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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered. All previous 112 rejections and objections have been withdrawn. In light of Applicant’s arguments and amendments, Examiner has withdrawn his previous Non-Final Rejection and submitted the one contained herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (EP551790A1) in view of White (US 3,391,846) as evidenced by Chauhary, et. al. (“Magnetocuring of temperature failsafe epoxy adhesives”, Applied Material Today, December 2020).
Claim 1: Mitchell discloses a lining hose (2) for renovating a conduit or pipe (1), having at least one fabric or nonwoven layer (3/4) which is impregnated or saturated with a curable liquid resin (note polyester resin discussed in col. 1, lines 50-55), characterized in that wherein the resin can be thermally cured (col. 1, lines 50-55; col. 2, lines 11-14; claim 1) and contains magnetic nanoparticles (col. 1, lines 55-56 and col. 2, lines 4-7; claim 1), wherein the magnetic nanoparticles contain or consists of MnxZn1-xFe2O4, and wherein the Curie temperature of the magnetic nanoparticles is adapted to the curing temperature of the resin by adjusting the ratio of Mn to Zn. Mitchell discloses the previous limitations but is not explicit about the magnetic nanoparticles containing or consisting of MnxZni-xFe2O4. However, White teaches curing a coating layer by way of using an alternating magnetic field and advocates for materials in the cured layer to be antiferromagnetic such as oxides of iron together with magnesium and zinc (see col. 2, lines 55-63, Examiner noting the list combination that includes MnxZni-xFe2O4). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize these antiferromagnetic materials as they are easily friable into finely-divided particle sizes and do not fuse or smear together like other, more conductive metal particles (see col. 3, lines 34-44). Modified Mitchell is not explicit about the Curie temperature of the magnetic nanoparticles is adapted to the curing temperature of the resin by adjusting the ratio of Mn to Zn; however, Chauhary well establishes the use MnxZni-xFe2O4 magnetic nanoparticles in epoxy resins (see Abstract and Introduction) and further details that the Curie temperature of the material adjusts with respect to the ratio of Mn to Zn (see, e.g., section 3.3, “Magnetization and Curie Temperature increases with increasing Mn content” on page 5) by which information a skilled artisan would have the knowledge and wherewithal to adjust the Mn ratio to effect the Curie Temperature and thusly the eventual curing temperature of the resin.
Claim 2: Mitchell and White teach the previous limitations. Mitchell further discloses that the resin that contains the magnetic nanoparticles can be converted into a thermosetting plastic by applying an alternating magnetic field (see col. 2, lines 25-45).
Claim 3: Mitchell and White teach the previous limitations. Mitchell further discloses that the resin can be cured by means of frontal polymerization (as can be appreciated from Figs. 1-3; col. 2, lines 25-57).
Claim 4: Mitchell and White teach the previous limitations. Mitchell further discloses that the fabric or nonwoven layer (3) is surrounded by an outer film (4) that comes into contact with the inner wall of the conduit or pipe to be renovated (see Fig. 2).
Claim 5: Mitchell and White teach the previous limitations. Mitchell further discloses that the fabric or nonwoven layer (3) encloses an inner film (4) that comes into contact with a fluid flowing in the conduit or pipe to be renovated (see Fig. 2).
Claim 6: Mitchell and White teach the previous limitations. Chauhary further evidences magnetic nanoparticles having a Curie temperature of less than 250°C (see section 3.3, “Magnetization and Curie Temperature increases with increasing Mn content” on page 5, e.g., Tc of Mn0.7 is 237 °C).
Claim 7: Mitchell and White teach the previous limitations. Mitchell discloses the previous limitations but is not explicit about the magnetic nanoparticles have a diameter of less than 100 nm. However, White teaches curing a coating layer by way of using an alternating magnetic field and advocates for materials in the cured layer to have a diameter less than 100 nm (see col. 3, lines 25-30, Examiner noting that .1 microns is around 100 nm). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize these antiferromagnetic materials sized as such to ensure proper heating characteristics (see col. 3, lines 25-30).
Claim 10: Mitchell and White teach the previous limitations. Mitchell further discloses that the resin is an epoxy resin (note “polymer resin” in claim 1).
Claim 18: Mitchell discloses a method for renovating a conduit or pipe (1), comprising inserting a lining hose (2) into the conduit or pipe (1; see col. 2, lines 11-12), wherein the lining hose has at least one fabric or nonwoven layer (3), which is impregnated or saturated with a thermally curable liquid resin containing magnetic nanoparticles (col. 1, lines 55-56 and col. 2, lines 4-7; claim 1), and the lining hose is designed according to claim 1 (see discussion above with respect to claim 1), curing the resin by applying an alternating magnetic field to the lining hose (2; col. 1, lines 50-55; col. 2, lines 11-14; claim 1).
Claim(s) 11 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (EP551790A1) as further evidenced by Chauhary, et. al. (“Magnetocuring of temperature failsafe epoxy adhesives”, Applied Material Today, December 2020).
Claim 11: Mitchell discloses a curing device (10) for curing a lining hose (2) inserted into a conduit or pipe (1) to be renovated, having at least one generator (11/13/14) that can be inserted into the conduit or pipe and controlled from outside the conduit or pipe (via 12; see col. 2, lines 15-18), wherein the generator (13) is designed to generate an alternating magnetic field penetrating the lining hose (see col. 2, lines 25-45). While it appears Mitchell further discloses that the generator (13) generates the magnetic field at a frequency between 100 kHz and 1 MHz (see col. 2, lines 40-42), it is not altogether clear. However, as evidenced by Chauhary, which directly details curing epoxy resins containing MnxZn1-xFe2O4, curing frequency examples are well established at 400kHz (see page 11, “Complete curing was achieved…at a fixed frequency of 400kHz”).
Claim 13: Mitchell discloses the previous limitations. Mitchell further discloses that the generator comprises at least one alternating current source (note source associated with 11/12 as described in col. 2, lines 25-32) and at least one magnetic field coil (11) connected thereto.
Claim 14: Mitchell discloses the previous limitations. Mitchell is not explicit about the generator generating a magnetic field with a strength of 1-50 mT. However, White teaches heating a lining with an alternating magnetic field of up to 500 gauss (approximately 50 mT; see col. 4, lines 44-47). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a camera/temperature sensor as taught by White into the apparatus of Mitchell “to insure optimum efficiency” (see col. 4, lines 44-45).
Claim 15: Mitchell discloses the previous limitations. Mitchell further discloses a guide means (15/17) for guiding the generator on the inside of the lining hose inserted into the conduit or pipe to be renovated.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell (EP551790A1) as evidenced by Chauhary, et. al. (“Magnetocuring of temperature failsafe epoxy adhesives”, Applied Material Today, December 2020) and in further view of Gearhart (US 8,328,969).
Claim 16: Mitchell discloses the limitations of the previous claim. Mitchell is not explicit about at least one camera for inspecting the inside of the conduit or pipe lined with the lining hose and/or at least one temperature sensor for detecting the temperature at the inner surface of the lining hose. However, such camera implements are well known as taught by Gearhart which teaches curing a pipe with a liner while also discussing using at least one camera (42) for inspecting the inside of the conduit or pipe lined with the lining hose and at least one temperature sensor (42) for detecting the temperature at the inner surface of the lining hose (see col. 2, lines 15-24). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a camera/temperature sensor as taught by Gearhart into the apparatus of Mitchell in order to assess the immediate status of the resin curing so that any issues can quickly be ascertained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner has updated his prior art evidence with Chauhary and believes this new presentation of prior art/evidence reasonably reads upon the claim limitations..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 EST.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights