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 .
The amendment filed 4/22/26 has been entered.
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) 21-24, 26-28, 30-35, 37-40, and 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prudhomme et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0388901) in view of Fuller (US Patent No. 6,588,764).
Regarding claim 21, the Prudhomme et al. (hereinafter Prudhomme) reference discloses a sealing ring assembly (200 and equivalents) comprising:
a plurality of ring segments (Figs. 4-18), wherein:
at least one ring segment of the plurality of ring segments comprises:
a radially outward facing surface (e.g. radially outward facing surface of any segment) that at least partially defines a circle (Figs. 4-18) and is configured to seal against a bore Fig. 20),
an axial surface e.g. any axial surface of segments contacting another segment) configured to seal against an adjacent ring segment of the plurality of ring segments (Fig. 6).
However, the Prudhomme reference fails to explicitly disclose at least one flexure; and
a blind hole extending along a chord of the circle;
a flexure of the at least one flexure is arranged in the blind hole; and
the flexure interfaces with the adjacent ring segment of the plurality.
The Fuller reference, a piston seal, discloses the addition of a flexure (30) in a blind hole (20b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a flexure in a blind hole to the Prudhomme reference in view of the teachings of the Fuller reference in order to allow for optimal sealing pressure and wear.
Regarding claims 22 and 33, the Prudhomme reference, as modified in claims 21 and 32 discloses the flexure generates a force along the chord (Fuller, Figs. 1,3,4).
Regarding claims 23 and 34, the Prudhomme reference, as modified in claims 22 and 33, discloses the force comprises 1) a radially outward force to cause a radially outward surface of a pair of adjacent ring segments of the plurality of ring segments to seal against a bore of a cylinder (Fuller, Figs. 1,3,4) a tangential force to be applied on the sealing ring assembly (Fuller, Figs. 1,3,4).
Regarding claims 24 and 35, the Prudhomme reference, as modified in claims 21 and 32, discloses the at least one ring segment comprises a wedge shape (Prudhomme, Figs. 4-18).
Regarding claims 26 and 37, the Prudhomme reference, as modified in claims 21 and 32, discloses the at least one flexure comprises a spring (Fuller, Figs. 1,3,4).
Regarding claim 27, the Prudhomme reference, as modified in claim 27 discloses the spring comprises a coiled spring (Fuller, Figs. 1,3,4).
Regarding claim 28, the Prudhomme reference, as modified in claim 27, discloses a pin (Fuller, 50) arranged along a length of the coiled spring (Fuller, Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 30 and 39, the Prudhomme reference, as modified in claims 21 and 32, discloses an opening of the blind hole is offset toward an axial end of the at least one ring segment (Fuller, Figs. 1,3,4); and
the opening is closer to a radially inward external surface of the at least one ring segment than a radially outward external surface of the at least one ring segment (Fuller, Figs. 1,3,4).
Regarding claims 31 and 40, the Prudhomme reference, as modified in claims 21 and 32, discloses the blind hole extends into the at least one ring segment parallel to a surface profile of a wedge shaped surface of the adjacent ring segment (Fuller, Figs. 1,3,4).
Regarding claim 32, the Prudhomme reference discloses a device (900) comprising:
a cylinder (960) comprising a bore (962); and
a sealing ring assembly (200 and equivalents) comprising:
a plurality of ring segments (Figs. 4-18), wherein:
at least one ring segment of the plurality of ring segments comprises:
a radially outward facing surface (e.g. radially outward facing surface of any segment) that at least partially defines a circle (Figs. 4-18) and is configured to seal against a bore Fig. 20),
an axial surface e.g. any axial surface of segments contacting another segment) configured to seal against an adjacent ring segment of the plurality of ring segments (Fig. 6).
However, the Prudhomme reference fails to explicitly disclose at least one flexure; and
a blind hole extending along a chord of the circle;
a flexure of the at least one flexure is arranged in the blind hole; and
the flexure interfaces with the adjacent ring segment of the plurality.
The Fuller reference, a piston seal, discloses the addition of a flexure (30) in a blind hole (20b).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a flexure in a blind hole to the Prudhomme reference in view of the teachings of the Fuller reference in order to allow for optimal sealing pressure and wear.
Regarding claim 38, the Prudhomme reference, as modified in claim 37, discloses a pin (Fuller, 50) arranged along a length of the coiled spring (Fuller, Fig. 4) wherein the pin comprises a rounded head (Fuller, head of 50).
Regarding claim 42, the Prudhomme reference, as modified in claim 21, discloses the axial surface is a first axial surface (Prudhomme, Figs. 4-18); and
the at least one ring segment further comprises a second axial surface facing axially reward to seal against a land of a piston (Prudhomme, Figs. 4-18 and 20).
Claim(s) 25, 29, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prudhomme in view of Fuller as applied to claims 21-24, 26-28, 30-35, and 37-40 above, and further in view of Semenov (WO2009/065205).
Regarding claims 25 and 36, the modified Prudhomme reference disclose the invention substantially as claimed in claims 21 and 32.
However, the modified Prudhomme reference fails to explicitly disclose the adjacent ring segment comprises a notch that accommodates a portion of the flexure or at least one flexure assembly comprising the flexure.
The Semenov reference, a piston seal, discloses providing a notch (11 or 7) that accommodates a portion of the flexure or at least one flexure assembly comprising the flexure (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a notch in the modified Prudhomme reference in view of the teachings of the Semenov reference in order to prevent the flexure from slipping.
Regarding claim 29, the modified Prudhomme reference discloses the invention substantially as claimed in claim 28, including the pin including a rounded head (Fuller, head of 50.
However, the modified Prudhomme reference fails to explicitly disclose the adjacent ring segment comprises a notch engages the rounded head.
The Semenov reference, a piston seal, discloses providing a notch (11 or 7) that accommodates the rounded head (Figs. 3-5, 7-9, 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a notch in the modified Prudhomme reference in view of the teachings of the Semenov reference in order to prevent the flexure from slipping.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 and 42 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILBERT Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5894. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-430pm.
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.
/GILBERT Y LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675
Prosecution Insights