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 Objections
Claim 29 objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “below” in line 3 of the claim should be “above”, as stated one page 4, lines 28-31.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that uses the word “means,” and are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “means of temperature control” in claims 16,19,20,23,27,28.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The corresponding structure is the heating or cooling conduit, part 13 in fig 1, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanda (JP 2006046486 A), hereafter known as Kanda.
Regarding claim 16, Kanda discloses an apparatus for controlling the temperature of fluids (abstract, Kanda), comprising a wall (figs 1a and 1b, pipe 21 has a wall, with outer surface, Kanda), a first insulation layer (figs 1a and 1b, inner insulation 8, Kanda) , means of temperature control (figs 1a and 1b, steam pipe 5 controls the temperature, Kanda), and a second insulation layer (figs 1a and 1b, outer insulation 8, Kanda), where the wall is in contact on one side with the fluid of which the temperature is to be controlled (figs 1a and 1b , wall of fluid conduit 21 is in contact with the fluid on the inside surface, Kanda) and the first insulation layer has been applied to the side of the wall facing away from the fluid (fig 1a and 1b, outer wall of conduit 21 is facing the inner insulation layer 8, Kanda) , and the means of temperature control are disposed between the first insulation layer and the second insulation layer (figs1a and 1b, heating element 5 is between the inside and outside insulation layers, both labeled 8, Kanda).
Regarding claim 17, Kanda discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the
fluid is a fluidized solid, a liquid, a gas or any mixture thereof (abstract, line is a water line, Kanda).
Regarding claim 18 Kanda discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the wall is a wall of a pipeline through which the fluid flows or a duct of any cross-sectional shape through which the fluid flows or a wall of a vessel comprising the fluid (figs 1a and 1b , the wall of fluid line 21 is a wall of a pipe through which fluid flows, Kanda).
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 19, 20,22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda in view of Yednak (US 9341296 B2), hereafter known as Yednak.
Regarding claim 19, Kanda discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the means of temperature control can be operated with a defined heating output or cooling output. However, Yednak teaches a heater that can be operated with a defined heating output (col 6, lines 33-42, heating elements 48 are controlled to a defined heating output by monitoring unit 86, fig 2, Yednak). Yednak describes a heated insulated fluid conduit, a field closely related to Kanda and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Yednak into Kanda and replaced the steam heating system of Kanda with the electrical heating system of Yednak, along with its control and monitoring systems. The electrical heating system of Yednak would allow for greater flexibility in different environmental temperatures, avoiding the need to change the pitch of the wound heater or adding an additional steam pipe in response to changes in ambient temperature as is needed in Kanda (paragraph 0017, Kanda).
Regarding claim 20, Kanda discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, but does not disclose the means of temperature control comprise an electrical heater. However, Yednak teaches an electrical heater (col 3, lines 63-65, heating element 48 may be a resistive wire heater, which is a type of electrical heater, Yednak). Yednak describes a heated insulated fluid conduit, a field closely related to Kanda and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Yednak into Kanda and replaced the steam heating system of Kanda with the electrical heating system of Yednak. The electrical heating system of Yednak would allow for greater flexibility in different environmental temperatures, avoiding the need to change the pitch of the wound heater or adding an additional steam pipe in response to changes in ambient temperature as is needed in Kanda (paragraph 0017, Kanda).
Regarding claim 22, Kanda discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the wall is a wall of a duct or of a pipeline (figs 1a and 1b , the wall of fluid line 21 is a wall of a pipe, Kanda) and the electrical heater (not disclosed) comprises at least one heat conductor (figs 1a and 1b, steam pipe 5, Kanda) which runs parallel to the flow direction of the fluid in the duct or in the pipeline or which is wound around the duct or the pipeline (figs 1a and 1b, steam pipe 5 can run parallel to the flow direction in pipe 21 or be wound around it, paragraph 0009, Kanda). Kanda does not disclose an electrical heater. However, Yednak teaches an electrical heater (col 3, lines 63-65, heating element 48 may be a resistive wire heater, which is a type of electrical heater, Yednak). Yednak describes a heated insulated fluid conduit, a field closely related to Kanda and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Yednak into Kanda and replaced the steam heating system of Kanda with the electrical heating system of Yednak. The electrical heating system of Yednak would allow for greater flexibility in different environmental temperatures, avoiding the need to change the pitch of the wound heater or adding an additional steam pipe in response to changes in ambient temperature as is needed in Kanda (paragraph 0017, Kanda).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda in view of Gao (CN 106321200 A), hereafter known as Gao, in further view of Mingtai Aluminum’s product page, “Aluminum foil for sale”, hereafter known as Mingtai.
Regarding claim 21, Kanda discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, but does not disclose an interlayer of a metal having a thickness within a range from 0.2 to 1 mm is accommodated between the first insulation layer and the second insulation layer.
However, Gao teaches a heat conducting layer made of metal in contact with the heating conduit (page 7, paragraph 1, fig 3, heat conducting layer 8 is made of aluminum foil and is wrapped around heating wire 2, Gao.) Gao describes an insulated heated fluid pipe, a field closely related to Kanda and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Yednak into Kanda and added the metal heat conducting layer of Gao around the heating conduit of Kanda, and thus between the inner and outer insulation layers 8 of Kanda. The heat conducting layer conducts the heat from heater pipe 5 of Kanda around pipe 21 more evenly, which increases the effectiveness of the heater pipe, as well as preventing regions of pipe 21 from becoming overheated.
Kanda in view of Gao does not disclose the metal interlayer having a thickness from 0.2 to 1 mm, although heat conducting layer 8 of Gao is disclosed to be aluminum foil, suggesting that it is thin in nature. However, Mingtai teaches aluminum foil 0.2 mm in thickness (“Aluminum foil classification”, thick foil has a thickness of 0.1 to 0.2mm, Mingtai). Mingtai is a product page for thin metal foils, a field related to Kanda, Gao, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Mingtai into Kanda in view of Gao and use 0.2mm thick aluminum foil to create the heat conducting layer of Kanda in view of Gao. Thicker foils have greater thermal conductivity, allowing the heat conducting layer to more evenly distribute the heat around pipe 21. Additionally, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda in view of Perry (US 20110297360 A1), hereafter known as Perry.
Regarding claim 23, Kanda discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the means of temperature control comprise a cooling device, where the cooling device comprises at least one cooling conduit through which a cooling medium flows. However, Perry teaches a heat transfer tracer for a pipe that can act both as a heater and cooler and has a cooling conduit through which a cooling medium flows (paragraphs 0046-0051, fig 3, conduit 8 could be configured to have coolant flowing through it, paragraph 0199, Perry). Perry describes an insulated heat transfer tracer for a pipe, a field closely related to Kanda and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Perry into Kanda and made the tracer of Kanda able to cool via a coolant in addition to being able to heat via steam. The added ability to cool would allow the pipe heater of Kanda in view of Perry to control the temperature of the pipe’s contents to be within a set low and upper range, reducing the effects of natural heating and cooling cycles.
Claims 24,25,26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda.
Regarding claim 24, Kanda discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the first insulation layer and the second insulation layer have the same layer thickness. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the thicknesses of the insulation layers, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, paragraph 0017 of Kanda states that insulation material 8 can be added or removed depending on the local environmental temperature.
Regarding claim 25, Kanda discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the first insulation layer has a layer thickness within a range from 20 to 40 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the thicknesses of the insulation layers, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, paragraph 0017 of Kanda states that insulation material 8 can be added or removed depending on the local environmental temperature, allowing one of ordinary skill to adjust insulation thickness as needed.
Regarding claim 26, Kanda discloses the apparatus according to claim 16, but does not disclose wherein the first insulation layer and the second insulation layer have the same heat resistance. Considering the first and second insulation layers of Kanda are the same material, they will have the same heat resistance if they are the same thickness. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the thicknesses of the insulation layers, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). In addition, paragraph 0017 of Kanda states that insulation material 8 can be added or removed depending on the local environmental temperature, allowing one of ordinary skill to adjust insulation thickness as needed.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda in view of Lee (US 20100307622 A1), hereafter known as Lee.
Regarding claim 27, Kanda discloses a method of controlling the temperature of a fluid in a pipeline, a duct of any cross section or a vessel with an apparatus according to claim 16 but does not disclose the means of temperature control are actuated such that a heating output is applied only when the ambient temperature is lower than a minimum permissible temperature of the fluid and/or a cooling output is applied only when the ambient temperature is higher than the maximum permissible temperature of the fluid. However, Lee teaches a heater that is turned on only when ambient temperature is lower than a minimum permissible temperature of the fluid (paragraph 0052, a bimetal strip regulates ribbon heater 10 according to a preset temperature, Lee). Lee describes a heated insulated fluid conduit, a field closely related to Kanda and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Lee into Kanda and replaced the steam heating system of Kanda with the electrical heating system of Lee. The electrical heating system of Lee would allow the heater to turn off during times of high environmental temperature and saving energy.
Regarding claim 28, Kanda in view of Lee discloses the method according to claim 27, wherein the heating output is adjusted such that the means of temperature control are at the same temperature as the fluid of which the temperature is to be controlled (paragraph 0052, Lee, heating output is adjusted to be off when ambient temperature is above a preset temperature. Without heating, the heater and the fluid are going to be the same temperature as the ambient environment and thus each other).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda in view of Lee, in further view of Heatit’s Amazon product page “HEATIT 100ft Pipe Heating Cable for Pipe Freeze Protection, Self-Regulating Heat Tape for Water Pipes, Thermostat control, Energy-Saving Heat Cable for Pipes ETL Listed, 120V 3W/ft”, hereafter known as Heatit.
Regarding claim 29, Kanda in view of Lee discloses the method according to claim 27, but does not discloses wherein the maximum permissible temperature is 0.5 to 5 K below the breakdown temperature of a component of the fluid or the polymerization initiation temperature and/or the minimum permissible temperature is 0 to 5 K above the solidification temperature of the fluid. However, Heatit teaches a pipe heating cable with a minimum permissible temperature that is 3 K above the solidification temperature of the fluid (predict description, 5th bullet point, pipe heater activates at 3 degrees C, which is 3 K above the solidification temperature of the fluid, which is water, Heatit). Heatit is a product page for an electrical pipe heater, a field closely related to Kanda, Lee, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Heatit into Kanda in view of Lee and tuned the bimetal strip of Lee to turn on the heater at a temperature of 3 degrees C. Activating the heater at this temperature prevents the water in the pipe from freezing, allowing the pipe to function in lower environmental temperatures.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanda in view of Lee, in further view of Basic Acrylic Monomer Manufacturers, Inc.’s document “Acrylic Acid A Summary of Safety and Handling, 4th Edition 2013”, hereafter known as Acrylic Acid Summary.
Regarding claim 30, Kanda in view of Lee discloses the method according to claim 27, but does not disclose wherein the fluid is methacrylic acid or acrylic acid stabilized by hydroquinone monomethyl ether together with dissolved oxygen or with phenothiazine. However, Acrylic Acid Summary teaches the use of temperature controlled electrical heat tracing on pipe containing acrylic acid stabilized with hydroquinone monomethyl and dissolved oxygen (page 12, section 7.1, electrical heat tracing limited to temperatures below 65°C (149°F) and instrumented to control at ≤ 35-45°C is acceptable for use in pipes containing acrylic acid, which has been stabilized with hydroquinone monomethyl and dissolved oxygen, page 9 section 6.1, Acrylic Acid Summary). Acrylic Acid Summary is a reference document for safe handling of Acrylic Acid inside pipes and vessels, a field related to Kanda, Lee, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art at time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Acrylic Acid Summary into Kanda in view of Lee and use the pipe and heating system of Kanda in view of Lee to prevent the freezing of acrylic acid stabilized by hydroquinone monomethyl ether and dissolved oxygen. This would allow one system to be used with two fluids, increasing the versatility of the heating system. Additionally, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ilda (WO 2015045280 A1) and Janoff (US 6564011 B1) disclose a heating jacket for a pipe comprising a heating cable and metal interlayer between two layers of insulation.
Heggdal (US 6940054 B1) discloses a heating conduit between two layers of insulation used to heat a pipe.
Naylor (US 20090114634 A1) discloses a heating wrap with a heating cable and metal interlayer
Kohler (US 3604832 A) discloses a cooling device for a pipe comprising a cooling conduit and metal interlayer between two layers of insulation.
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