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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, 31, 43, 51, 53, 62, 64, 68, 78, 81 and 87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 5855676 to Lu et al. (Lu) in view of WO 2020/236767 to University of Maryland (Maryland).
With regard to claim 1, Lu discloses a method comprising:
(a) applying a first slurry (Lu, column 4, lines 39-54 describing the application of a slurry to create a coating 16) over a surface of an existing pipe to form a first layer (shown in fig. 1), the first slurry comprising a powder, a binder, and a solvent (column 6, lines 13-25); and
(b) after (a), sintering at least some of the powder in the first layer to form a new pipe portion by subjecting a portion of the first layer to a first temperature for a first time period (column 7, lines 45-52 describing the process of subjecting the layer of slurry to heating sufficient to effect sintering of the coating), wherein the powder comprises a metal (the slurry material includes magnesium but does not disclose steel), and the first temperature is greater than a melting temperature of the metal (not disclosed).
Lu discloses a pipe repair method that applies and dries a slurry layer that is then sintered to create a ceramic coating but fails to disclose a first temperature greater than a melting temperature of the magnesium during the sintering process.
Maryland discloses a process of coating a steel pipe by a similar slurry application that is then sintered. Maryland also discloses a carbon heating bar that can be heated to a temperature around 1500°C and placed in close proximity to the steel powder slurry layer for about 5 seconds to sinter the slurry to a finished surface as described in paragraph 0094. The slurry of Maryland includes a steel powder, a polymer binder, an ethanol solvent.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the applicator of Lu to apply a steel powder slurry to the interior of a metal pipe and to then use the heater of Maryland to sinter the slurry and provide a repaired surface of a metal pipe. The device of Lu applies a uniform centered layer of slurry to the interior of a pipe and in combination with Maryland can be used to repair a damaged steel pipe.
With regard to claim 2, Lu in view of Maryland discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, and Maryland further discloses wherein: the first temperature is greater than or equal to 1500 C (as set forth in the rejection above, the heater of Maryland heats to 1500 C);
a duration of the first time period is less than or equal to 60 s (Maryland, paragraph 0094 “closely run over the coating for about 5 seconds”); and the powder comprises particles of the metal having an average particle size less than or equal to 150 pm (Maryland, paragraph 0094 1-5 pm).
With regard to claim 10, Lu in view of Maryland discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the subjecting the first layer to the first temperature comprises: heating using a Joule heating element formed of carbon (Maryland paragraph 0082, Joule-heating strip), silicon carbide, a metal, or any combination of the foregoing; at a beginning of the first time period, a heating ramp rate of at least 1040C/s to the first temperature; at an end of the first time period, a cooling ramp rate of at least 1040C/s from the first temperature (Maryland, paragraph 0083); displacing a heating element around an inner circumference of the existing pipe to sinter other portions of the first layer; or any combination of the above.
With regard to claim 11, Lu in view of Maryland discloses the method of claim 10 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein: the heating element has a curved configuration (Maryland, paragraph 0146, the heater is highly flexible and can conformally wrap around structures); during (b), a spacing along a radial direction of the existing pipe between the heating element and the first layer is less than or equal to 5 mm ; during (b), at least a portion of the heating element is in contact with the first layer (paragraph 0082 where the material is sandwiched between two carbon heating strips); or any combination of the above.
With regard to claim 31, Lu view of Maryland discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, and Lu further discloses comprising, after (a) and before (b), subjecting the first layer to a second temperature for a second time period, the second temperature being less than the first temperature and less than the melting temperature of the metal (Lu, column 6, lines 55-57, disclosing the use of drying gas to hold the slurry in place until the heating element can be positioned to sinter the device. The temperature of the drying gas is less than the melting temperature of the steel in the slurry and is useful to extract the solvent from the applied slurry).
With regard to claim 43, Lu in view of Maryland discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, and Maryland further discloses comprising, after (b): applying a second slurry over the first layer to form a second layer, the second slurry having a composition that is the same as or different from that of the first slurry; and sintering at least some of a powder in the second layer by subjecting a portion of the second layer to a third temperature for a third time period, the third temperature being greater than a melting temperature of a metal of the powder in the second layer (Maryland, paragraphs 0106 and 01111 describing the addition of an intermediate layer using the same process).
With regard to claim 51, Lu in view of Maryland discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, and Maryland further discloses wherein during (a), during (b), or during both (a) and (b), a gas is conveyed through the existing pipe, and the gas comprises methane (Maryland, paragraph 0124).
With regard to claim 53, Lu in view of Maryland discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, and Maryland further discloses wherein during (a), during (b), or during both (a) and (b), a gas is conveyed to an exposed surface of the first layer, and the gas comprises an inert gas (Maryland, paragraph 0088).
With regard to claim 62, Lu in view of Maryland discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not further discloses comprising, after (b), removing the existing pipe from the new pipe portion. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to place the new pipe into service and to allow the existing pipe portion to completely rust away until it is not longer present, in order to provide a repaired pipe section that can allow a pipe system to maintain functionality even after the existing pipe is removed.
With regard to claim 64, Lu in view of Maryland discloses a structure comprising: a first pipe; and a second pipe comprising a sintered layer of metal formed in situ over an inner circumferential wall of the first pipe as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
With regard to claim 68, Lu in view of Maryland discloses the structure of claim 64 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the second pipe further comprises an intermediate layer disposed along a radial direction of the first pipe between the inner circumferential wall and the sintered layer; and the intermediate layer comprises an insulating material, a porous layer, an oxide, un- sintered slurry, or any combination of the foregoing (as set forth in the rejection of claim 43 above).
With regard to claim 78, Lu in view of Maryland discloses a pipe repair system comprising:
a slurry application device (the device of Lu as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above);
a sintering device (the sintering device of Maryland of the rejection of claim 1 above); and
a control system operatively coupled to the slurry application device and the sintering device, the control system comprising one or more processors and computer readable storage media storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors (not disclosed), cause the control system to: control the slurry application device to apply a first slurry over a surface of an existing pipe to form a first layer, the first slurry comprising a powder, a binder, and a solvent; and control the sintering device to sinter at least some of the powder in the first layer to form a new pipe portion by subjecting a portion of the first layer to a first temperature for a first time period, the first temperature being greater than a melting temperature of a metal of the powder (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Lu in view of Maryland fails to disclose a control system coupled to the slurry application device and to the sintering device. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to automate the slurry application process and the sintering process using one or more processors and computer readable storage media in order to reduce production costs and to increase quality.
With regard to claim 79, Lu in view of Maryland discloses the pipe repair system of claim 78 as set forth above, but does not further disclose wherein the computer readable storage media stores additional instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control system to control the sintering device such that: the first temperature is greater than or equal to 1500 °C; the first temperature is approximately 2000 °C; a duration of the first time period is less than or equal to 60 s; a duration of the first time period is approximately 10 s; at a beginning of the first time period, a heating ramp rate to the first temperature is at least 104°C/s; at an end of the first time period, a cooling ramp rate from the first temperature is at least 104°C/s; or any combination of the above.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to input the temperature and time parameters as part of the control program used for automating the production process in order to ensure the creation of the appropriate conditions for the sintering of the slurry layer.
With regard to claim 81, Lu in view of Maryland discloses the pipe repair system of claim 78 as set forth above, and further discloses comprising: one or more actuators coupled to the slurry application device (Lu, column 5, lines 30-33), the sintering device, or both, wherein the control system is operatively coupled to the one or more actuators, and the computer readable storage media stores additional instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the control system to move, via the one or more actuators, the slurry application device, the sintering device, or both around an inner circumference of the existing pipe (not disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the system of claim 78 with instructions that cause the slurry application and drying apparatus to be positioned where needed and to apply the slurry and dry it using the drying gases before using the sintering device of Maryland to created repaired pipe.
With regard to claim 87, Lu in view of Maryland discloses a process of adding an intermediate sintered layer as set forth in the rejection of claim 68 above and providing a densifying device constructed to press radially outward toward the surface of the existing pipe.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 5855676 to Lu et al. (Lu) in view of WO 2020/236767 to University of Maryland (Maryland) in further view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0071631 to Laschutza (Laschutsza).
With regard to claim 8, Lu in view of Maryland discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, but fails to further disclose wherein the powder comprises particles of the metal having a bimodal distribution of average particle sizes, with a first subset of the particles having an average particle size less than or equal to 10 pm and a second subset of the particles having an average particle size greater than 10 pm.
Laschutza discloses powder comprising particles of metal having bimodal distribution of average particle sizes in paragraph 0041.
It would have been obvious to use the particles of Laschutza in order to create a sintered layer of high density because the bimodal particles are capable of filling gaps between particles.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 5855676 to Lu et al. (Lu) in view of WO 2020/236767 to University of Maryland (Maryland) in further view of CN 109468480A to Taiyuan Univ of Technology (Taiyuan)
With regard to claim 23, Lu in view of Maryland discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses comprising, after (a) and prior to (b): (c) densifying the first layer by pressing along a radial direction of the existing pipe toward the surface of the existing pipe, wherein the pressing of (c) comprises using a roller, and a thickness ofthe first layer along a radial direction ofthe existing pipe after (c) is at least 10% less than that of the first layer prior to (c).
Taiyuan discloses the use of a roller to compress the material as set forth in paragraph 0042. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the device of Lu in view of Maryland with a roller to compress the material because a roller is a simple way of smoothing the surface of the material prior to sintering.
Claims 56 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 5855676 to Lu et al. (Lu) in view of WO 2020/236767 to University of Maryland (Maryland) in further view of JPS61180895A to Hitachi Ltd. (Hitachi)
With regard to claims 56 and 58, Lu in view of Maryland discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above, but fails to further disclose wherein the first slurry further comprises fibers or particles formed of a shape-memory alloy (SMA), and the SMA comprises copper-aluminum-nickel (Cu-Al-Ni), nickel-titanium (NiTi), iron-manganese-silicon (Fe-Mn-Si), copper-zinc-aluminum (Cu-Zn-Al), copper-aluminum-nickel (Cu-Al-Ni), or any combination of the foregoing.
Hitachi discloses the use of shape memory alloy on page 2, line 39. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the slurry with shape memory alloy fibers in order to provide the ability repair leaks or other defects while leaving the pipe in place.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DEAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8-4 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 supervisors can be reached at: Craig M Schneider (571) 272-3607 and Ken Rinehart (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.
/DAVID R DEAL/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights