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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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:
the “coupling elements” and “Separation Module” in claim 1.
the “cutting module”, in claims 1-3 and 8.
the “Transportation module” in claims 1 and 15.
the “Cutting sub-module” in claim 1, and the second “cutting sub-module” in claim 3.
the “guiding element” in claim 3.
the “flattening module” in claim 10.
With regard to the term “coupling elements”:
first, the term “elements” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “coupling”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “coupling” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the coupling elements.
The phrase “coupling elements” does not appear to be present in the specification. Thus, it is not clear what structure corresponds to this element?
With regard to the term “cutting module”:
first, the term “module” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “cutting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “cutting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the cutting module.
With regard to the term “Separation Module”:
first, the term “Module” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “Separation”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “Separation” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the Separation Module.
With regard to the term “Transportation module”:
first, the term “module” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “Transportation”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “Transportation” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the Transportation module.
In the specification it is noted that the transportation module “may be implemented as an extraction module”. However, there is no explicit disclosure of the structure corresponding to the extraction module. An extraction module itself is not a type of structure understood in the art, but instead another generic placeholder following function. The specification also discloses “an extractor”, but never states that the extractor corresponds to the transportation module, or the extraction module.
With regard to the term “Cutting sub-module”:
first, the term “sub-module” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “Cutting”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “Cutting” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the Cutting sub-module.
In the specification, it is noted that “In another implementation, the device comprises an elongate conduit guiding element arranged to be inserted in the conduit, wherein a first cutting sub-module of the cutting module is provided on the conduit guiding element”. However, there is no further description in the specification for this structure. As such, there does not appear to be any corresponding structure in the specification.
With regard to the term “guiding element”:
first, the term “element” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “guiding”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “guiding” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the guiding elements.
With regard to the term “flattening module”:
first, the term “module” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “flattening”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “flattening” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the flattening module.
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 § 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 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 5782305 Hicks, in view of USPN 3831248, Duncan and the teachings of USPN 5171106, Rockower.
Regarding Claim 1, Hicks discloses a device for processing a conduit (combination of tubing 11, and collars 13), the conduit comprising coupling elements (13), and the device comprising:
An extraction module 14 for extracting the conduit from the ground by continuously pulling the conduit out of the ground (col 2, 60-70 and col. 3, 1-15).
Hicks lacks a cutting module arranged to cut at least part of the conduit over a longitudinal axis of the conduit by creating a first cut line in a first side of the conduit substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the conduit and a second cut line in the conduit on a second side of the conduit opposite the first side; a separation module arranged to separate a first part of the conduit on a first side of the first cut line from a second part of the conduit on a second side of the first cut line; and a module for driving the conduit along the cutting module and the separation module; wherein the cutting module includes a first cutting sub-module arranged to create the first cut line from at least part of an outside of the conduit toward an inside of the conduit and the cutting module comprises a second cutting sub-module arranged to create the second cut line from at least part of the outside of the conduit toward the inside of the conduit, and wherein the first and second cutting sub-modules are arranged to provide the first cut line and the second cut line in the coupling elements.
Duncan discloses a rod splitter device in the same field of endeavor as the rod splitter tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes: a cutting module (18 and 16) arranged to cut at least part of the conduit over a longitudinal axis of the conduit by creating a first cut line in a first side of the conduit substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the conduit (col 2 55-65, line cut by the cutters on right in fig 1) and a second cut line in the conduit on a second side of the conduit opposite the first side (line cut by the cutters on left in fig 1); a separation module (26) arranged to separate a first part of the conduit on a first side of the first cut line from a second part of the conduit on a second side of the first cut line (col 6, 1-0); and a transportation module (70 and 72, 36) for driving the conduit along the cutting module (the parts 70/72 drive the tool through the conduit and thus, in turn drive the conduit along the cutting module) and the separation module (col. 3, 1-20); wherein the cutting module includes a first cutting sub-module (cutters on left of fig 1) arranged to create the first cut line from at least part of an outside of the conduit toward an inside of the conduit (fig 1) and the cutting module comprises a second cutting sub-module (cutters on right of fig 1) arranged to create the second cut line from at least part of the outside of the conduit toward the inside of the conduit (fig 1), and wherein the first and second cutting sub-modules are arranged to provide the first cut line and the second cut line in the coupling elements (see fig 1), in order to provide a method for conveniently handling and disposing of the rods, col 2, 10-15.
In addition, Rockower teaches that in a pipe splitting tool it is beneficial to cut a combined pipe and pipe coupler assembly (pipe 11 and couplers 17) in a longitudinal fashion (see fig. 14) by cutting both the pipe and pipe coupler longitudinally at the same time (via third wheel 32, col 5, 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hicks by including a method of handling and disposing of the combined pipe and pipe coupler assembly thereof after the pipe/coupler assembly is removed from the ground via the assembly of Hicks by providing: a cutting module arranged to cut at least part of the conduit over a longitudinal axis of the conduit by creating a first cut line in a first side of the conduit substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the conduit and a second cut line in the conduit on a second side of the conduit opposite the first side; a separation module arranged to separate a first part of the conduit on a first side of the first cut line from a second part of the conduit on a second side of the first cut line; and a module for driving the conduit along the cutting module and the separation module; wherein the cutting module includes a first cutting sub-module arranged to create the first cut line from at least part of an outside of the conduit toward an inside of the conduit and the cutting module comprises a second cutting sub-module arranged to create the second cut line from at least part of the outside of the conduit toward the inside of the conduit, and wherein the first and second cutting sub-modules are arranged to provide the first cut line and the second cut line in the coupling elements, in order to provide a method for conveniently handling and disposing of the rods, as taught by Duncan, and to do so in a manner that the pipe and pipe couplers thereof are cut at the same time as evidenced by Connover.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks, in view of Duncan and the teachings of Rockower and in view of USPN 5544977, Cravy.
Regarding Claim 19, Hicks discloses a method of processing a conduit (combination of tubing 11, and collars 13), the method comprising:
Pulling the conduit out of the ground (by/via extraction module 14 col 2, 60-70 and col. 3, 1-15)
wherein the conduit comprises a first segment (portion of conduit 11 below connector 13 in fig 1) having a first width (fig 1, and col 2, 46-55) connected to a second segment (col 2, 46-55, segment above connector 13) having a second width (col 2, 46-55) via a connector (13) having a third width (fig 1, col 2, 46-55) wider than the first width and the second width (col 2, 46-55).
Hicks lacks while the conduit is being pulled cutting at least part of the conduit parallel to a longitudinal axis of the conduit by providing a first cut line on a first side of the conduit parallel to the longitudinal axis; and separating a first part of the conduit at a first side of the first cut line, and separating a first part of the conduit on a first side of the first cut line from a second part of the conduit on a second side of the first cut line
Duncan discloses a rod splitter device in the same field of endeavor as the rod splitter tool of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes: a cutting module (18 and 16) arranged to cut at least part of the conduit over a longitudinal axis of the conduit by creating a first cut line in a first side of the conduit substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the conduit (col 2 55-65, line cut by the cutters on right in fig 1) and a second cut line in the conduit on a second side of the conduit opposite the first side (line cut by the cutters on left in fig 1), and separating the conduit, via a separation module (26) arranged to separate a first part of the conduit on a first side of the first cut line from a second part of the conduit on a second side of the first cut line (col 6, 1-0), in order to provide a method for conveniently handling and disposing of the rods, col 2, 10-15.
In addition, Rockower teaches that in a pipe splitting tool it is beneficial to cut a combined pipe and pipe coupler assembly (pipe 11 and couplers 17) in a longitudinal fashion (see fig. 14) by cutting both the pipe and pipe coupler longitudinally at the same time (via third wheel 32, col 5, 5-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hicks by including a method of handling and disposing of the combined pipe and pipe coupler assembly thereof after the pipe/coupler assembly is removed from the ground via the assembly of Hicks by providing: a cutting module arranged to cut at least part of the conduit over a longitudinal axis of the conduit by creating a first cut line in a first side of the conduit substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the conduit and a second cut line in the conduit on a second side of the conduit opposite the first side; a separation module arranged to separate a first part of the conduit on a first side of the first cut line from a second part of the conduit on a second side of the first cut line; and a module for driving the conduit along the cutting module and the separation module; wherein the cutting module includes a first cutting sub-module arranged to create the first cut line from at least part of an outside of the conduit toward an inside of the conduit and the cutting module comprises a second cutting sub-module arranged to create the second cut line from at least part of the outside of the conduit toward the inside of the conduit, and wherein the first and second cutting sub-modules are arranged to provide the first cut line and the second cut line in the coupling elements, in order to provide a method for conveniently handling and disposing of the rods, as taught by Duncan, and to do so in a manner that the pipe and pipe couplers thereof are cut at the same time as evidenced by Connover.
Modified Hicks lacks the method further comprising providing the first cut line and the second cut line from at least part of an outside toward an inside of the conduit.
Cravy discloses a longitudinal pipe cutting assembly in which a cutter cuts a pipe longitudinally, in the same field of endeavor as the longitudinal pipe cutting assembly of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes wherein a cutting module is arranged to create first, and second cut lines the first cut line from at least part of an outside of the conduit toward an inside of the conduit (via cutting submodule 48a fig 2) and the second cut line from at least part of the outside of the conduit toward the inside of the conduit (via cutter submodule 48c, fig 2), in order to allow the cutting to be performed large diameter pipes, or large wall thickness, pipe (col. 3, 40-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hicks by having the a second cutline on a second side opposite the first side of the conduit, the method further comprising providing the first cut line and the second cut line from at least part of an outside toward an inside of the conduit in order to allow the cutting to be performed large diameter pipes, or large wall thickness, pipe, as taught by Cravy.
In making the modification above in view of Cravy the cutting blades since they cut from an outside to an inside of the workpiece would serve to not only cut any remaining portions of the pipe but also to cut the conduits which are the connectors as already being cut in modified Hicks, but to also include the clearing benefit provided by the Cravy apparatus/blade(s).
Claims 2-4, 7-9, 15 and 22-23, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks, in view of Duncan and the teachings of Rockower as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPN 5544977, Cravy.
Regarding Claims 2-4, 7-9, 15, and 22-23, Modified Hicks lacks per Claim 2, wherein the cutting module is arranged to create a third cut line inside the conduit, and per Claim 3, the device there of further comprising an elongate conduit guide arranged to be inserted in the conduit, wherein a third cutting sub-module of the cutting module is provided on the conduit guide and configured to create the third cut line, and per Claim 4, in the device comprising a wedge-shaped splitting element having a wedge point and wherein the conduit guiding element is connected to the wedge point at a proximal end of the conduit guiding element, and per Claim 7, first cut line being a cut through a wall of at least part of the conduit, and per Claim 8, the cutting module being arranged to create the second cut line in the conduit substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis and opposite to the first cut line and per Claim 9, the separation module being arranged to separate a first half of the conduit from a second half of the conduit, the halves being defined by the first cut line and the second cut line and per Claim 15, the transportation module comprising at least one belt or wheel arranged to drive the conduit by transferring a motion of the belt or the wheel from the belt or the wheel to the conduit, and per Claim 22, the first cutting sub-module and the second cutting sub-module positioned to cut the conduit in a same cutting plane and per Claim 23, the first device configured to create the first cutline and the second cutline on the outside of the conduit at a same time.
Cravy discloses a longitudinal pipe cutting assembly in which a cutter cuts a pipe longitudinally, in the same field of endeavor as the longitudinal pipe cutting assembly of the present invention and discloses that such a system includes wherein a cutting module is arranged to create first, and second cut lines the first cut line from at least part of an outside of the conduit toward an inside of the conduit (via cutting submodule 48a fig 2) and the second cut line from at least part of the outside of the conduit toward the inside of the conduit (via cutter submodule 48c, fig 2), per Claim 2 the cutter also used for creating third cut lines, where the third cut line is inside the conduit to be cut (by cutter 46a and c), and per Claim 3, the device there of further comprises an elongate conduit guide parts 36 / 72) arranged to be inserted in the conduit (fig 1), wherein a third cutting sub-module of the cutting module is provided on the conduit guide and configured to create the third cut line, and per Claim 4, in Cravy the device comprises a wedge-shaped splitting element (38, fig 5) having a wedge point (point part of part 38, fig 5) and wherein the conduit guiding element is connected to the wedge point at a proximal end of the conduit guiding element (fig. 5), and Claim 7, the first cut line is a cut through a wall of at least part of the conduit (See fig 5), and per Claim 8, the cutting module is arranged to create the second cut line in the conduit substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis and opposite to the first cut line (fig. 5), and per Claim 9, the separation module is arranged to separate a first half of the conduit from a second half of the conduit, the halves being defined by the first cut line and the second cut line (col 5, 60-68) and per Claim 15, the transportation module comprises at least one belt 72 or a wheel 70 arranged to drive the conduit by transferring a motion of the belt or the wheel from the belt or the wheel to the conduit (the parts 70/72 drive the tool through the conduit and thus, in turn drive the conduit along the cutting module), and per Claim 22, the first cutting sub-module and the second cutting sub-module are positioned to cut the conduit in a same cutting plane (fig. 1), and per Claim 23, the first device being configured to create the first cutline and the second cutline on the outside of the conduit at a same time (at least at parts 48a and 48c; fig 2 and fig 1), in order to allow the cutting to be performed large diameter pipes, or large wall thickness, pipe (col. 3, 40-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hicks by including the cutting part thereof including the upper and lower knives thereof to also include per Claim 2, wherein the cutting module is arranged to create a third cut line inside the conduit, and per Claim 3, the device there of further comprising an elongate conduit guide arranged to be inserted in the conduit, wherein a third cutting sub-module of the cutting module is provided on the conduit guide and configured to create the third cut line, and per Claim 4, in the device comprising a wedge-shaped splitting element having a wedge point and wherein the conduit guiding element is connected to the wedge point at a proximal end of the conduit guiding element, and per Claim 7, first cut line being a cut through a wall of at least part of the conduit, and per Claim 8, the cutting module being arranged to create the second cut line in the conduit substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis and opposite to the first cut line and per Claim 9, the separation module being arranged to separate a first half of the conduit from a second half of the conduit, the halves being defined by the first cut line and the second cut line and per Claim 15, the transportation module comprising at least one belt or wheel arranged to drive the conduit by transferring a motion of the belt or the wheel from the belt or the wheel to the conduit, and per Claim 22, the first cutting sub-module and the second cutting sub-module positioned to cut the conduit in a same cutting plane and per Claim 23, the first device configured to create the first cutline and the second cutline on the outside of the conduit at a same time ), in order to allow the cutting to be performed large diameter pipes, or large wall thickness, pipe, as taught in Cravy.
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Duncan Rockower and Cravy as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of USPN 5276965, Hahn.
Regarding Claim 10, Modified Hicks lacks: a flattening module arranged to flatten the separated or cut first and second conduit parts.
Hahn discloses pipe splitting device in the same field of endeavor as the conduit splitting device of the present invention which, like Cravy, has a cutting module, part 50, for separating a conduit (“condenser tube”, col. 5 lines 40-50), a separation module (parts 14 and 16), similar to the cutting and separation modules of the present invention, and also includes a transportation module (combination of parts 22, 24 and 2 and 4) for driving the conduit along the cutting module and the separation module (col. 5 lines 60-67) and including:
the separation module 29 and 30 further comprising a flattening module arranged to flatten the separated or cut conduit (since the separation module simultaneously performs a separating function and a flattening function simultaneously, since the segments are pressed and thus flattened between the rollers 12 and 14) (claim 10), in order to more quickly pull and process/split tubes once cut, (col 2 lines 19-26), which is accomplished via the structures 26, 28, 12, per (col 6 lines 60-67 and col 7 lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hicks by including, a flattening module arranged to flatten the separated or cut conduit in order to more quickly pull and process/split tubes parts once cut, as taught by Hahn.
Regarding Claims 11-14 in Hicks as modified above, the separation module is arranged to separate a first half of the conduit from a second half of the conduit, the halves being defined by the first cut line and the second cut line (see claim 10 modification).
Hicks further lacks wherein the flattening module comprises a first flattening sub-module for flattening the first half and a second flattening sub-module for flattening the second half (Claim 11), wherein the flattening module comprises rollers arranged to exert a force on the separated conduit (claim 12) the flattening module comprises rollers that are positioned forming a curved trajectory for at least part of the separated conduit (Claim 13), further comprising a sorting cutter, arranged to cut the separated conduit under an angle relative to the longitudinal axis (Claim 14).
In Hahn the separation module is arranged to separate a first half of the conduit from a second half of the conduit, the halves being defined by the first cut line and the second cut line (fig 1) and wherein the flattening module comprises a first flattening sub-module 12 (since the rollers inherently flatten the cut parts when the parts are passed under the rollers) for flattening the first half and a second flattening sub-module 14 for flattening the second half (since the rollers inherently flatten the cut parts when the parts are passed under the rollers) (Claim 11), the flattening module comprises rollers (30/29) arranged to exert a force on the separated conduit (Col. 5, 40-67) (Claim 12), the flattening module (combination of parts 2, 4, 14, 12, 6 and 8) comprises rollers (2 and 4) which are positioned forming a curved trajectory for at least part of the separated conduit (since the rollers push the conduit upwardly toward guides 12-14) and wherein, further rollers (6 and 8) are provided forming a further trajectory being straight with an orientation opposite to the earlier curved trajectory for straightening flatted pipe segments (since the segments are pressed and thus flattened between the rollers) (Claim 13), the device further comprises a subsequent cutter being a sorting cutter arranged to cut separated conduit sections under an angle relative to the longitudinal axis in which the tube travelled prior to being split, specifically, split tube sections 30 and 32 (col 6, lines 60-67 and col 7 lines 1-20) shown in fig 1 are guided to a subsequent cutting station in which cutter inserts 26 and 28 cut each of the split sections and direct the sections at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the tube from which they were cut, as seen by the cut portions 43 and 36 which are directed at an angle away from the longitudinal direction in fig 1 (col 6, lines 60-67 and col 7 lines 1-20)(Claim 14), in order to more quickly pull and process/split tubes to be cut (col 2 lines 19-26), which is accomplished via the structures 26, 28, 12, per (col 6 lines 60-67 and col 7 lines 1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify Hicks by including the separation module arranged to separate a first half of the conduit from a second half of the conduit, the halves being defined by the first cut line and the second cut line and wherein the flattening module comprises a first flattening sub-module 12 for flattening the first half and a second flattening sub-module for flattening the second half (claim 11), the flattening module comprises rollers arranged to exert a force on the separated conduit (claim 12), in Hahn the flattening module comprises rollers which are positioned forming a curved trajectory for at least part of the separated conduit and wherein, further rollers are provided forming a further trajectory being straight with an orientation opposite to the earlier curved trajectory for straightening flatted pipe segments (claim 13), the device further comprises a subsequent cutter being a sorting cutter arranged to cut separated conduit sections under an angle relative to the longitudinal axis in which the tube travelled prior to being split, specifically, split tube sections shown in are guided to a subsequent cutting station in which cutter inserts cut each of the split sections and direct the sections at an angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the tube from which they were cut, as seen by the cut portions which are directed at an angle away from the longitudinal direction (Claim 14), in order to more quickly pull and process/split tubes once having being cut, as taught by Hahn.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Duncan and the teachings of Rockower, and in view of Cravy as applied to claim 19, and further in view of USPN 4875710, Mercado.
Regarding Claim 21, in Hicks the fittings 13 which are cut by the tool (as modified in view of Duncan and Cravy) thereof are disclosed as being couplings.
Hicks lacks wherein the segments are threaded and comprise an outer thread provided on at least a proximal end of the segment and the connectors comprise an inner thread arranged to engage with the outer thread and wherein the method further comprises cutting the connector to a depth that the inner thread is cut.
Mercado discloses a pipe joint, in the same field of endeavor as the pipe coupling of the present invention, and of the pipe coupler being cut in the process of Rockower, and discloses that such a system includes a pipe coupler 16, which connects pipe segments 12 and 14, and includes the segments comprising an outer thread provided on at least a proximal end of the segment (threaded portions of part 14 which interact with threaded coupling portion 24 of part 16), and the connector 16 comprises an inner thread 24 arranged to engage with the outer thread (col 5 lines 30-40) in order to join pipe ends via an abrasive threaded coupling which requires no shaving or other surface preparation of the pipes to be joined for assembly of the joint (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hicks by having the pipe couplings thereof be threaded to connect pipe segments of Hicks, and to include the segments couplers an outer thread provided on at least a proximal end of the segment, and the connector comprises an inner thread arranged to engage with the outer thread in order to join pipe ends via an abrasive threaded coupling which requires no shaving or other surface preparation of the pipes to be joined for assembly of the joint as taught by Mercado.
Claim 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hicks in view of Duncan and the teachings of Rockower, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USPN, 1178801, Griffin, and as evidenced by USPN 6378212, Belew, and USPN 3043004 Walter.
Regarding Claim 24, Modified Hicks lacks the first cutting sub-module is one or more first outer cutting wheels and the second cutting sub-module is one or more second outer cutting wheels.
Griffin discloses a Pipe cutter, in the same field of endeavor as the Pipe cutter tool of the present invention, and of Duncan, and discloses that such a system includes a series of cutter wheels G which cut from an outside to an inside of a pipe.
The substitution of a known element (nonrotating bladers) for another (rotating blades) would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention since the substitution of the cutter shown in non-rotating blades for the rotatable blades disclosed in Griffin would have yielded predictable results, namely, longitudinal cutting of a pipe.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hicks (as modified by Duncan) by replacing the non-rotatable blades thereof with the rotating blades of Griffin since the substitution of one known element for another yielding predictable results is known has been held to be an obvious modification, see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Also, Belew and Walter disclose that it is common in longitudinal pipe cutting to cut the pie via rotating cutters. This provides further evidence that the modification in view of Griffin would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 25, in Modified Hicks, the first cutting sub-module is two or more first outer cutting elements and the second cutting sub-module is two or more second outer cutting elements (See Claim 1 modification above). Thus, in modifying Duncan in view of Griffin to have the blades be rotatable the resultant apparatus/device would include the rotating blades of the first cutting sub-module being two or more first outer cutting elements and the second cutting sub-module is two or more second outer cutting elements.
Regarding Claim 26, in Hicks as modified per claim 25 each cutting element in a first sequence of the two or more first outer cutting elements is configured to increase a depth of the first cutline and each cutting element in a second sequence of the two or more second outer elements is configured to increase a depth of the second cutline (since the elements are designed to cut into the pipe and the cutters increase in height from the start of the cutting wheel to the tip of the cutter).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 10/29/25, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 102/103 (as the claims have now been amended) have been fully considered and are persuasive. None of the references previously cited include an extraction module for extracting a conduit from the ground by continuously pulling the conduit out of the ground, as now required by claims 1-4, 7-15, and 22-26, nor the conduit being continuously pulled out of the ground, now required by claims 19 and 21. As such the prior art rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hicks.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPNs/USPGPUBs 5782305 9391434 3782459 20070048091 20020103066 1244299 5439320 5997215 5171106 and 20120031673 disclose state of the art pipe cutting apparatuses which include splitting pipes longitudinally, and thus each disclose elements relevant to the present invention/application.
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 FERNANDO A AYALA whose telephone number is (571)270-5336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern standard.
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, Boyer Ashley can be reached on 571-272-4502. 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.
/FERNANDO A AYALA/Examiner, Art Unit 3724
/BOYER D ASHLEY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724