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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 9-11, 13,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (CN 203996819 U), hereafter known as Zhang, in view of Ahlstone (US 3768842 A), hereafter known as Ahlstone, and of Kamphuis (WO 2016099297 A1), hereafter known as Kamphuis.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a floating pipe (fig 2, abstract, Zhang) comprising a tube (fig 2, tube 2, Zhang) and a floater surrounding said tube (fig 1, floater 1, Zhang), but does not disclose wherein a shape of the floater, seen in cross section in a central part of the floating pipe, is a squircle.
Ahlstone teaches a floating with a floater cross section in a central part that is a square with rounded corners (fig 10, Ahlstone), as well as other shapes such as a circle or ellipse, (figs 8 and 11, Ahlstone). Regarding the term “squircle”, it is first noted the applicant’s specification does not define the squircle shape, nor distinguish and the differences between a squircle and a rounded square, listing them as alternative shapes to each other. In certain instances, squircles and rounded square can be nearly imperceptible in difference. As such it should be noted that if the floating pipe of Zhang is modified in view of Ahlstone to include a rounded square (e.g. as set forth in the previous action) the resultant combination would read on the claim. However, to promote compact prosecution, the following additional teaching is provided. Kamphuis teaches that a tubular structure with a squircle shaped cross section (figs 6a-6c, Kamphuis) features greater wall strength than a square shape by reducing stress concentration while still producing a shape having a greater volume than an entirely round shape of the same width (page 2, line 22-24, Kamphuis). It would also be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floating pipe of Zhang such that a shape of the cross section of the floater is a squircle in view of the combined teachings of Ahlstone and Kamphuis to increase the volume of the floater without increasing the width when compared to a circular cross section (to fill with a greater quantity of buoyant material) while avoiding the stress concentrations of a square shaped cross section, especially considering the variety of floater shapes taught by Ahlstone. Additionally, the use of squircle profiles as a hybrid of or alternatives to square and circle profiles is known in the art (see pertinent prior art).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis discloses the floating pipe in accordance with claim 1, wherein the tube is provided with flanges at both outer ends which flanges are arranged to releasably connect two adjacent tubes to each other (page 4, paragraph 10, fig 2, metal flange 22 is attached to both ends of pipe 21. Flanges 22 have bolt holes, seen in fig 1, allowing the floating pipe to be releasably attached to other floating pipes, Zhang).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis discloses the floating pipe in accordance with claim 1, wherein the tube is made of a metal (page 7, paragraph 21, tube 2 is steel, Zhang).
Regarding claim 11, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis discloses the floating pipe in accordance with claim 1, wherein the floater comprises an interior body made of a closed cell foam (fig 1, page 7, paragraph 21, floater comprises interior body 4 that is made of closed cell foam, Zhang).
Regarding claim 13, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis discloses the floating pipe in accordance with claim 11, wherein the floater comprises an inner pipe arranged around the tube (fig 1, floater comprises a inner pipe 3, Zhang) which inner pipe is connected at its outer ends to the outer cover (fig 1, inner pipe 3 is connected to outer cover 6 at its ends, Zhang) , and the interior body is disposed between the inner pipe and the outer cover (fig 1, interior body 4 is between inner pipe 3 and outer cover 6, Zhang).
Regarding claim 15, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis discloses a floater for use in the floating pipe in accordance with claim 1, wherein the shape of the floater, seen in cross section in a central part of the floater, is a squircle (figs 6a-6c, Kamphuis).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis, as applied in claim 1, in further view of Ahlstone.
Regarding claim 5, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis, as applied to in claim 1, discloses the floating pipe in accordance with claim 1, but does not disclose the shape of the tube, seen in cross section in a central part of the floating pipe, is a circle. The shape of the tube of Zhang is implied to be cylindrical, but not explicitly stated.
However, Ahlstone teaches the shape of the tube to be a circle in cross section (fig 10, Ahlstone). Ahlstone describes a large marine floating pipe, a field closely related to Zhang and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Ahlstone into Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis and construct the tube of Zhang to be circular in cross section. Circular cross section pipes are very well known in the art, and offer the maximum internal volume proportional to the materials needed for construction; the lack of corners on a circle also reduces the formation of stress concentrations, both features that can benefit the pipe of Zhang.
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6,7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis, as applied in claim 1, in further view of Sunplast pipe’s webpage “Dredge Pipe Floater/Floats”, hereafter known as Sunplast.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis discloses the floating pipe in accordance with claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the dimensions of the floating pipe are designed to fit inside a 40-ft ISO container, having inner dimensions of 12,025 mm long, 2,352 mm wide and 2,393 mm high.
However, Sunplast teaches a floating pipe designed to fit within a container with inner dimensions of 12,025 mm long, 2,352 mm wide and 2,393 mm high (first and second tables, the 1000mm diameter floating pipe has a diameter of 2040mm when equipped with a floater, and is available in lengths of 5.8 or 11.8m, both configurations are suitable for container loading, Sunplast). Sunplast is a product page for dredging pipes with foam filled floaters, a field closely related to Zhang, Ahlstone, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Sunplast into Zhang in view of Ahlstone and design the floating pipe of Zhang in view of Ahlstone to fit within a container of the claimed dimensions. 40 ft shipping containers are the standard for international shipping, and designing a product to fit within one will reduce shipping costs from manufacturer to customer.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis discloses the floating pipe in accordance with claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the largest outer dimension, which is a diagonal of the floater, seen in cross section in a central part of the floating pipe, is between 2,353 mm and 3,354 mm.
However, Sunplast teaches a floating pipe with the largest outer dimension of the floater that is 2400mm, in between 2353 and 3354mm (second table, floater for pipe with outer diameter of 1200mm has diagonal of 2400m, Sunplast). Sunplast is a product page for dredging pipes with foam filled floaters, a field closely related to Zhang, Ahlstone, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Sunplast into Zhang in view of Ahlstone and make the largest outer dimension of the floater of Zhang in view of Ahlstone to be 2400mm. Standardized floater sizes are well known in the art, and conforming the floater to a standard size allows the floater to be transported and installed using standardized equipment and procedures, increasing efficiency. In addition, larger diameter floaters have greater buoyancy, allowing for larger pipes (second table, Sunplast), which in turn can transport dredged material more quickly.
Regarding claim 4, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis discloses the floating pipe in accordance with claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the smallest outer dimension, which is a width and/or height of the floater, seen in cross section in a central part of the floating pipe, is smaller than 2,352 mm.
However, Sunplast teaches a floating pipe with the smallest outer dimension of the floater that is 2040mm (second table, floater for pipe with outer diameter of 1000mm has width of 2040m, Sunplast). Sunplast is a product page for dredging pipes with foam filled floaters, a field closely related to Zhang, Ahlstone, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Sunplast into Zhang in view of Ahlstone and make the smallest outer dimension of the floater of Zhang in view of Ahlstone to be 2040 mm. Standardized floater sizes are well known in the art, and conforming the floater to a standard size allows the floater to be transported and installed using standardized equipment and procedures, increasing efficiency. In addition, smaller diameter floaters can accommodate smaller diameter pipes (second table, Sunplast), which are more maneuverable and economical.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis discloses the floating pipe in accordance with claim 1, but does not disclose wherein an inner diameter of the tube is between 800 mm and 1,500 mm;
However, Sunplast teaches a floating pipe with inner diameter between 800 mm and 1,500 mm (first table, pipe, which is normally assembled with floats, is available in inner diameters of 800,900,1000,1200 mm, Sunplast). Sunplast is a product page for dredging pipes with foam filled floaters, a field closely related to Zhang, Ahlstone and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Sunplast into Zhang in view of Ahlstone and make the pipe of Zhang in view of Ahlstone available in inner diameters of 800,900,1000,1200 mm. Pipe dimension standardization is well known in the art, and standardizing the dimensions will allow the pipes of Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Sunplast to connect and be used together in a pipeline with benefits of both flexible and rigid pipes.
Regarding claim 7, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis discloses the floating pipe in accordance with claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a length of the tube is between 10,000 mm and 12,025 mm;
However, Sunplast teaches a floating pipe with tube of length of between 10,000 mm and 12,025 mm (under first table, dredging pipe is provided in length of 11.8 m, which is 1180mm, Sunplast). Sunplast is a product page for dredging pipes with foam filled floaters, a field closely related to Zhang, Ahlstone and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Sunplast into Zhang in view of Ahlstone and make the pipe of Zhang in view of Ahlstone available in lengths of 11.8m. This length would allow for container loading (under first table, Sunplast), which would make shipping the pipe of Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Sunplast easier.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis, as applied in claim 1, in further view of Globaldredge’s webpage “Floating hoses”, hereafter known as Globaldredge.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis discloses the floating pipe in accordance with claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a length of the floater is between 8000 mm and 12,000 mm.
However, Globaldredge teaches a floating pipe with floater length between 8000 mm and 12,000 mm (technical specifications and drawing state total length is 11800mm. Third picture and drawing indicate the floater covers the entire length of the hose aside from the flanges, therefore the floater has a length within the claimed range, Globaldredge). Globaldredge is a product page for dredging pipes with foam filled floaters, a field closely related to Zhang, Ahlstone, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Globaldredge into Zhang in view of Ahlstone and make the pipe of Zhang in view of Ahlstone 11800mm long and have the floater occupy close to the entire length. An evenly distributed floater will provide more stability to the pipe.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis, as applied in claim 1, in further view of Tanaka (US 4154266 A), hereafter known as Tanaka.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis discloses the floating pipe in accordance with claim 1, wherein the floater comprises an outer cover made of rubber (fig 1, page 7, paragraph 21, outer cover 6 is rubber, Zhang). Zhang in view of Ahlstone does not disclose the outer cover to have a thickness between 10 and 40 mm.
However, Tanaka teaches a floating pipe with outer rubber cover 6-21 mm thick (col 2, lines 43-45, first rubber cover 5 is 4-15mm thick, second rubber cover 6 is 2-6mm thick, thus to total thickness of the outer cover of Tanaka is 6-21mm. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976)). Tanaka describes a floating flanged pipe, a field closely related to Zhang, Ahlstone, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Tanaka into Zhan in view of Ahlstone and use the outer covers 5 and 6 of Tanaka in place of outer cover layer 6 of Zhang in view of Ahlstone. The outer cover of Tanaka has excellent abrasion resistance (col 2, lines 46-51, Tanaka), has a lower operation temperature due to less sunlight absorption, and is smooth to reduce the deposition of marine organisms onto the pipe (col 2, line, 67 to col 3, line 2, Tanaka).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis, as applied in claim 1, in further view of Jiang (CN 102140811 A), hereafter known as Jiang.
Regarding claim 14, Zhang in view of Ahlstone and Kamphuis discloses the floating pipe in accordance with claim 13, but does not disclose wherein the inner pipe is made of a metal.
However, Jiang teaches a floater with inner pipe made of metal (fig 2, two instances of inner wall 3, which is part of an internal skeleton made of steel (page 9, paragraph 0024), form the inner pipe of a floater, Jiang.) Jiang describes a floater for a floating dredging pipe, a field closely related to Zhang, Ahlstone, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Jiang into Zhang in view of Ahlstone and add a steel internal skeleton to the floater of Zhang in view of Ahlstone. A steel internal skeleton would increase the strength and impact resistance of the floater of Zhang in view of Ahlstone.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Veazey (US 20140017423 A1) discloses a pole with a cross sectional shape of a squircle.
Hall (US 9472987 B1) discloses squircle shaped wiring.
Britt (US 20160208510 A1) discloses a tube with circular interior and squircle shaped exterior.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 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 supervisor, Kenneth Rinehart, can be reached 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights