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 Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “at” in the first line doesn’t really make sense. It seems applicant meant to recite “a premise-side pipe network”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 33 and 36 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 33 recites the limitation "said pig train" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 36, line 3 recites “b. optionally, a resin; c. an elastic material; and d. a polycondensate material. It is not clear how the word optionally modifies the claimed method. Is the resin alone optional or does the optional language also apply to the elastic material and the polycondensate material? Clarification is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 25-33, 35-36 and 39-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0311605 A1 to Perstnev (Perstnev) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0124223 A1 to Phillis et al. (Phillis).
Phillis discloses a method of plugging undesired openings in fluid conduits (Phillis, title, abstract), an analogous field of endeavor to Perstnev.
With regard to claim 25, Perstnev discloses a method for sealing at least one leak (Perstnev, title, abstract) in at least one of a premise-side pipe and at premise- side pipe network (not disclosed), the method comprising;
a. activating a pressure control system (paragraph 0024) for controlling a pressure in said premises-side pipe network (described in paragraphs 0025-0027), the pressure control system comprising at least one flow meter (not disclosed) configured to measure a liquid flow rate and at least one valve (12, fig. 1, paragraph 0017) for controlling said pressure (valve 12 performs this function by fluidly isolating the leaking portion of the pipe system allowing the rest of the pressure control system to locate the sealant composition adjacent the leak. Even if it is argued that the identified valve is distinguished from that claimed, the pressure supply elements providing pressures P1 and P2 in figs. 2d and 2e are not described in Perstnev, but those supply elements all include functionally equivalent valves that perform this pressure control function); and
b. passing at least one gel pig (M2, fig. 2c, paragraph 0021) and a sealant composition (M1, fig. 2c, paragraph 0021) comprising fibers (not disclosed) under pressure along the premise-side pipe and at least part of said premises-side pipe network such that a portion of said at least one gel pig and said sealant composition flows at said pressure and enters said at least one leakage site to seal said at least one leak (shown in figs. 2d and 2e).
Perstnev fails to disclose a premise side pipe and network, a flow meter, and fibers in the sealant composition. With regard to “a premise side pipe and a premise -ide pipe network”, Perstnev discloses the favorability of using the method to seal leaks in pipelines that lay underneath building (paragraph 0004). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the method Perstnev to seal leaks in a premise side pipe network such as described in paragraph 0004.
Phillis discloses the use of fibers in a sealing composition to close holes in fluid conduits (62, fig. 9A, paragraph 0068). Phillips further discloses differing sizes of the bodies having fibers for use where the holes forming leaks are various sizes such as caused by corrosion as disclosed in paragraph 0069.
Phillips further discloses the use of a sensor (38, fig. 8, paragraph 0061) that can measure flow rate (paragraph 0062) in order to detect the presence of a leak.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the sealing devices of Phillis in a variety of sizes as taught by Phillis in paragraph 0069 to the sealing composition of Perstnev in order to provide an enhanced ability to close leaks of different sizes. It would have been further obvious to include a sensor having a flow meter to facilitate the method of Perstnev, for example by providing feedback on the initial plugging of the leak with plugging devices when the sealing composition is adjacent the leak to determine when the system should be activated to move the gel pig adjacent the leak location to complete the curing process and return the pipe system to service.
With regard to claim 26, Perstnev in view of Phillis discloses a method according to claim 25 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein said leak is in said premise-side pipe network (as defined above in the rejection of claim 26, the premises side pipe network is defined as the portion of a pipe network having a leak).
With regard to claim 27, Perstnev in view of Phillis discloses a method according to claim 25 as set forth above, and further discloses comprising passing said at least gel pig and said sealant composition from a premise-side pipe into all of said premises-side pipe network (Perstnev discloses a pipe network that includes a master shutoff, an upstream access port and a downstream access port, wherein the ports are located upstream and downstream from a leak).
With regard to claim 28, Perstnev in view of Phillis discloses the method of claim 25 as set forth above, new claim 28 is similar in scope to claim 25 except there is not requirement for a fibers. Accordingly all of the elements of a method for sealing a leak in a premise-side pipe network, the method comprising:
a. activating a pressure control system for controlling a pressure in said premises-side pipe network, the pressure control system comprising at least one flow meter configured to measure a liquid flow rate and at least one valve for controlling said pressure; and
b. passing at least one gel pig and a sealant composition comprising fibers under pressure along a first pipeline to said premises-side pipe network at said pressure such that a portion of said at least one of a pig train and a sealant composition enters at least a part of said premises-side pipe network to a location of said leak to seal said leak (as set forth in the rejection of claim 25).
With regard to claim 29, Perstnev in view of Phillis discloses the method of claim 25 as set forth above. New claim 29 is the same in scope as claim 25 except forth addition of step c. (new) A method for sealing a leak at a leakage site in a premise-side pipe, the method comprising:
a. activating a pressure control system for controlling a pressure in said premises-side pipe network, the pressure control system comprising at least one flow meter configured to measure a liquid flow rate and at least one valve for controlling said pressure; and
b. passing at least one gel pig and a sealant composition comprising fibers under pressure along a premises-side pipeline such that a portion of said at least one gel pig and said sealant composition enters said premises-side pipeline from outside said premises at said pressure (see rejection of claim 25 above for the sealing step of the method in which a leak is sealed); and
c. allowing said portion to reach said leak site and to seal said leak (shown in fig. 2d of Perstnev).
With regard to claim 30, Perstnev in view of Phillis discloses a method according to claim 25 as set forth above, and Perstnev further discloses wherein the premises-side pipeline and said premises-side pipe network are adapted to convey a fluid selected from the group consisting of water (paragraph 0001), gas, a heating fluid a cooling fluid and a drain pipe.
With regard to claim 31, Perstnev in view of Phillis discloses a method according to claim 25 as set forth above, and Perstnev further discloses wherein said at least one gel pig comprise one gel pig (as set forth in the rejection above, M1 functions as a gel pig).
With regard to claim 32, Perstnev in view of Phillis discloses a method according to claim 31 as set forth above, and Perstnev further discloses wherein said at least one gel pig comprises at least two gel pigs (M1 as set forth in the rejection of claim 31 above, where M2 also functions as a gel pig).
With regard to claim 33, Perstnev in view of Phillis discloses a method according to claim 32 as set forth above, wherein said pig train further comprises a sealant composition (in view of the 112 rejection, the at least two gel pigs of claim 32 are considered a pig train and one of the gel pigs includes the sealant composition).
With regard to claim 35, Perstnev in view of Phillips discloses a method according to claim 25 as set forth above, but does not disclose wherein said at least one gel pig and said sealant composition is at a temperature of 4-50 °C.
The range of temperatures between 4 and 50 degrees Celsius is conveniently the same temperature range as the substrate for pipes needing repairs. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the sealant composition of Perstnev in view of Phillis with a sealant that cures without the need for an external heat source.
With regard to claim 36, Perstnev in view of Phillips discloses a method according to claim 33 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein said sealant composition comprises:
a. a hardener (Perstnev, paragraph 0033);
b. optionally (in view of the 112 rejection above, this additional limitation is considered to be optional), a resin;
c. an elastic material (Perstnev, paragraph 0039); and
d. a polycondensate material (Perstnev, paragraph 0035).
with regard to claim 39, Perstnev in view of Phillips discloses a method according to claim 25 as set forth above, and Perstnev further discloses wherein said leak is selected from the group consisting of a hole, a crack (Perstnev, paragraph 0001), a corroded section and combinations thereof.
With regard to claim 40, Perstnev in view of Phillips discloses a method according to claim 39 as set forth above, but fails to further disclose wherein said leak loses 0.05-5000 l/hr of said fluid.
The range of fluid loss claimed is so large as to encompass almost all leaks. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the method claimed to fix a leak wherein said leak loses more than 0.05 liters and less than 5000 liters per hour, since the leakage rate is related to hole size and the different size sealant components disclosed by Phillips are adapted to close different sized holes.
With regard to claim 41, Perstnev in view of Phillips discloses a method according to claim 25 as set forth above, and Perstnev further discloses comprising sealing at least one leak in said pipeline (as shown in fig. 2f of Perstnev).
With regard to claim 42, Perstnev in view of Phillips discloses a method according to claim 25 as set forth above, and Perstnev further discloses comprising sealing a plurality of leaks in a plurality of pipes (paragraph 0001, note the use of the plural “cracks”).
With regard to claim 43, Perstnev in view of Phillips discloses a method according to claim 25 as set forth above, but does not further disclose wherein said pressure is in a range of 0.4-10 bar.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide a system for sealing cracks in pipe that does not require special equipment and .4-10 bar encompasses almost all readily available pressures.
With regard to claim 44, Perstnev in view of Phillips discloses a method according to claim 25 as set forth above, and Perstnev further discloses wherein said seal is formed in less than three hours after reaching said leak (Perstnev, paragraph 0008).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34, 37 and 38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With regard to claim 34, the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a method as claimed including both fibers and chips in the sealant composition, together in combination with the other elemenets.
With regard to claims 37 and 38, the prior art of record teaches the method claim 36, but not the specific composition of the at least one gel pig.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DEAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8-4 pm CST.
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 supervisors can be reached at: Craig M Schneider at (571) 272-3607 and Ken Rinehart at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/DAVID R DEAL/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights