DETAILED ACTION
Preliminary Amendment
Preliminary Amendment of 10 October 2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 25-32 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claim 19 recites “the one or more measurement sensing elements are introduced into the
pockets” and depends from claims 18 and 15 which recite “one or more pocket-forming recesses” (claim 18) and “at least one measurement sensing element” (claim 15). For claim terminology consistency purposes, the examiner recommends amending claim 19 to recite the sensing elements and the pockets limitations following the terminology used in claims 15 and 18, respectively.
Claims 25-32 recite “The system of claim” and depend from claim 24 which recite “A rotating work machine”. For claim terminology consistency purposes, the examiner recommends amending claims 25-32 to recite “The rotating work machine of claim”.
Claim 31 recites “the temperature sensor” and includes all the limitations of claim 15 which recites “at least one temperature sensor”. For claim terminology consistency purposes, the examiner recommends amending claim 31 to recite the temperature sensor following the terminology used in claim 15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “at least one measurement sensing element” in claim 15, and “an evaluation unit” in claim 25.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 15 recites “at least two components … wherein a first component is … and a second component”; it is not clear if a first component and a second component are part of the at least two components or are additional and different components.
Claim 15 further recites the limitation “the temperature-based condition monitoring”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 16-34 depend or include all the limitations of claim 15 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 16 recites “further comprising: a counter ring … and the first component corresponds to the counter ring”; note that a counter ring is initially introduced as an additional separate component of the device and eventually the first component is defined as the counter ring. The examiner respectfully recommends amending the claim to recite “The device of claim 15, wherein the device is a slip-ring seal and the first component corresponds to a counter ring of the slip- ring seal.”
Claim 17 recites “the at least one measurement sensing element is embedded in a counter face of the first component facing the sliding face” and depends from claim 15 which recites “the first component has a sliding face”; it is not clear how a counter face of the first component faces the sliding face of said first component.
Claims 18-19 depend from claim 17 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 18 recites “at least one measurement sensing element” and depends from claim 15 which recites “at least one measurement sensing element”; it is not clear if at least one measurement sensing element in claim 18 refer to the same at least one measurement sensing element of claim 15 or is an additional and different component.
Claims 19 depends from claim 18 and fails to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 20 recites the terms “high thermal conductivity and/or low thermal capacity” which are relative terms that render the claim indefinite. The terms “high and low” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 21 depends from claim 20 and fails to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 21 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) which may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 21 recites the broad recitation “a ceramics material”, and the claim also recites “including silicon carbide” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 22 recites “multiple measurement sensing elements” and depends from claim 15 which recites “at least one measurement sensing element”; it is not clear if multiple measurement sensing elements in claim 22 refer to the at least one measurement sensing element of claim 15 as being multiple or are additional and different components.
Claim 22 further recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) which may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 22 recites the broad recitation “offset relative to one another”, and the claim also recites “including at a constant distance” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 23 depends from claim 22 and fails to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 23 recites “an annular component” and depends from claim 15 which recites “at least two components … a first component … a second component”; it is not clear if an annular component refers to any of the at least two components, the first component or the second component recited in claim 15 or to an additional and different component.
Claim 23 further recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) which may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitation “between 80 and 100 degrees”, and the claim also recites “including 90 degrees” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 24 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) which may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “A rotating work machine”, and the claim also recites “preferably a pump” and “including a centrifugal pump” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 25-32 depend from claim 24 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 25 recites the limitations “the measured values … the condition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 26-32 depend from claim 25 and fail to remedy its deficiencies.
Claim 27 recites the limitation “the rotation speed”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation “the temperature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the evaluation unit is configured to recognize and evaluate transient phenomena”, however, it is not clear how exactly the evaluation unit is configured to achieve the recognize and evaluate function. The specification does not provide details of how these functions are achieved by the evaluation unit, thereby rendering the claim indefinite.
Claim 30 further recites the limitation “the measure temperature profile”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitations “the temperature in the sealing gap … the temperature in the measuring point”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 32 recites a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) which may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 32 recites the broad recitation “the evaluation unit is part of the work machine or is a central computing unit”, and the claim also recites “including a cloud-based solution” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 34 recites “The method of claim 19” and claim 19 is directed to “The device of claim 18”, therefore, claim 34 is rendered indefinite because claim 34 is a method claim while claim 19 is a product claim. It appears that claim 34 should recite “The method of claim 33” (interpretation for prior art examination purposes).
Assuming claim 34 depends from claim 33, there would be another indefinite issue with respect to the “at least one measurement sensing element of a temperature sensor” limitation and said limitations being already introduced via claims 33 and 15.
Clarification and/or amendment is respectfully requested.
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) 15-19, 24-27, 29-30 and 32 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Korupp et al – hereafter Korupp – (US 20200124180 A1; also US 11,867,292 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Korupp teaches a device for forming a sliding bearing or a slip-ring seal (Fig.1-3), comprising: at least two components which move relative to one another (Fig.1-3), wherein
a first component (12) is a stationary component and a second component (103) is movable relative to the first component,
the first component has a sliding face (Fig.3) facing the second component, and at least one measurement sensing element (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a temperature dependent resistor to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Korupp teaches 21) of at least one temperature sensor (22) for the temperature-based condition monitoring of the device is embedded at least partially in the first component (in 13).
Regarding claim 16, Korupp further teaches further comprising: a counter ring (12), wherein the device is a slip-ring seal and the first component corresponds to the counter ring of the slip-ring seal (Fig.1-3).
Regarding claim 17, Korupp further teaches the at least one measurement sensing element is embedded (in 13) in a counter face of the first component facing the sliding face (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 18, Korupp further teaches the counter face has one or more pocket-forming recesses (13) for introduction of in each case at least one measurement sensing element (21).
Regarding claim 19, Korupp further teaches there is provided a sensor board (26) modeled on at least a portion of the counter face and applied, (including adhesively bonded – indefinite limitation), to the counter face (in 13), wherein the one or more measurement sensing elements are introduced into the pockets provided in the first component (Fig.13).
Regarding claim 24, Korupp further teaches a rotating work machine (Fig.1-3), (preferably a pump, including a centrifugal pump – indefinite limitations), having at least one device as claimed in claim 15 (see claim 15 above) for mounting a shaft and/or for sealing a shaft (103) with respect to a wall of the work machine (Fig.1-2).
Regarding claim 25, Korupp further teaches the system comprises an evaluation unit (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a controller to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Korupp teaches 28) configured to receive the measured values of the at least one temperature sensor (measured value W via 25) and to monitor the condition of the sliding bearing or of the slip-ring seal on the basis of the received measured temperature values (¶37-38).
Regarding claim 26, Korupp further teaches the evaluation unit is configured to recognize the condition of the sliding bearing or of the slip-ring seal on the basis of the measured temperature values and at least one further operating parameter of the work machine (¶47-48; note a method in which the speed of the drive motor of the pump shaft is adapted on the basis of the digital measured value W … method may include … a reduction in the speed of the drive motor if the temperature value exceeds a limit temperature).
Regarding claim 27, Korupp further teaches the at least one further operating parameter is the rotation speed (¶47-48; note a method in which the speed of the drive motor of the pump shaft is adapted on the basis of the digital measured value W … method may include … a reduction in the speed of the drive motor if the temperature value exceeds a limit temperature).
Regarding claim 29, Korupp further teaches the at least one further operating parameter is a pressure acting on the sliding bearing or the slip-ring seal (¶47/51; note a method in which the speed of the drive motor of the pump shaft is adapted on the basis of the digital measured value W … method may include … a reduction or increase in the speed as a function of the measured pressure value).
Regarding claim 30, Korupp further teaches the evaluation unit is configured to recognize and evaluate transient phenomena in the measured temperature profile (¶9, note its temperature can be measured with high temporal resolution).
Regarding claim 32, Korupp further teaches the evaluation unit is part of the work machine or is a central computing unit, (including a cloud-based solution – indefinite limitation), that is communicatively connected to the work machine (¶38, note the evaluation unit 28 arranged at a distance (alternatively, connections with other control or monitoring devices are also possible)).
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, 20-21 and 33-34 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamdard (US 20210396270 A1; also US 11,486,441 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Hamdard teaches a device for forming a sliding bearing (Fig.1-9) or a slip-ring seal, comprising: at least two components which move relative to one another (Fig.5), wherein
a first component (unlabeled in Fig.5) is a stationary component and a second component (1) is movable relative to the first component,
the first component has a sliding face facing the second component (Fig.5), and at least one measurement sensing element (this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a temperature dependent resistor to accomplish the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Hamdard teaches 6) of at least one temperature sensor for the temperature-based condition monitoring (¶75, note detect at least one operating parameter … the temperature and/or the pressure) of the device is embedded at least partially in the second component (Fig.1-5).
Hamdard does not explicitly teach the at least one measurement sensing element of at least one temperature sensor of the device is embedded at least partially in the first component.
However, it has been held that if shifting the position of a component in a device would not have modified the operation of said device, said position shift of said component is unpatentable, additionally, a particular placement of a component in a device has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice. In the current instance, there is no evidence that having the at least one measurement sensing element of at least one temperature sensor of the device is embedded at least partially in the first component, would change the operation of the device, therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Hamdard by shifting the position/placement of the at least one measurement sensing element of at least one temperature sensor of the device to be embedded at least partially in the first component as an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP 2144.04 VI C).
Regarding claim 20, Hamdard further teaches the first component is manufactured from or comprises a material with high thermal conductivity and/or low thermal capacity (indefinite limitations – Hamdard teaches ¶65, note SiC).
Regarding claim 21, Hamdard further teaches the first component is manufactured from a ceramics material including silicon carbide (¶65, note SiC).
Regarding claim 33, Hamdard further teaches a method for producing a device as claimed in claim 15 (see claim 15 above), wherein one or more pocket-like recesses are worked into the first component via a machining method (¶105, note laser … residue-free ablation).
Regarding claim 34, Hamdard further teaches the machining method comprises laser ablation (¶105, note laser … residue-free ablation) and at least one measurement sensing element of a temperature sensor is inserted into each pocket-like recess (Fig.2).
Claim(s) 22-23 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korupp as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Zhang et al – hereafter Zhang – (CN 115111368 A).
Regarding claim 22, Korupp teaches all the limitations of claim 15, see above, however, does not explicitly teach multiple measurement sensing elements are embedded in the first component offset relative to one another, including at a constant distance from one another.
Zhang teaches a sealing device (Fig.1-3) including multiple measurement sensing elements (102) embedded in a first component (2) offset relative to one another, including at a constant distance from one another (Fig.3, note four measurement sensing elements 102 are shown offset at a constant distance of 90 degrees from one another). This configuration allows the temperature measuring points being uniformly set on the sealing device (machine translation page 4 ¶3) which results in better overall temperature monitoring of the sealing device.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Korupp by having multiple measurement sensing elements are embedded in the first component offset relative to one another, including at a constant distance from one another based on the teachings of Zhang because this would allow the temperature measuring points being uniformly set on the device which results in better overall temperature monitoring of the sealing device.
Regarding claim 23, Korupp and Zhang further teach in the case of an annular component an angular offset between the measurement sensing elements of between 80 and 100 degrees, including 90 degrees, is provided (Zhang Fig.3, note four measurement sensing elements 102 are shown offset at a constant distance of 90 degrees from one another).
Claim(s) 28 (as far as the claim(s) are definite and understood) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Korupp as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Schwenk (US 20200284350 A1; also US 11,598,425 B2).
Regarding claim 28, Korupp teaches all the limitations of claim 26, see above, however, does not explicitly teach the at least one further operating parameter is the temperature of a fluid conveyed through the work machine.
Schwenk teaches a sealing device (Fig.1-4) including monitoring, with a temperature sensor on a leakage side of a seal face, the temperature of a leaked fluid (¶13). This configuration helps determining the size of the leakage (¶13).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the machine of Korupp by the at least one further operating parameter is the temperature of a fluid conveyed through the work machine based on the teachings of Schwenk because this would allow determined a size of a leakage of fluid conveyed through the work machine.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN G FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-3486. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30am - 5:30pm Pacific Time.
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, Nathan E Wiehe can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JUAN G FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights