical system provided by assignee {see references on form 892 and paragraph 0007 above}),).
Regarding claim 13: Wherein the mechanical seal is arranged to provide a seal around a rotating shaft (e.g. rotating shaft is considered to be intended use and given or no little patentable see MPEP 2113-2114, furthermore Nachtmann O-ring is capable of being placed in mechanical systems with a rotating shaft, it is further noted that one skilled in the art can provide the O-ring of Nachtmann to mechanical system having rotating shaft provided by assignee {see references on form 892 and paragraph 0007 above}),).
PNG
media_image1.png
311
307
media_image1.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) 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nachtmann in view of Cannioto (US. 20240200658).
Nachtmann discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the O-ring is entirely per-fluoroalkyl substances free. Cannioto discloses in paragraph 0021, In an embodiment, the seal 100 (including at least one of the jacket 102, washer 105, or the energizer 108) may be coated with a coating 115. The coating 115 may be a low friction coating containing a low friction material. In a number of embodiments, the low friction material can comprise materials including, for example, a polymer, such as a polyketone, a polyaramid, a polyimide, a polyetherimide, a polyphenylene sulfide, a polyethersulfone, a polysulfone, a polyphenylene sulfone, a polyamideimide, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene, a fluoropolymer, a polyamide, a polybenzimidazole, or any combination thereof. In an example, the low friction material includes a polyketone, a polyaramid, a polyimide, a polyetherimide, a polyamideimide, a polyphenylene sulfide, a polyphenylene sulfone, a fluoropolymer, a polybenzimidazole, a derivation thereof, or a combination thereof. In a particular example, the low friction/wear resistant layer includes a polymer, such as a polyketone, a thermoplastic polyimide, a polyetherimide, a polyphenylene sulfide, a polyether sulfone, a polysulfone, a polyamideimide, a derivative thereof, or a combination thereof. In a further example, the low friction/wear resistant layer includes polyketone, such as polyether ether ketone (PEEK), polyether ketone, polyether ketone ketone, polyether ketone ether ketone, a derivative thereof, or a combination thereof. In an additional example, the low friction/wear resistant layer may be an ultra high molecular weight polyethylene. An example fluoropolymer includes fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), perfluoroalkoxy (PFA), a terpolymer of tetrafluoroethylene, hexafluoropropylene and vinylidene fluoride (THV), polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE), ethylene tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE), ethylene chlorotrifluoroethylene copolymer (ECTFE), polyacetal, polybutylene terephthalate (PBT), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyimide (PI), polyetherimide, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyethylene (PE), polysulfone, polyamide (PA), polyphenylene oxide, polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyurethane, polyester, liquid crystal polymers (LCP), or any combination thereof. As used herein, a “low friction material” can be a material having a dry static coefficient of friction as measured against steel of less than 0.5, such as less than 0.4, less than 0.3, or even less than 0.2. A “high friction material” can be a material having a dry static coefficient of friction as measured against steel of greater than 0.6, such as greater than 0.7, greater than 0.8, greater than 0.9, or even greater than 1.0. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace the coating of Nachtmann with ABS, a polyether, a polyamide, a polyaryletherketone or PEEK as taught by Cannioto with reasonable expectation of success to provide materials that are low or high friction and providing different coatings is considered to be art equivalent replacement (see paragraph 0021 of Cannioto).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The form 892 teaches O-ring shown in figure 1 of application (US11298858, US20040173976, US2247609, US3009721, US3756126, US4240634 and US2859061), references on the form 892 also teach coatings on a core (US20170191565, US20250198517, US2717025, US2774621, US4214119, US442174 and US2859061) and references on the form 892 which teach different thickness of coatings (US3661401 and US3854736).
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