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 § 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 7-25 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.
Claims 7 and 17, it is unclear why the word bonding is in quotes and parentheses.
Clarification is needed.
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.
Claim(s) 7-11, 13-14, 17-20, 22-23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. 6,196,271 in view of Higman 9,435,480.
In regard to claims, 7, 17 and 26, Braun et al. discloses a no-dig method of repairing a damaged pipe, from inside, the method comprising:
placing more than one piece of at least partially resin-impregnated fabrics 22-25 of similar size over each other to form a fabric-laminate, such that the fabrics fully overlap each other in a first direction (longitudinally along a pipe axis) and partially overlap each other in a second direction (laterally in the circumferential direction) that is perpendicular to the first direction, wherein both edges of the fabrics in the second direction form two stairways at each end of the fabric-laminate (see figs. 1 and 5-6), and wherein a rise-height of each stair is a thickness of one of the fabrics and a tread-depth of each stair is a calculated-overlap-length of each fabric when formed into a hoop with overlapped ends (see figs. 1 and 5-6);
wherein the fabric layers form concentric individual and distinct cylinders, and wherein each cylinder is formed by a single layer of fabric with the calculated overlap (see figs. 1 and 5-6);
Braun et al. discloses using the liner hose to repair a conduit by drawing the liner into a damaged conduit, inflating the liner and allowing it to cure in place, but does not disclose stitching the layers of fabrics together or the exact method in which the liner is positioned, expanded and cured within the conduit.
Higman teaches that stitching multiple layers of fabric together in a manner that allows for movement of the material (see col. 4, lines 11-13) is common and well known in the art.
Additionally, Higman teaches that the method of wrapping a similar type of layered repair liner 30 around an expandable packer 80 in the second, or circumferential direction (see fig. 3);
moving the packer into the damaged pipe and positioning the packer adjacent to the damaged area of the pipe (see fig. 4A);
inflating the packer to force the fabrics against the damaged area of the pipe (see fig. 4B; deflating the packer; and
removing the packer from the pipe or moving the packer to another point of repair is an installation procedure for repair liners that it is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stitch multiple layers of the fabric together and to place the liner hose of Braun et al. within a conduit using the method recited by Higman.
In regard to claims 8 and 18, wherein the fabrics are resin-saturated and nonmetallic (see col. 5, line 58 of Braun).
In regard to claims 9 and 19, wherein the packer is pulled or pushed with a rope (see 84 of Higman) to a point of repair in the pipe.
In regard to claims 10 and 20, wherein the packer is inflated via a remote activating mechanism (82 of Higman) to push the fabrics against an interior surface of the pipe (see fig. 5B).
In regard to claims 11, wherein the fabric-laminate is cured in place after packing (see col. 1, lines 20-21 of Braun).
In regard to claims 13 and 22, wherein curing of the resin is accelerated by UV light (see col. 1 of Braun, lines 24-25).
In regard to claims 14 and 23, wherein various layers of the fabric-laminate are FRP products (see claim 6 of Braun).
Claim(s) 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. 6,196,271 in view of Higman 9,435,480 and further in view of Ehsani 2016/0178108.
Braun et al. in view of Higman disclose the liner as being made from glass and FRP, but
In order to make a strong repair liner, does not specifically disclose the use of Carbon, Kevlar and basalt. Ehasni teaches that making repair liners from these materials, in order to improve the strength of a repair liner, is common and well known in the art (see paragraphs 17 and 21 of Ehsani). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the liner of Braun in view of Higman from these same materials.
Claim(s) 15 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. 6,196,271 in view of Higman 9,435,480 and further in view of Bellamy et al. 2007/0267785.
In regard to claims 15 and 24, Braun in view of Higman disclose a repair liner system that is designed to adhere well to the interior of an existing pipe, but do not specifically disclose a cleaning step prior to placing and curing the liner. Bellamy et al. teaches that it is common and well known to complete a cleaning step before placing a repair liner (see paragraph 220), in order to improve the ability of the liner to adhere to the pipe interior during the curing process. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to clean the pipe interior before placing the liner, as the practice of doing this is well known, as taught by Bellamy et al.
Claim(s) 16 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Braun et al. 6,196,271 in view of Higman 9,435,480 and further in view of Gallagher et al. 2006/0151656.
In regard to claims 16, and 25, Braun in view of Higmann disclose a multi-layered liner that is intended to be placed within a conduit, but do not disclose the use of sensors embedded in the laminate of the liner for monitoring conditions within the pipe. Gallagher et al. teaches that providing laminated pipe liners with sensors (see paragraph 37), for monitoring conditions within the pipe, is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to place sensors within the laminated liner of Braun in view of Higman, as taught by Gallagher et al..
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 7, 17 and 26 under Braun et al. in view of Higman have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, the rejection of Braun et al. in view of Higman is being applied differently, as Higman also teaches stitching multiple layers of fabric together, as described in further detail above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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 BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679