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 § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 8-9, 11, 14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Glossop (5,433,492).
Regarding Claim 8, Glossop teaches a method for cleaning an interior of a pipe via access through a lateral hole in the pipe ([Abstract] discusses an interior of a pipe when a hole is drilled into the pipe), the method comprising:
coupling a control bar head (Ref. 38, Fig. 6) with a control bar (Ref. 10, Fig. 2);
positioning a shroud (Ref. 22&40, Fig. 2) around the control bar head (Fig. 2&6), the shroud comprising a fixed housing (examiner notes that the term fixed is being interpreted as placed securely, Ref. 22, Fig. 2 shows the shroud has the fixed housing (22) within the movable housing (40)) having an interior sized to enable linear movement of the control bar head along the interior (Fig. 4&6) between a retracted position (Fig. 6) and an extended position (Fig .4), the shroud having an exterior sized to enable insertion through the lateral hole in the pipe ([Col. 3, Lines 1-24] teaches inserting the device into the hole); and
mounting at least one magnet (Ref. 16, Fig. 2) to an end of the control bar head (Ref. 38, bottom end, Fig. 2) and orienting the at least one magnet to pick up particles in the pipe ([Col. 3, lines 53-55]) when the control bar head is located in the extended position (Fig. 4) and then to retrieve the particles into the shroud when the control bar head is shifted to the retracted position ([Col. 2, Lines 18-32]).
Regarding Claim 9, Glossop teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further teaches wherein the mounting of the at least one magnet to the end of the control bar head comprises mounting the at least one magnet (16) to a lower end of the control bar head (Fig. 2, [Col. 3, Lines 43-47]).
Regarding Claim 11, Glossop teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further teaches using a particle retention mechanism (Ref. 24, Fig. 2&5) over the at least one magnet (Fig. 5) to aid with particle release when the particle retention mechanism is removed from the at least one magnet ([Col. 4, Lines 62-68]).
Regarding Claim 14, Glossop teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, and further teaches spring biasing (Ref. 54, Fig. 4&6)the control bar head toward the retracted position ([Col. 3, Lines 63-Col. 4, Line 5]).
Regarding Claim 18, Glossop teaches A system, comprising:
a pipe cleaning system (Fig. 1-2) having:
a control bar head (Ref. 38, Fig. 6);
a shroud (Ref. 22&40, Fig. 2) positioned around the control bar head (Fig. 2&6), the shroud comprising a fixed housing (examiner notes that the term fixed is being interpreted as placed securely, Ref. 22, Fig. 2 shows the shroud has the fixed housing (22) within the movable housing (40)) having an interior sized to enable linear movement of the control bar head along the interior (Fig. 4&6) between a retracted position (Fig. 6) and an extended position (Fig. 4), the shroud having an exterior sized to enable insertion through a lateral hole in a pipe ([Col. 3, Lines 1-24] teaches inserting the device into the lateral hole); and
a magnet (Ref. 16, Fig. 2) coupled with the control bar head and oriented to attract particles located in the interior of the pipe ([Col. 3, lines 53-55]).
Regarding Claim 19, Glossop teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and further teaches wherein the pipe cleaning system further comprises a spring member (Ref. 54, Fig. 4&6) oriented to bias the control bar head to the retracted position within the shroud ([Col. 3, Lines 63-Col. 4, Line 5]).
Regarding Claim 20, Glossop teaches the limitations of claim 18, as described above, and further teaches a control bar (Ref. 10, Fig. 2) coupled between the control bar head (38) and an actuator (Ref. 58, Fig. 4).
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glossop (5,433,492) in view of Schneider (2004/0069322).
Regarding Claim 1, Glossop teaches A system for cleaning an interior of a pipe via access through a lateral hole in the pipe ([Abstract] discusses an interior of a pipe when a hole is drilled into the pipe), the system comprising:
a pipe cleaning system (Fig. 1&2) having:
a control bar head (Ref. 38, Fig. 6) having a coupling feature (Ref. 20, Fig. 2) for coupling with a control bar (Ref. 10, Fig. 2);
a shroud (Ref. 22&40, Fig. 2) positioned around the control bar head (Fig. 2&6), the shroud comprising a fixed housing (examiner notes that the term fixed is being interpreted as placed securely, Ref. 22, Fig. 2 shows the shroud has the fixed housing (22) within the movable housing (40)) having an interior sized to enable linear movement of the control bar head along the interior (Fig. 4&6) between a lower position (Fig. 4) and a retracted position (Fig. 6), the shroud having an exterior sized (Ref. 40, Fig. 2) to enable insertion through the lateral hole in the pipe ([Col. 3, Lines 1-24] teaches inserting the device into the lateral hole); and
a magnet (Ref. 16, Fig. 2) coupled with the control bar head (Fig. 2) and oriented to pick up particles in the pipe ([Col. 3, lines 53-55]) when the control bar head is located in the lower position (Fig. 4) and then to retrieve the particles into the shroud when the control bar head is shifted to the retracted position to guard against release of the particles ([Col. 2, Lines 18-32]).
Glossop fails to explicitly teach a plurality of magnets coupled with the control bar head. Schneider teaches a system for cleaning an interior of a pipe and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Schneider further teaches a pipe cleaning system (Fig. 4) comprising a plurality of magnets (Ref. 24, Fig. 1, [0022]) coupled with the control bar head (Ref. 12, Fig. 1) and oriented to pick up particles in the pipe when the control bar head is located in the lower position (Fig. 4&7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control bar head, as taught by Glossop, to have a plurality of magnets, as taught by Schneider, by duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B) to produce the predictable result of picking up metallic debris from a pipe and to create a strong magnetic field ([0006]).
Regarding Claim 2, Glossop as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Glossop further teaches a spring (Ref. 54, Fig. 4&6) positioned to bias the control bar head to the retracted position within the shroud ([Col. 3, Lines 63-Col. 4, Line 5]).
Regarding Claim 3, Glossop as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the plurality of magnets are permanent magnets. Schneider further teaches wherein the plurality of magnets comprises permanent magnets ([0022] describes permanent magnets). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnets, as taught by Glossop as modified, to be permanent magnets, as taught by Schneider, for ease of availability while providing a powerful magnetic field ([0022]).
Regarding Claim 5, Glossop as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Glossop further teaches wherein the coupling feature comprises a bolt (Ref.20, Fig. 2) extending between the control bar head and the control bar (Fig. 2). Glossop fails to explicitly teach a plurality of bolts. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the bolt to extend between the control bar head and the control bar by duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B) since no new and unexpected result would be produced and there would be the predictable result of connecting the control bar head to the control bar.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glossop as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mosely (3,011,819).
Regarding Claim 4, Glossop as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of magnets comprises electromagnets. Mosely teaches a system for cleaning an interior of a pipe using magnets and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Mosely further teaches wherein the plurality of magnets comprises electromagnets ([Claim 3] describes using electromagnets). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the magnets, as taught by Glossop as modified, with electromagnets, as taught by Mosely, to achieve the predictable result of picking up metal and magnetic debris in a pipe.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glossop as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goodwin (2,778,669).
Regarding Claim 6, Glossop as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach abutments secured to the control bar head to serve as stops when the control bar head is inserted into the pipe. Goodwin teaches a system for picking up magnetic debris with magnets and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Goodwin teaches abutments (Ref. 13, Fig. 1) secured to the control bar head (Ref. 12, Fig. 1-2) to serve as stops when the control bar head is inserted into the pipe (Fig. 1 shows the abutments are capable of serving as stops when inserted into the pipe). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control bar head, as taught by Glossop as modified, with abutments, as taught by Goodwin, to serve as stops when the control bar head is inserted into the pipe and to allow fluid to flow under the tool to aid the pickup of debris in the fluid ([Col. 2, Lines 25-36]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glossop as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Silguero (2005/0274524)
Regarding Claim 7, Glossop as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Glossop teaches a cover (Ref. 24, Fig. 5) that partially covers the magnet and to aid with removal of the particles from the pipe cleaning system ([Col. 4, Lines 62-68]). Glossop as modified fails to explicitly teach a removable cover which encases the plurality of magnets and serves to aid with removal of the particles from the pipe cleaning system. Silguero teaches a system for picking up magnetic debris with magnets and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Silguero further teaches a removable cover (Ref. 105, Fig. 1, [0028] describes the cover to be attached via threads and are capable of being removed/installed) which encases the plurality of magnets (101, Fig. 1, [0028]) and serves to aid with removal of the particles from the pipe cleaning system ([0027] describes helping retain metallic debris). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cover, as taught by Glossop as modified, with a removable cover, as taught by Silguero, to help retain magnetic debris and protect the magnets ([0027]).
Claim 10 and 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glossop as applied to claims 8&9 above, and further in view of Schneider (2004/0069322).
Regarding Claim 10, Glossop as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the mounting of the at least one magnet comprises mounting a plurality of magnets. Schneider teaches a system for cleaning an interior of a pipe and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Schneider further teaches a pipe cleaning system (Fig. 4) comprising mounting a plurality of magnets (Ref. 24, Fig. 1, [0022]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control bar head, as taught by Glossop, to have a plurality of magnets, as taught by Schneider, by duplication of parts (MPEP 2144.04 VI. B) to produce the predictable result of picking up metallic debris from a pipe and to create a strong magnetic field ([0006]).
Regarding Claim 15, Glossop as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach at least one permanent magnet. Schneider teaches a system for cleaning an interior of a pipe and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Schneider further teaches wherein the plurality of magnets comprises permanent magnets ([0022] describes permanent magnets). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the magnets, as taught by Glossop as modified, to be permanent magnets, as taught by Schneider, for ease of availability while providing a powerful magnetic field ([0022]).
Claim 12-13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glossop as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Silguero (2005/0274524).
Regarding Claim 12, Glossop as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein using the particle retention mechanism comprises using a particle retention sack. Silguero teaches a system for picking up magnetic debris with magnets and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Silguero further teaches a particle retention mechanism (Ref. 105, Fig. 1, [0027]) comprises using a particle retention sack (Ref. 107, Fig. 1, [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the particle retention mechanism, as taught by Glossop as modified, with a particle retention sack, as taught by Silguero, to help retain magnetic debris and protect the magnets ([0027]).
Regarding Claim 13, Glossop as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein using the particle retention mechanism comprises using a removable cover. Silguero teaches a system for picking up magnetic debris with magnets and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Silguero further teaches a removable cover (Ref. 105, Fig. 1, [0028] describes the cover to be attached via threads and are capable of being removed/installed) which encases the plurality of magnets (101, Fig. 1, [0027-0028] describes helping retain metallic debris). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the particle retention mechanism, as taught by Glossop as modified, with a removable cover, as taught by Silguero, to help retain magnetic debris and protect the magnets ([0027]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glossop as modified as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Mosely (3,011,819).
Regarding Claim 16, Glossop as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein mounting the at least one magnet comprises mounting at least one electromagnets. Mosely teaches a system for cleaning an interior of a pipe using magnets and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Mosely further teaches wherein the plurality of magnets comprises electromagnets ([Claim 3] describes using electromagnets). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the magnets, as taught by Glossop as modified, with electromagnets, as taught by Mosely, to achieve the predictable result of picking up metal and magnetic debris in a pipe.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glossop as modified as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Goodwin (2,778,669).
Regarding Claim 17, Glossop as modified teaches the limitations of claim 8, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach using abutments to limit travel of the control bar head. Goodwin teaches a system for picking up magnetic debris with magnets and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Goodwin teaches using abutments (Ref. 13, Fig. 1) to limit travel of the control bar head (Fig. 1 shows the abutments are capable of serving as stops when inserted into the pipe). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the control bar head, as taught by Glossop as modified, with abutments, as taught by Goodwin, to serve as stops when the control bar head is inserted into the pipe and to allow fluid to flow under the tool to aid the pickup of debris in the fluid ([Col. 2, Lines 25-36]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the drawing objections have been fully considered and examiner withdraws the drawing objections.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged and examiner withdraws the claim objections.
Applicant's arguments filed 16 December, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8 and 18 have changed the scope of the claim and necessitated reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that Glossop fails to disclose the shroud comprising a fixed housing have been fully considered and not persuasive. Examiner has applied Glossop to the 35 USC 103 and 102 rejections above. Glossop teaches a shroud (Ref. 22&40, Fig. 2) positioned around the control bar head (Fig. 2&6), the shroud comprising a fixed housing (examiner notes that the term fixed is being interpreted as placed securely, Ref. 22, Fig. 2 shows the shroud has the fixed housing (22) within the movable housing (40)) having an interior sized to enable linear movement of the control bar head along the interior (Fig. 4&6) between a lower position (Fig. 4) and a retracted position (Fig. 6), the shroud having an exterior sized (Ref. 40, Fig. 2) to enable insertion through the lateral hole in the pipe ([Col. 3, Lines 1-24] teaches inserting the device into the lateral hole). Examiner notes the term fixed is interpreted as placed securely. Therefore, the shroud would meet the limitations of comprising a fixed housing as it is placed securely along the rod (10) and within the sheath (58). If applicant intended for the shroud to be stationary relative to the control bar head, such a limitation is not required.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723