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 .
Priority
1. This action claims priority to PCT/US21/22016.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. Claims 1-6, 11, 12 and 14-25 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.
The term “much longer” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “much longer” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Similarly, the term “slightly greater” in claim 12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
3. Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12 and 14-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunn (2020/0003931).
As to claim 1: Dunn teaches a detectable marker tape (figure 35) for location of a buried infrastructure with said detectable marker tape being adapted to be successfully installed during a horizontal directional drilling machine pullback operation (paragraphs 0065-0066, figures 34-35):
said detectable marker tape comprising a protective envelope (figure 35, showing protective elements surrounding an inner section, which is considered an envelope), an elongated, non-stretchable, core material (claim 1), and at least one remote locating device (claim 13);
said protective envelope (130, figure 35) having a first length and a first width with said first length being much longer than said first width is wide (figure 39 showing the long outlay of the tape), and with said protective envelope also having an inside surface and an outside surface and with said protective envelope being formed around said elongated, non-stretchable, core material and said at least one remote locating device (134 surrounding core material 142);
said elongated, non-stretchable, core material having a second length and a second width, with said second length being at least as long as said first length and with said second length being much longer than said second width is wide (also seen in figures 35-39), an outer surface and a predetermined tensile strength (paragraph 0073);
said at least one remote locating device having an outer surface (figure 43, 160 or figure 35, 148); and,
with a substantial portion of said outer surface of said elongated, non-stretchable, core material being secured to said inside surface of said protective envelope and with a substantial portion of said outer surface of said at least one remote locating device also being secured to said inside surface of said protective envelope (as seen in figures 35, 43).
As to claim 2: Dunn teaches that said protective envelope is formed from at least one strip of thermoplastic material with said at least one strip of thermoplastic material having a third length and a third width, with said at least one strip of thermoplastic material further having a top surface, a bottom surface and first and second side edges at each lateral portion of said top surface, respectively, of said at least one strip of thermoplastic material and with first and second side edges at each lateral portion of said bottom surface, respectively, of said at least one strip of thermoplastic material (claim 1 explaining thermoplastic material, figure 36 showing a number of layers including thermoplastic layers 138, 140, 144, each with a corresponding width that is shorter than the length, and edges at a lateral portion of the bottom surface).
As to claim 5: Dunn teaches that said third length is substantially equal to said first length and said third width is substantially equal to said first width and said protective envelope is formed from said at least one strip of thermoplastic material and a second strip of thermoplastic material disposed below said at least one strip of thermoplastic material (claim 1 explaining thermoplastic material, figure 36 showing a number of layers including thermoplastic layers 138, 140, 144, each with a corresponding width that is shorter than the length, and edges at a lateral portion of the bottom surface);
with said second strip of thermoplastic having;
a fourth length and a fourth width with said fourth fifth length being substantially equal to said first length and said fourth width is substantially equal to said first width,
a top surface, a bottom surface and first and second side edges at each lateral portion of said top surface, respectively, of said second strip of thermoplastic material and with first and second side edges at each lateral portion of said bottom surface, respectively, of said second strip of thermoplastic material (as seen, the layers correspond roughly, being fused at the edges shown in figure 35); and,
with said at least one strip of thermoplastic material being secured to said second strip of thermoplastic material at least at said first and second side edges on said bottom surface of said at least one strip of thermoplastic material and said first and second side edges at said top surface of said second strip of thermoplastic material such that said bottom surface of said at least one strip of thermoplastic material and said top surface of said second strip of thermoplastic material form said inside surface of said protective envelope (as seen in figure 35).
As to claim 6: Dunn teaches that said first and second side
edges at each lateral portion of said bottom surface, respectively, of said at least one sheet strip of thermoplastic material and said first and second side edges at said top surface, respectively, of said second strip of thermoplastic material are secured together by said side edges being laminated together, being adhered together with adhesive, being heat sealed or being ultrasonically welded together (claim 1 explaining thermoplastic materials laminated together, figure 36 showing a number of layers including thermoplastic layers 138, 140, 144, paragraph 0149 explaining an adhesive to secure the layers).
As to claim 11: Dunn teaches that said elongated, non-stretchable, core material comprises polyester fibers, aramid fibers, or a mixture of polyester and aramid fibers (claims 39, 40).
As to claim 12: Dunn teaches that said second length is slightly
greater than said first length such that said elongated, non-stretchable, core material extends outwardly from one end of said protective envelope (figure 35, 36 show the core with a greater length than the other sections, 142, by being in a non-linear configuration, and extending in a direction perpendicular to one end of the envelope).
As to claim 14: Dunn teaches that at least one remote locating device further comprises multiple radioactive, metallic, ferrous metal, electronic, RF, RFID,
magnetic or magnetomechanical locating devices distributed along said first length at a
predetermined spacing (claim 14).
As to claim 15: Dunn teaches that at least one remote locating device comprises multiple radioactive, metallic, ferrous metal, electronic, RF, RFID, magnetic or magnetomechanical locating devices distributed along said first length at a
predetermined spacing (claim 14).
As to claim 16: Dunn teaches that at least one remote locating device is
incorporated within said elongated, non-stretchable, core material (seen in figure 35, a140 is fused to 142 and within the same layer in the material).
As to claim 17: Dunn teaches that at least one remote locating device is secured to said outer surface of said elongated, non-stretchable, core material (figure 42).
As to claim 18: Dunn teaches that at least a portion of said outside surface of
said protective envelope is treated with a highly reflective coating (paragraph 0168).
As to claim 19: Dunn teaches that at least a portion of said outside surface of
said protective envelope is treated with a luminescent coating (paragraph 0015).
As to claim 20: Dunn teaches that at least a portion of said outside surface of said protective envelope has multiple optically variable indicia imprinted, stamped
or engraved thereon (figure 34, 132).
As to claim 21: Dunn teaches that at least a portion of said outside surface of
said protective envelope has warning indicia imprinted thereon (132).
As to claim 22: Dunn teaches that at least a portion of said outside surface of
said protective envelope has identification indicia imprinted thereon (132).
As to claim 23: Dunn teaches that said protective envelope is
formed by an extrusion process (paragraph 0062).
As to claim 24: Dunn teaches that said elongated, non-stretchable, core material
further comprises a rope-like material (figure 37).
As to claim 25: Dunn teaches that at least one remote locating device
comprises tracer wire, said tracer wire extending for substantially the entirety of said third length (abstract).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 3 and 4 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not fairly teach or suggest the limitations of claim 3, specifically that at least one strip of thermoplastic material is flexible and folded about the centerline of said at least one strip of thermoplastic material, in view of all other limitations present in the claims.
Dunn (2020/0003931) teaches a thermoplastic material which is flexible, but does not teach that the material is folded about a centerline of a thermoplastic material, but instead stretched about the length of the tape.
Southworth (3,568,626) teaches an excavation tape which contains an outer layer which is folded over a core material. However, this material is not folded over a centerline of the outside material, but instead folded over exterior nylon cords. Furthermore, Southworth does not teach structural limitations further contained in claim 1.
Prosser (3,282,057) teaches an underground insulating tape wherein the exterior section is folded, but this section is not folded over the centerline of the thermoplastic material, but instead pleated to provide texture of a surface.
Martial (2017/0154549) teaches a roll of identifier-marked insulating tape wherein sections of the exterior layer are folded in a repeatable manner. However, the nature of this folding is to roll the tape and extract linear sections of the tape, and is not folded over a centerline of the thermoplastic tape.
Overall, examiner finds insulating tapes with a number of layers which cover a core which is inflexible, and a communication element such as a signal wire. This is similar to the layout of a cable, but in a flattened form. However, cables do not have folded sections over a centerline, as the cylinder configuration causes a lack of a centerline in that axis. As is such, examiner does not find it obvious to combine references that are predominantly non-planar, and the remaining planar references do not teach the specific folding pattern required by the instant claims.
Claim 4 depends upon claim 3, and is therefore objected to for the same reasons as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TARDIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7810. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11AM-7:30PM. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: david.tardif@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571)272-3689. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
DAVID TARDIF
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DAVID TARDIF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2876
david.tardif@uspto.gov
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights