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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the fluid pumping impressions" in Lines 2 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the fluid pumping impressions" in Line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the fluid pumping impressions" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9 - 13 are rejected, as it depends on Claim 6.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the fluid channels" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the flexing channels" and the “fluid channels” in Lines 1 and 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bock et al. (U.S. Patent # 6715768) in view of Hatch et al. (U.S. PG Pub # 20120280457).
Regarding Claim 1, Bock discloses a method of making a PTFE shaft seal wafer (fig 1B), comprising: preparing an annular wafer preform of PTFE material that is of uniform thickness (1 made of PTFE and uniform thickness) and that has an outer region and an inner region (outer region 2 and inner region 3) and opposite first and second sides (sides of 1).
Bock does not disclose coining the wafer preform including pressing and permanently deforming the inner region between opposing coining dies to impress a plurality of coined dynamic fluid impressions into the first side, and to further coin a reduced-thickness static band portion that is free of fluid impressions and which encircles a central opening of the wafer to form a coined wafer.
However, Hatch teaches coining the wafer preform including pressing and permanently deforming the wafer ( Para 0029 – 44, fig 3 formed by coining operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to coin the wafer of Bock as in Hatch with a reasonable expectation of success so that the coining operation increases the flexibility of the seal (Hatch Para 0010).
The combination of Bock and Hatch discloses coining the wafer preform including pressing and permanently deforming ( Hatch Para 0029 – 44, fig 3 formed by coining operation) the inner region (Bock - inner region of 1) between opposing coining dies to impress a plurality of coined dynamic fluid impressions into the first side (Bock - dynamic fluid impressions 7 as seen in examiner annotated fig 1B below), and to further coin a reduced-thickness static band portion (Bock 9) that is free of fluid impressions (Bock 9 free of fluid impressions is coined) and which encircles a central opening of the wafer to form a coined wafer (Bock 1 coined by Hatch method).
PNG
media_image1.png
604
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Bock and Hatch discloses the method, wherein the outer region (Bock 2) of the coined wafer is uncoined following the pressing and deforming step of the inner region (Bock 2 is uncoined), and wherein the uncoined outer region has a thickness greater than the reduced-thickness static band portion of the inner region (Bock – thickness of 2 greater than that of 9).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Bock and Hatch discloses the method, wherein the step of coining the wafer preform includes coining flexing impressions (as seen in examiner annotated Bock fig 1B below) into the second side of the inner region of the wafer (as seen in examiner annotated Bock fig 1B below).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Bock and Hatch discloses the method, wherein the wafer preform is formed with a central opening of predetermined initial diameter (Bock 1 with an opening of a diameter), and wherein the step of coining the wafer preform includes decreasing the diameter of the opening in the process of coining the static band portion (Bock 1 by coining of Hatch includes decreasing the diameter of the opening in the process of coining the static band portion).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Bock and Hatch discloses the assembly, wherein the coined static band portion has a defined maximum coined thickness t2 (Bock – thickness of 9) and at least a portion of the outer region of the wafer is uncoined (bock 2 is uncoined) and has an uncoined thickness t1 that is greater than the coined thickness t2 of the static band portion (Bock – thickness of 2 is greater than that of 9).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Bock and Hatch discloses the assembly, wherein the step of coining the wafer preform includes coining flexing impressions into the second side of the inner region of the wafer (Bock flexing impressions coined by Hatch method), the fluid pumping impressions and flexing impressions include a plurality of respective peaks separated by intervening respective valleys (Bock – valleys and peaks of 3), and wherein a coined thickness t3 of the inner region as measured between the base of the valleys of the fluid pumping impressions and flexing impressions is less than the thickness t1 of the uncoined outer region, and less than the thickness t2 of the static band (Bock - coined thickness of the inner region 3 as measured between the base of the valleys of the fluid pumping impressions and flexing impressions of 3 is less than the thickness of the uncoined outer region 2, and less than the thickness of the static band 9).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Bock and Hatch discloses the assembly, wherein a coined thickness t4 of the inner region as measured between the peaks of the fluid pumping impressions and flexing impressions is greater than the uncoined thickness t1 of the outer region and greater than the coined thickness t2 of the static band (Bock - coined thickness of the inner region 3 as measured between the peaks of the fluid pumping impressions and flexing impressions of 3 is greater than the uncoined thickness of the outer region 2 and greater than the coined thickness of the static band 9).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Bock and Hatch discloses the assembly, wherein the peaks of the fluid pumping impressions are displaced below a first side surface of the uncoined outer region ( Bock - peaks of the fluid pumping impressions of 3 are displaced below a first side surface of the uncoined outer region 2).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Bock and Hatch discloses the assembly, wherein the valleys of the coined fluid channels all have the same depth (Bock – valleys of fluid impressions have same depth).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Bock and Hatch discloses the assembly, wherein the valleys of the coined flexing channels are offset from the valleys of the coined fluid channels (Bock - valleys of the coined flexing impressions are offset from the valleys of the coined fluid impressions).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Bock and Hatch discloses the assembly, wherein at least some of the peaks of the flexing impressions are coplanar with the second side surface of the outer portion.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Bock and Hatch discloses the assembly, wherein the coined static band is spaced from the nearest adjacent valley of the flexing impressions by an intervening valley of the flexing impressions and an intervening peak of the flexing impressions (Bock - coined static band 9 is spaced from the nearest adjacent valley of the flexing impressions by an intervening valley of the flexing impressions and an intervening peak of the flexing impressions of 3).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Bock and Hatch discloses the assembly, wherein the valleys of the coined fluid impressions are generally coplanar with the first side surface of the uncoined outer region (Bock - valleys of the coined fluid impressions of 3 are generally coplanar with the first side surface of the uncoined outer region 2) and the valleys of the coined flexing impressions are displaced below the second surface of the uncoined outer region (Bock - valleys of the coined flexing impressions are displaced below the second surface of the uncoined outer region 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
604
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to L. Susmitha Koneru whose telephone number is 571.270.5333. The examiner can normally be reached from Monday-Friday, 9:00 AM-4:00 PM.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/L. SUSMITHA KONERU/Examiner, Art Unit 3675
