DETAILED OFFICIAL 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 .
Examiner Note
It is noted that all references hereinafter to Applicant’s specification (“spec”) are to the published application US 2023/0250915, unless stated otherwise. Further, any italicized text utilized hereinafter is to be interpreted as emphasis placed thereupon.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-13 and Species I, claim 9 in the reply filed on 28 October 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10 and 14-20, respectively, are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species and a nonelected invention, respectively, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
In view of the foregoing, claims 1-9 and 11-13 are under consideration on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 28 October 2025 is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reid et al. (US 2020/0393076; “Reid”).
Regarding claim 1, Reid discloses an (thermally) insulated conduit [Figs. 14A-14C] (extends in major axis direction) comprising an inner wall (inner tube) defining a lumen having a centerline; an outer wall (outer tube) encircling the inner wall and having a plurality of corrugations; and an insulating spaced defined between the inner wall and outer wall, wherein the insulating space may be evacuated to, e.g. from 10-5 to 10-9 Torr [Figs. 14A-14C; 0004, 0057, 0062-0063, 0116, 0146-0149, 0152, 0187]. The aforecited conduit, in particular the distal end thereof depicted in Fig. 14C, is reproduced hereinbelow to illustrate the basis of the rejection, captioned as Figure 1.
As shown, the distal end of the conduit includes region 1434 (“land region”) where the inner wall, which slopes to flare outward toward the outer wall, meets the outer wall and is brazed thereto, said region exhibiting a length 1432 [0152]. Outer wall extends beyond region 1434 toward the distal end of the conduit, i.e. extends beyond the distal end of the length 1432, thereby defining a stepped transition (stepped increase) in the inner diameter of the conduit, of which is readily recognized as an “indentation” or “slot”.
PNG
media_image1.png
452
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1. Distal end of insulated conduit
The aforesaid stepped transition in the inner diameter of the conduit at the distal end, thereby defining an indentation or slot, reads on the claimed at least one “engagement feature configured to secure the component to an outlet, the engagement feature being arranged such that a line extending radially outward from the centerline of the lumen passes through the engagement feature without passing through the insulating space”.
In further detail, the spec states that the engagement feature may comprise dimples, grooves, indentations, tabs, slots, threads, tapers, and the like [0027]. Additionally, the spec does not define “configured to secure the component to an outlet” in terms of the permanence of, or degree of securement of, the thermal insulation component to said outlet provided by the engagement feature. In other words, “configured to secure the component to an outlet” is broad such that any degree or any type of securement provided by the engagement feature reads thereon. See MPEP 2111, MPEP 2111.01(II).
As such, the stepped transition constitutes a species of engagement feature, i.e. an indentation or slot which is explicitly named by the spec as suitable/exemplary for securing the component to an outlet. Furthermore, given that “configured to secure” encompasses embodiments where the securement may be facilitated or achieved by, e.g. a weld, braze, solder, heat-bond, or other permanent-type connection, by a hand-held non-permanent connection, or by a removable connection (non-permanent) having any degree of securement between the thermal insulation component and the outlet, one of ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes that the stepped transition (i.e. indentation or slot) at the distal end of the conduit of Reid may function to provide a stop-point (i.e. “seat”, “lip”, or “fitment”) which is abutted against by a corresponding outlet (e.g. male-type end of a nozzle, tube, connector, etc.) inserted into said distal end in order to transport fluid originating therefrom through the lumen of the conduit, while preventing over-insertion (distance-wise) of the outlet into the lumen along the centerline thereof.
In view of the foregoing – and in the absence of a claimed degree or type of securement, or specific structural/physical features and positions thereof of the engagement feature – the aforesaid stepped transition at the distal end of the conduit of Reid reads on, and thereby anticipates the claimed “at least one engagement feature configured to secure the component to an outlet, the engagement feature being arranged such that a line extending radially outward from the centerline of the lumen passes through the engagement feature without passing through the insulating space”. As is clear from Figure 1 above, a line extending radially outward from the centerline of the lumen passes through the stepped transition, but does not pass through the insulating space between the first wall and second wall.
As detailed above, the insulation conduit of Reid anticipates the thermal insulation component defined by each and every limitation of claim 1.
Regarding claims 2-3, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on each thermal insulation component defined by claims 2 and 3. That is, the stepped transition, i.e. indentation or slot (alt. “lip” or “seat”) in the inner diameter of the conduit at the distal end – which includes, i.e. is defined by (i) the region 1434 where the outer and inner walls are joined to one another, wherein the inner diameter of the conduit is smaller, and (ii) the distal end of the outer wall which extends beyond the region 1434/length 1432 in the direction of the major axis, wherein the inner diameter of the conduit is larger – reads on both “extends in a direction toward the lumen” and “extends in a direction away from the lumen”, as claimed.
Specifically, said (i) reads on claim 2, “extends in a direction toward the lumen”, and said (ii) reads on claim 3, “extends in a direction away from the lumen”. Regarding the latter, “away from the lumen” is broad such that it encompasses extending away from the lumen in a direction parallel to the major axis – that is, extending “away from the lumen” is not required to extend away from the lumen in a direction perpendicular to the major axis.
Regarding claim 9, in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above, Reid reasonably discloses and/or implies that the inner wall (inner tube) and outer wall (outer tube) can be formed from the same, e.g. metallic material, e.g. stainless steel [0071, 0090, 0100, 0168]. Given that the inner wall and outer wall of the insulated conduit of Reid are (i) formed from the same material, wherein (ii) said material may be stainless steel, it stands to reason that the inner wall and outer wall would exhibit the same thermal expansion characteristics, e.g. the same coefficient of linear thermal expansion, absent a showing of factually supported objective evidence to the contrary. See MPEP 2112(V); MPEP 2112.01(I) and (II); MPEP 2145; and MPEP 2145(I).
It is noted that the spec indicates that the inner wall and outer wall, when formed from the same material, e.g. stainless steel, exhibit the same thermal expansion characteristics [0026]. That is, the spec [0026] indicates or reasonably implies that the variable/factor which determines the thermal expansion characteristics of the walls of the component is the material from which it is formed, and therefore not dependent upon shape/structure, etc.
Regarding claim 11, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the thermal insulation component defined by claim 11. That is, Reid discloses that the pressure to which the insulating space is evacuated is from 10-5 to 10-9 Torr, which is within the lower bound of, and identical to the upper bound of the claimed range of about 10-1 to about 10-9 Torr, thereby anticipating the claimed range (see MPEP 2131.03).
Regarding claims 12-13, in view of the grounds of rejection of claim 11 above, Reid discloses an exemplary pressure, within the aforesaid range, of 10-6 Torr [0116], of which is within the claimed range of about 10-3 to about 10-7 Torr (claim 12), and identical to the upper bound of the claimed range of about 10-5 to about 10-6 Torr (claim 13), thereby anticipating each of the claimed ranges (see MPEP 2131.03).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Radhakrishnan et al. (WO 2019/014463; “Radhakrishnan”) (copy provided herewith).
Regarding claim 1, Radhakrishnan discloses an (thermally) insulated conduit (extends in major axis direction) comprising an outer tube having a corrugated surface and defining a first end; an inner tube disposed within the outer tube and defining a lumen of the conduit, said inner tube also defining a first end; and an insulating space disposed between the outer tube and the inner tube, wherein the insulating space may be evacuated to about 10-5 to about 10-9Torr, or about 10-6 to about 10-8 Torr [0363, 0373, 0381-0382]. It is noted that the grounds of rejection set forth hereinafter specifically rely on the aforecited embodiment of the insulated conduit.
Further, the conduit includes a sealer ring, also recognized (generally/broadly) as a “seal” or “sealer element”, formed from, e.g. a ceramic material [0217] and disposed between the inner tube and the outer tube at/near the respective first ends (defining a vent for the insulated space) [0019-0020, 0029, 0363]. The sealer ring functions to seal the insulating space and provide an exit pathway for gas molecules from the space (to/through the vent), and to maintain the vacuum within the space [0019-0020, 0029, 0363]. The sealer ring includes first and second walls, the first wall being disposed opposite (facing) the inner tube and the second wall being disposed opposite (facing) the outer tube, where the distance between the first wall and the outer tube and/or the distance between the second wall and the inner tube is variable in a portion of the insulating space (which is) adjacent the vent (thereby defining a “variable-distance” portion of the sealer ring) such that gas molecules within the insulating space are directed towards the vent during evacuation of the insulating space, wherein the variable-distance portion imparts to the gas molecules a greater probability of egress from the insulating space than ingress [0077, 0363, 0378-0380, 0467, 0469-0470].
The sealer ring “bridges” the inner tube and the outer tube [0217], and may be selected to have a heat transfer coefficient less than the heat transfer coefficient of one or both of the inner and outer tubes, e.g. the sealer ring is formed from a ceramic, and the inner tube and outer tube can be formed from stainless steel [0217]. The sealer ring is suitably joined, i.e. to the inner tube and outer tube by brazing [0218].
As stated/cited above, the sealer ring is recognized in a broader manner, nominally, as a “seal” or “sealer element”, and is also recognized as a “bridge material” [0251, 0254-0255] as detailed below.
That is, Radhakrishnan discloses a “bridge material” (sealer element) which is a ceramic ring disposed between/bridging the inner tube and outer tube, at or near the first ends, and sealing the insulating space, wherein the bridge material (ceramic ring) may be joined to the inner and outer tube by brazing, and wherein the bridge material can included sloped walls (i.e. variable-distance portion) adjacent the vent in the insulating space to direct gas molecules thereto when evacuating the insulating space [0251, 0254-0255, 0258-0260, 0262-0263].
Based on at least the aforecited disclosure of Radhakrishnan – and further in view of at least the figures which depict the sealer ring (1928) [Figs. 19B, 19C] and the bridge material (2714, 2814) [Figs. 27, 28] – it may be said that Radhakrishnan reasonably teaches or implies, and/or one of ordinary skill in the art readily recognizes, that the “sealer ring” and “bridge material” are sealer elements which: (i) are disposed between (bridging) the inner tube and outer tube, (ii) may be formed as ceramic rings, and (iii) are suitably joined to the tubes by brazing, and which function: (iv) to seal the insulating space, (v) to direct gas molecules being evacuated therefrom to the vent via the “variable-distance” portion, e.g. sloped geometry, and (vi) to maintain the vacuum within the insulated space after evacuation thereof.
It is clear – in view of the aforecited figures and stated elements (i)-(vi) – that the sealer elements referred to nominally in Radhakrishnan as “sealer ring” and “bridge material” are substantially identical or identical in structure, position, and function, and are thereby synonymous and/or interchangeable and may be – and are hereinafter – referred to simply as a “sealer ring”.
As set forth/cited above, the sealer ring in accordance with the aforecited embodiment of the insulated conduit includes the variable-distance portion [0378-0380], such as that depicted as (1928) [Figs. 19B, 19C]. Further, Radhakrishnan teaches that the inner tube can include inward-protruding (toward the centerline of the lumen) grooves (2818) and outer tube can include outward-protruding (toward the outer surface of the outer surface) grooves (2820) which form/correspond to cavities formed in the inner tube (2818a) and formed in the outer tube (2820a) [Fig. 28] and are filled with brazing material to braze the sealer ring to the inner and outer tubes to join it thereto and thereby seal the insulating space [0262-0263; Figs. 27-28]. The sealer rings depicted in Figs. 19B, 27, and 28 are reproduced hereinbelow to illustrate the basis of the rejection, captioned as Figure 2.
PNG
media_image2.png
594
666
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 2. Sealer rings 1928 [Fig. 19B], 2714 [Fig. 27], and 2814 [Fig. 28]
In view of the totality of the foregoing, and given that Radhakrishnan explicitly states that features of the disclosed invention set forth in the context of separate embodiments can also be provided in combination [0068], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inner and outer tubes, at or near the respective first ends thereof, of the aforecited embodiment of the insulated conduit [0363-0382] – which includes the sealer ring having the variable-distance portion which may have a V-shaped cross-section, such as that shown above (1928) in Figure 2 (reproduced Fig. 19B) – to include the inward-protruding (2818) and outward-protruding (2820) grooves and corresponding cavities (2818a, 2820a) shown above in Figure 2 (reproduced Fig. 28), in order to retain brazing material therein to facilitate brazing (bonding/fusing) of, or increase the strength of the braze (bond) of, the sealer ring to the inner tube and the outer tube at the location of the grooves/cavities and thereby seal the insulated space. The sealer ring brazed to the inner tube and outer tube at the locations of the grooves/cavities (at or near the first ends of the inner tube and outer tube, respectively) would have thereby exhibited an increased degree of bonding to said tubes, and/or an increased resistance to axial movement/displacement (along the direction of the major axis) from the brazed position during or after evacuation of the insulating space (thereby maintaining or increasing the integrity of the seal of the vacuum) due to the brazed sealer ring portions within the cavities constituting protrusions of brazed material being abutted on each side (in the direction of the major axis) by the surrounding tube material, i.e. the surrounding grooves.
In accordance with the aforesaid modification, the insulated conduit of Radhakrishnan [0363-0382] would have comprised all of the features/elements set forth/cited above, wherein the inner tube and outer tube of the aforecited insulated conduit of Radhakrishnan, at or near the respective first ends thereof, would have (1) included the inward-protruding and outward-protruding grooves and corresponding cavities, respectively, depicted in Fig. 28, and (2) the sealer ring exhibiting the variable-distance portion – such as the V-shaped cross-section, as depicted in Figs. 19B and 19C, or otherwise the first and/or second walls exhibiting sloped geometry – would have been brazed to the inner and outer tubes at the location of the aforesaid grooves via brazing material retained within the corresponding cavities (after positioning the sealer ring within the [insulating] space between the inner tube and outer tube at or near the respective first ends thereof).
The insulated conduit of Radhakrishnan in accordance with the aforesaid modifications (hereinafter “modified Radhakrishnan) reads on the thermal insulation component defined by every limitation of claim 1. Specifically, it is noted that ¶13-15 above, regarding Applicant’s spec as it pertains to the claimed “at least one engagement feature” and the scope of the claimed term/phrase, are incorporated herein by reference (not repeated for sake of brevity). The inward-protruding grooves of the inner tube, and/or the outward-protruding grooves of the outer tube of the insulated conduit of modified Radhakrishnan read on the claimed “at least one engagement feature configured to secure the component to an outlet, the engagement feature being arranged such that a line extending radially outward from the centerline of the lumen passes through the engagement feature without passing through the insulating space”. In other words, the grooves constitute grooves or “dimples” in accordance with the spec, and a line (imaginary) extending radially outward from the centerline of the lumen passes through the grooves and corresponding portion of the sealer ring, but does not pass through the insulating space, of which is delimited by the variable-distance portion (V-shaped portion, or sloped geometry of the first wall and/or second wall) of the sealer ring.
Regarding claims 2-3, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on each thermal insulation component defined by claims 2 and 3 – the inward-protruding groove of the inner tube of modified Radhakrishnan reads on claim 2, and the outward-protruding groove of the outer tube reads on claim 3.
Regarding claims 4-5, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on each thermal insulation component defined by claims 4 and 5 – the inward-protruding groove [Fig. 28 – (2818)] of the inner tube of modified Radhakrishnan reads on “dimple” (claim 4) and said dimple “formed in the inner wall” (claim 5).
Regarding claims 6-8, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on each thermal insulation component defined by claims 6-8. Specifically, the sealer ring of modified Radhakrishnan (claim 6, “sealer” which is sealed to the outer wall and the inner wall), which is adjacent the vent, exhibits the aforecited variable-distance portion which is formed as the V-shaped cross-section (claim 7, sealer and outer wall define a vent; claim 8, sealer and inner wall define a vent; claim 7, distance between the sealer and the outer wall is being variable in a portion of the insulating space adjacent the vent; claim 8, distance between the sealer and the inner wall is being variable in a portion of the insulating space adjacent the vent), wherein the landing or point of the V-shape (convergence of the two slopes) of the sealer ring is positioned facing away from the respective first ends (i.e. positioned facing toward insulating space) [Figs. 19B, 19C] (claim 6, defining at least a portion of the insulating space).
The V-shaped cross-section thereby delimits (in the direction extending along the major axis) the insulating space between the inner tube and outer tube (claim 6, defining at least a portion of the insulating space) at the respective first ends, wherein the variable-distance portion causes the gas molecules within the insulating space to be directed towards the vent during evacuation of the insulating space and imparts to the gas molecules a greater probability of egress from the insulating space than ingress [0077, 0363, 0378-0380, 0467, 0469-0470] (claims 7 and 8, such that gas molecules within the sealed insulating space are directed towards the vent by the variable-distance portion during evacuation of the insulating space, the directing of the gas molecules by the variable-distance portion imparting to the gas molecules a greater probability of egress from the insulating space than ingress thereby providing a deeper vacuum without requiring a getter material within the insulating space).
Regarding claim 9, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on the thermal insulation component defined by claim 9 – the inner tube and the outer tube are suitably formed from the same material, e.g. stainless steel, or ceramic, and thereby read on “exhibit the same thermal expansion characteristics” as claimed, in view of the explanation/rationale set forth above at ¶19-20 and incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 11-13, the grounds of rejection of claim 1 above read on each thermal insulation component defined by claims 11-13. As set forth above, the insulating space of the insulation conduit of modified Radhakrishnan is suitably evacuated to about 10-5 to about 10-9 Torr, or about 10-6 to about 10-8 Torr – each of the aforesaid ranges are within the range defined by claim 11, and substantially overlap the range defined by claim 12 (see MPEP 2144.05(I)). The former range exhibits an identical lower bound to, and encompasses the upper bound of the range of about 10-5 to about 10-6 Torr defined by claim 13, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)). The lower bound of the latter range is identical to, i.e. “touches” the upper bound of the range of about 10-5 to about 10-6 Torr defined by claim 13, thereby rendering the range prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Pertinent Prior Art
The following constitutes a list of prior art which are not relied upon herein, but are considered pertinent to the claimed invention and/or written description thereof. The prior art are purposely made of record hereinafter to facilitate compact/expedient prosecution, and consideration thereof is respectfully suggested.
US 2022/0042639 to Grande – discloses fluid conduits including inner tube, outer tube, and insulation space disposed therebetween and having heater-means for heating fluid flowing within the conduit [Abstract; Figs. 2, 5-6, 11]
WO 2015/122310 to Nakayama et al. (copy and machine translation provided herewith) – discloses a connection (insertion) structure for vacuum heat insulation tubes which are inserted into one another, wherein a line extending radially outward from the centerline of the lumen passes through the connection structure but not the insulation space of each tube [Abstract; Figs. 2, 5A-5C]
KR 10-2008-0113756 to Choon Ho et al. (copy and machine translation provided herewith) – discloses connection structure for double pipes (each including concentric inner and outer pipes having gap rings disposed therebetween along the length thereof) whose outer pipe surface may include corrugations, wherein the distal/proximal ends of the pipes include screw-thread fittings, wherein a line extending radially outward from the centerline of the lumen passes through the fittings but not the gaps between the inner and outer pipes [Figs. 1, 3A-3C, 4-5 (copy); pp. 6-13 (translation)]
US 1,218,895 to Porter – discloses insulated tube comprising inner tube, outer tube including a plurality of corrugations, insulation spaced disposed between inner and outer tube, and screw-thread fittings located at the distal and proximal ends of the pipe, wherein the screw-thread fittings extend inward toward the lumen, and wherein a line extending radially outward from the centerline of the lumen passes through the fittings but not the insulation space [Fig. 3; pp. 1-2]
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Michael C. Romanowski whose telephone number is (571)270-1387. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F, 09:30-17:30.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at (571) 272-8935. 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.
/MICHAEL C. ROMANOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782