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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2 and 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 includes “joining the inner guide, the mid guide, and the outer guide together via adhesive bonding” is not within the originally filed specification.
Claim 11 includes “joining the inner guide, the mid guide and the outer guide together via adhesive bonding” is not within the originally filed specification.
Claims 2, 8-10 and 12-20 depend from claims 1 and 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 8-12 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh et al. US 10,633,099 in view of Cai et al. US 2012/0150150.
For claim 1, the Walsh et al. reference discloses a water collector comprising: a metallic (column 3, lines 1-11) center body (figure 3A objects 24, 28 and 30) with a first portion and a second portion are joined and fluidly sealed together(column 3, lines 1-11 and figure 3A objects 24, 28 and 30); an outer guide disposed concentrically within the metallic center body (figure 3A, object 56A); a mid guide disposed concentrically within the outer guide (figure 3A object 56B); and an inner guide disposed concentrically within the mid guide (figure 3A object 50) wherein the outer guide, the mid guide, and the inner guide are formed from a non-metallic material (column 3, lines 1-11) the option for the outer guide, the mid guide, and the inner guide being formed from a first non-metallic material, wherein the first non-metallic material is a polymer(column 3, lines 1-11) an inlet duct upstream of and joined to the center body (figure 3A, object 32); a plurality of swirl vanes disposed within the inlet duct (figure 3A, object 60) and an outlet duct downstream of and joined to the metallic center body (figure 3A object 34), wherein each of the inlet duct, the plurality of swirl vanes and the outlet duct are formed from a composite material which is a second non-metallic material (column 3, lines 1-11). The Walsh et al. reference does not expressly contemplate the center body being a different material that that of the outer guide, mid guide and inner guide, the outer guide, mid guide and inner guide being joined together by adhesive bonding, the second non-metallic material different from the first non-metallic material and the outlet duct joined together with the metallic center body by adhesive bonding are joined together by adhesive bonding.
The Walsh et al. reference does disclose that it is was known within the art to use each of the materials for the device, therefore using any combination of those materials include the center body being a different material that that of the outer guide, mid guide and inner guide and the second non-metallic material different from the first non-metallic material would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as the courts have held it to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The Cai et al. references are in a similar field of endeavor as Walsh et al. of fluid flow piping. The Cai et al. reference adhesively bonding first and second portions of piping together (paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Walsh et al. reference to include adhesively bonding first and second portions of piping together (Cai et al. paragraphs [0044]-[0046]) including the outer guide, mid guide and inner guide being joined together by adhesive bonding and the outlet duct and metallic center body joined together by adhesive bonding of Welsh et al. so as to adequately secure portions of piping together with improved retention force.
As the apparatus is disclosed by the combination of references above this combination of references would also be capable of being operated in pressurized conditions between 15-100 PSIG, and operate in an environment of 400 °F. To note the claim merely recites “operated”. This does limitations on the efficiency of efficacy of the “operation”. Further it is noted as claimed only the metallic center body needs to operate at these conditions, not the entirety of the apparatus, which is met above.
For claim 2, the Walsh et al. reference discloses the metallic center body is formed from aluminum (column 3, lines 1-11).
For claim 8, the Walsh et al. reference the composite material is polyether ether ketone (column 3, lines 1-11).
For claim 9, the Walsh et al. reference discloses the metallic center body comprises a fluid drainage port (figure 3B, object 18A).
For claim 10, the Walsh et al. reference discloses a non-metallic diffuser disposed concentrically around the inner guide (figure 3A, object 58).
For claim 11, the Walsh et al. reference discloses a method of making a water collector, the method comprising: forming a first portion and a second portion of a metallic center body (column 3, lines 1-11 and figure 3A objects 24, 28 and 30); forming from a first non-metallic material (column 3, lines 1-11), an inner guide, a mid guide, and an outer guide (figure 3A, objects 50, 56B and 56A); disposing the outer guide, the mid guide, and the inner guide concentrically inward, respectively, of the first half of the metallic center body; and joining and fluidly sealing the second portion to the first portion (figure 3A, objects 30, 24, 16A and 16B and the joining portions between these components). To note, as each of these components exist they have inherently been “formed”. The components of the apparatus being made of differing materials is addressed in claim 1 above. Similarly to above, the Walsh et al. reference does not disclose joining the inner guide, the mid guide and the outer guide together via adhesive bonding.
The Cai et al. references are in a similar field of endeavor as Walsh et al. of fluid flow piping. The Cai et al. reference adhesively bonding first and second portions of piping together (paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Walsh et al. reference to include adhesively bonding first and second portions of piping together (Cai et al. paragraphs [0044]-[0046]) including joining the inner guide, the mid guide and the outer guide together via adhesive bonding of Welsh et al. so as to adequately secure portions of piping together with improved retention force.
As the apparatus is disclosed by the combination of references above this combination of references would also be capable of being operated in pressurized conditions between 15-100 PSIG, and operate in an environment of 400 °F. To note the claim merely recites “operated”. This does limitations on the efficiency of efficacy of the “operation”. Further it is noted as claimed only the metallic center body needs to operate at these conditions, not the entirety of the apparatus, which is met above.
For claim 12, the Walsh et al. reference discloses that the second half is attached to the first half as shown above. The reference does not disclose the second half is adhesively bonded or welded to the first half.
The Cai et al. references are in a similar field of endeavor as Walsh et al. of fluid flow piping. The Cai et al. reference adhesively bonding first and second portions of piping together (paragraphs [0044]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Walsh et al. reference to include the second portion is adhesively bonded or welded to the first portion as Cai et al. disclose that both methods are so as to adequately secure portions of piping together with improved retention force.
For claim 17, the Walsh et al. reference discloses forming, from a second non-metallic material (column 3, lines 1-11), an inlet duct (figure 3A, object 32), a plurality of swirl vanes (figure 3A, object 60), and an outlet duct (figure 3A, object 34); disposing the plurality of swirl vanes within the inlet duct (figure 3A, objects 60 and 32) disposing the inlet duct upstream of the center body and the outlet duct downstream of the center body (figure 3A, objects 50, 24, 30, 16A, 16B and 34); and joining and fluidly sealing the inlet duct and the outlet duct to the center body (see the joints and fluid flow of the apparatus in figure 3B).
For claim 18, the Walsh et al. reference discloses the second non-metallic material is a composite material (as shown in claim 7 above).
For claim 19, the Walsh et al. reference discloses the inlet duct, the plurality of swirl vanes, and the outlet duct are formed from a molding process or an additive manufacturing process (column 3, lines 1-11).
Claim(s) 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh et al. US 10,633,099 and Cai et al. US 2012/0150150as applied in claim 11 above and further in view of Park et al. US 2012/0204992.
For claim 13 the Walsh et al. reference does not disclose the metallic center body is formed using a hydroforming process.
The Park et al. reference is in a similar field of endeavor as Walsh et al. of fluid flow piping and discloses piping being forming by a hydroforming process (paragraph [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Walsh et al. reference to include the metallic center body is formed using a hydroforming process as the Park et al. reference discloses that such a process will improve the lifespan of the pip, improve the coupling performance between adjoining pipes, like that of Walsh et al. (Park et al. [0074]).
For claim 14, the Walsh et al. reference discloses the metallic center body is formed from aluminum (as shown in claim 2 above).
For claim 15, the Walsh et al. reference discloses the first non-metallic material is formed from a polymer (as shown in claim 3 above).
For claim 16, the Walsh et al. reference discloses the inner guide, the mid guide, and the outer guide are formed from a molding process or an additive manufacturing process (column 3, lines 1-11).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Walsh et al. US 10,633,099 and Cai et al. US 2012/0150150 as applied in claim 11 above and further in view of Noel et al. US 5,971,443.
For claim 20, the Walsh et al. reference discloses that the outlet duct is joined with the center body (figure 3A, objects 30, 24, 16A and 16B). The reference does not disclose that the inlet duct is adhesively bonded to the center body as the inlet duct is a cohesive structure with that of the center body. The Walsh et al. reference does not disclose the joining portion between the outlet duct and the center body is adhesively joined.
With regard to the inlet duct being separate therefrom the center body and adhesively bonding the two together. It would have been obvious one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Walsh et al. reference to include the inlet duct being separate therefrom the center body and adhesively bonding the two together as the courts have held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
The Noel et al. reference discloses adhesively bonding first and second portions of piping together (claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Walsh et al. reference to include the inlet duct and the outlet duct are adhesively bonded to the center body as Noel et al. discloses (Noel claim 1) that adhesively joining two portions of fluid piping together is effective in adequately securing portions of piping together.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant contends that “Walsh, does not contemplate the use in a pressurized environment between 15-100 PSIG as claimed. The current disclosure uses a hybrid metallic and non-metallic system to provide a water collector that can withstand these conditions, while also removing weight and machining costs by using non-metallic materials in ways not contemplated by any of the prior art”.
This is not found to be persuasive. As the apparatus is disclosed by the combination of references above this combination of references would also be capable of being operated in pressurized conditions between 15-100 PSIG, and operate in an environment of 400 °F. To note the claim merely recites “operated”. This does limitations on the efficiency of efficacy of the “operation”. Further it is noted as claimed only the metallic center body needs to operate at these conditions which is met above. Finally there are allegations of unexpected results – a water collector that can withstand conditions, removing weight an machining costs. Mere allegations of unexpected results to not take the place of factual evidence thereof.
The Applicant contends that the outer guide, mid guide and inner guide must be “joined together by adhesive bonding” which is not disclosed by Noel. The Cai et al. reference is used to demonstrate adhesively bonding piping for fluid flow as shown above.
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 AMBER ROSE ORLANDO whose telephone number is (571)270-3149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30-4:30.
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, Alexa Neckel can be reached at (571) 272-2450. 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.
AMBER ROSE ORLANDO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1731
/AMBER R ORLANDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731