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 § 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 15-34 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.
Claim 1, “(ID)”, “(OD)”, unclear what applicant means by this.
Claim 17, “the outer diameter (OD) face circumferential groove”, unclear what this means in view of claim 16 and also applicant should use consistent claim limitation to make claims clear?
Also other claims having ID or/and/ (ID) and/or OD and/or (OD), unclear what this means.
Claims are rejected as best understood and applicants should review all claims.
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) 15 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebert et al (US.5039115).
Hebert discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose a seal segment (e.g. segment shown in figure below) comprising an arcuate body (e.g. body of the segment) having a first end, a second end circumferentially opposite the first end (e.g. 1st and 2nd ends in figure below), a first face (e.g. 10a), a second face (e.g. face opposite 10a) axially opposite the first face, an inner diameter face (e.g. see figure 1, inner diameter face facing 1), an outer diameter face (e.g. see outer diameter face having 18), wherein the seal segment is shaped to inter-fit with a plurality of identical seal segments first end to second end to form a seal surrounding a central longitudinal axis (e.g. other segments are intended use see MPEP 2113-2114 but Herbert is capable of forming a seal ring with segments as shown in figure 1, the seal ring 10 is formed of identical segments), the outer diameter face having a recess (e.g. recess 11 receiving the lug as shown in figure below) receiving a radially protruding lug (e.g. lug in figure below) with radial reliefs at the protruding lug first circumferential end and second circumferential end (e.g. reliefs defined in figure below). Wherein the outer diameter face has a circumferential groove (e.g. groove having 18). Wherein the recess is between the circumferential groove and the second face. The radial protruding lug is the only lug and the recess is the only recess that receives the radially protruding lug (e.g. see figure below). The seal segment is majority by weight carbon (e.g. 10 is graphite ring). The radial reliefs are concavities (see figure below, the reliefs). The radially protruding lug having a radial height, a width and thickness (e.g. the radially protruding lug is a 3-deminsional lug with would defines a height, width and thickness). Hebert discloses a seal stage comprising a plurality of seal segments of claim inter-fitting end to end and the garter spring holding the seal segments together (see entire document).
PNG
media_image1.png
389
532
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hebert discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the outer diameter face has a radially protruding lug having a first circumferential end and a second circumferential end and the outer diameter face has respective radial reliefs at the protruding lug first circumferential end and second circumferential end (it is noted that Hebert teaches opposite structures and all one skilled in the art would have to do is reverse the structures). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have on an outer member and recess on an inner member of Hebert be reversed as the recess on the outer member and the lug on inner member, with reasonable expectation of success since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazada, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955).
Examiner is also providing documents that lug is placed on inner member and recess receiving the lug is placed on outer member (US 20200158023 lug 153 on inner member and recess 132 on outer member, US9611846 lug 62 on inner member and recess 64 on outer member, US9004495 lug 61 on inner member and recess 62 on outer member, US4880244 figure 3 recess 7a on inner member and lug 7 on outer member and same reference US4880244 figure 4 teaches to have lug 8b on inner member and recess 8a on outer member and US4754984 teaches lug 30 on inner member and recess 34 on outer member).
Claim(s) 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebert in view of Hayes (e.g. US. 9695940).
Hebert discloses the invention as claimed above but fails to disclose the first face has a circumferential channel closer to the inner diameter face than the outer diameter face, a plurality of channels extending from the circumferential channel to the OD face, the inner diameter face has a circumferential channel closer to the first face than the second face and a plurality of channels extending from the circumferential channel to the second face. Hayes discloses a ring having seal segments (e.g. 100), each seal segment having a first face (e.g. first face having 72) having a circumferential channel (e.g. circumferential channel 74 connected by radial channels 72) closer to an inner diameter face (e.g. inner diameter face 54) than an outer diameter face (e.g. 52), a plurality of channels (e.g. radial channels 72) extending from the circumferential channel to an outer diameter face (e.g. 52), the inner diameter face has a circumferential channel (e.g. 80) closer to the first face than a second face (e.g. second face 56 axially opposite the first face 58) and a plurality of channels (e.g. 84) extending from the circumferential channel to the second face. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first face and the inner diameter face of Hebert to have circumferential channel and plurality of radial channels as taught by Hayes with reasonable expectation of success to provide fluid film between the seal segment and the shaft (e.g. see entire summary of the invention in Hayes, many teaching reasons stated).
Claim(s) 22-23 and 28-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hebert and Hayes.
Hebert discloses the claimed invention except the thickness of 40 % to 60% of the overall segment axial span, the radially protruding lug has a thickness of 3.0mm to 7.0mm, the radially protruding lug having a radial height of 2.0mm to 5.0mm and the radially protruding lug has a width of 10.0mm to 20.00mm. Discovering an optimum range of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Kulling, 895 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ 2d 1056. Without the showing of some unexpected result. Since applicant has not shown some unexpected result the inclusion of this limitation is considered to be a matter of choice in design. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the dimension of the radially protruding lug of Hebert be in the range stated above with reasonable expectation of success as a matter of design choice. Furthermore to change dimension is dependent on size of the ring, environment, size of machine and etc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant should review all documents cited on form 892, many teach lugs and recess receiving the lugs, many references teach circumferential and radial channels and more. No claims are allowable in view of the rejections above.
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