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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quan1 (US20200232378A1).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 7-9, 11, 13, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quan2 (US20200232376A1).
Rejection in view of Quan1
Claim 1: Quan1 teaches an outlet assembly (Abstract teaches exhaust component for vehicles), the outlet assembly comprising: a pipe having an inner surface, wherein the inner surface has a first portion made from a first electrically conductive material, a second portion made from a second electrically conductive material dissimilar to the first electrically conductive material (Figure 3 shows a pipe 110 with inner surface of 138 and 142. [0034] teaches the end wall 138 is made of stainless steel and that the other portion 20 is an alloyed metal sheet.), and a region comprising at least a part of the first portion and at least a part of the second portion (See region near reference 174, it has both portions together.); and a barrier located inwardly of the inner surface of the pipe (Bead 34.); wherein the outlet assembly defines a flow path through the pipe (From inlet 176 to outlet 178.), and wherein the barrier fluidically isolates the region from the flow path (The bead 34 can be seen in figure 3 blocking access to the region having both portions in the inner surface of the tube.).
The limitation of “scrubber outlet assembly” and “the scrubber outlet assembly defines a flow path through the pipe along which washwater is flowable from a scrubber in use” are considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. Limitations drawn to the contents of an apparatus do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667).
Claim 13: The limitation “a marine vessel comprising a scrubber outlet assembly according to claim 1” is considered to be intended usage. Quan1 already teaches in [0003] this can be used for motor vehicles. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 16: Quan1 teaches a method of assembling an outlet assembly (Abstract teaches exhaust component for vehicles), the method comprising: providing a pipe having an inner surface, wherein the inner surface has a first portion made from a first electrically conductive material, a second portion made from a second electrically conductive material dissimilar to the first electrically conductive material (Figure 3 shows a pipe 110 with inner surface of 138 and 142. [0034] teaches the end wall 138 is made of stainless steel and that the other portion 20 is an alloyed metal sheet.), and a region comprising at least a part of the first portion and at least a part of the second portion (See region near reference 174, it has both portions together.), and wherein the pipe has a flow path therethrough along (From inlet 176 to outlet 178.); and arranging a barrier radially inwardly of the inner surface of the pipe to fluidically isolate the region from the flow path (The bead 34 can be seen in figure 3 blocking access to the region having both portions in the inner surface of the tube.).
The limitation of “making a scrubber outlet assembly” and “the pipe has a flow path therethrough along which washwater is flowable from a scrubber, in use” are both considered to be intended usage. The prior art teaches the method of making this assembly and also has the end product so therefore it would read upon these limitations. Quan1 teaches in [0030] that the metal is exposed to corrosive environments such as water and salt spray and exhaust gases so therefore liquid could pass through.
Rejection in view of Quan2
Claim 1: Quan2 teaches an outlet assembly (Abstract teaches exhaust component for vehicles), the outlet assembly comprising: a pipe having an inner surface, wherein the inner surface has a first portion made from a first electrically conductive material, a second portion made from a second electrically conductive material dissimilar to the first electrically conductive material (Figure 4 shows a pipe 110 with inner surface of 138 and 142. [0036] teaches the end wall 138 is made of stainless steel and that the other portion 20 is an alloyed metal sheet.), and a region comprising at least a part of the first portion and at least a part of the second portion (See region near reference 138 and 134, it has both portions together.); and a barrier located inwardly of the inner surface of the pipe (Tube containing the flow path 150); wherein the outlet assembly defines a flow path through the pipe (From inlet 176 to outlet 178.), and wherein the barrier fluidically isolates the region from the flow path (The tube 148 is blocking access into the interior which contains both of the regions.).
The limitation of “scrubber outlet assembly” and “the scrubber outlet assembly defines a flow path through the pipe along which washwater is flowable from a scrubber in use” are considered to be intended usage. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114. Limitations drawn to the contents of an apparatus do not impart patentability to the claim (see MPEP 2115). Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining the patentability of the apparatus claim (Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666,667).
Claim 3: Quan2 teaches the barrier comprises a tube surrounding the flow path (Tube 148).
Claim 7: Quan2 teaches a diffuser located in the tube and arranged to interrupt the flow path (Figure 4 shows that part 72 on the right making the pathway more narrow. This can read upon a diffuser as it is there to interrupt the flow path.).
Claim 8: Quan2 teaches the pipe comprises a pipe section having an inner surface comprising the second electrically conductive material (Figure 4 shows sections 142 with the second material.), wherein the first electrically conductive material is provided on a portion of the inner surface of the pipe section to define the first portion of the inner surface of the pipe (First portion is 138. [0036] teaches that 138 and 72 is made of the same material.), and wherein the first electrically conductive material comprises a tubular component on the portion of the inner surface of the pipe section (It has a tubular portion near 72 and where 138 meets 72.).
Claim 9: Quan2 teaches the tubular component, or a part thereof, is radially spaced from the inner surface of the pipe section to provide a gap between the tubular component and the inner surface of the pipe section (72 extends into the inside and there is a gap between that and the inner surface of the pipe.).
Claim 11: Quan2 teaches the tubular component is a sleeve, and wherein the sleeve comprises a flange portion for connecting to a corresponding flange of the pipe section on insertion of the sleeve into the pipe section (Flanged inlet opening 156.).
Claim 13: The limitation “a marine vessel comprising a scrubber outlet assembly according to claim 1” is considered to be intended usage. Quan2 already teaches in [0003] this can be used for motor vehicles. Since the prior art teaches the structure of the claims, it would be capable of this limitation. Claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished in the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. MPEP 2114.
Claim 16: Quan2 teaches a method of assembling an outlet assembly (Abstract teaches exhaust component for vehicles), the method comprising: providing a pipe having an inner surface, wherein the inner surface has a first portion made from a first electrically conductive material, a second portion made from a second electrically conductive material dissimilar to the first electrically conductive material (Figure 3 shows a pipe 110 with inner surface of 138 and 142. [0036] teaches the end wall 138 is made of stainless steel and that the other portion 20 is an alloyed metal sheet.), and a region comprising at least a part of the first portion and at least a part of the second portion (See region near reference 138 and 134, it has both portions together.), and wherein the pipe has a flow path therethrough along (From inlet 176 to outlet 178.); and arranging a barrier radially inwardly of the inner surface of the pipe to fluidically isolate the region from the flow path (The tube 148 is blocking access into the interior which contains both of the regions.).
The limitation of “making a scrubber outlet assembly” and “the pipe has a flow path therethrough along which washwater is flowable from a scrubber, in use” are both considered to be intended usage. The prior art teaches the method of making this assembly and also has the end product so therefore it would read upon these limitations. Quan2 teaches in [0031] that the metal is exposed to corrosive environments such as water and salt spray and exhaust gases so therefore liquid could pass through.
Claim 17: Quan2 teaches the barrier comprises a tube, and the method comprises arranging the tube radially inwardly of the inner surface of the pipe so that the tube surrounds the flow path (Figure 4 shows that the tube 148 is the barrier, and it is radially inwardly of the inner surface and surrounds the flow path.).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quan1 or Quan2 in view of Steigert (US20060230747A1).
Claims 4, 6, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quan1 or Quan2.
Rejection in view of Steigert
Claim 2: Quan1 and Quan2 do not explicitly state the barrier comprises an electrically insulative material bridging the part of the first portion and the part of the second portion. Quan1 and Quan2 both teach corrosion resistant material to help protect the metal.
Steigert teaches an exhaust system for an internal combustion engine in which there is a condensate generated to certain areas, and the object of the invention is to prevent corrosion of the metal (abstract). Steigert teaches in [0021] the use of an electro insulating anti corrosion coating on the inside of the pipe or housing that is exposed to the exhaust and/or condensate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use an electrically insulative material as taught by Steigert as Steigert teaches the benefits of helping with anti corrosion of the inside of the pipe/metal in these devices. It would also have been obvious to use a desired material that would help with corrosion such as an electrically insulative material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Rejection in view of Quan1/Quan2
Claim 4: Quan1 and Quan2 do not explicitly teach the tube is bonded to the inner surface of the pipe by adhesive between the tube and the pipe. It would have been obvious to combine the two by any known connection means such as adhesive so as to make them integral since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Claim 6: Quan1 and Quan2 do not explicitly state the adhesive is a casting compound. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to use a preferred material, such as a casting compound since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 18: Quan2 does not explicitly teach bonding the tube to the inner surface of the pipe by providing adhesive between the tube and the pipe. It would have been obvious to combine the two by any known connection means such as adhesive so as to make them integral since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1993).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10, and 19 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 arts of record do not teach the invention of claims 10 and 19. It does not teach there is an electrically insulative material located in the gap so that parts of the first and second portions are separated by the electrically insulative material. It also does not teach the making of the tube by positioning the tube in the pipe to form a space between the tube and the pipe and filling the space between the tube and inner surface of the pipe with adhesive so that the adhesive contacts a part of the first portion and a part of the second portion of the inner surface of the pipe.
Examiner’s note: Examiner suggests clarifying what “region” entails for the pipe inner surface as any part can be considered a region but applicant appears to have a clear structure from what the drawings represent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument 1: Applicant argues on page 1 that Quan1 and Quan2 do not teach the feature of the inner surface of the pipe.
Examiner response 1: Examiner argues that the interior of the exhaust component still reads upon an inner surface of the pipe. Examiner suggests further clarifying the actual location of the different materials.
Applicant argument 2: Applicant argues on pages 1-2 that Quan1 and Quan2 do not teach the first and second dissimilar electrically conductive materials.
Examiner response 2: Examiner argues that the term “dissimilar” is broad and not clearly indicated by the claim or specification. Applicant’s specification states in [0097] that the second material can be a mild steel and the first one is a corrosion resistant material such as stainless steel. There is no other indication of the second material being anything else or anything that further specifies what “dissimilar” means in relation to the two materials. Examiner highly suggests clarifying the material or what the term “dissimilar” means in this case as the specification does not indicate anything beyond mild steel, and it is unclear how different the two materials really need to. Since there is no clarification of this limitation, the broadest reasonable interpretation would be any material that is different and therefore the prior arts read upon this limitation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP Y SHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-8171. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9-5:30.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P JONES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
/PHILLIP Y SHAO/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 03/27/2026