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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Both [Pg. 7, Line 18 & Pg. 10, Line 15] recites “an adjustable arm” as reference numerals “30” and “31”.
Both [Pg. 10, Line 13 & pg.11, Line 25] recites reference numeral 14 as “a main bearing” and “a bearing”.
[Pg. 10, Line 12-13, Pg. 12, Line 2 & line 11] recites reference numeral 20 as “a plurality of bearing mounts”, “bearing mounts”, and “four bearing mounts”.
Examiner notes there are multiple terminology inconsistencies and minor errors. Examiner requests applicant’s cooperation in correcting any errors which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the grinding tool must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, Line 26 recites “the piping” that should be “the section of piping”.
Claim 1 line 20, claim 3 line 24, and claim 4 line 14 recites “the position” that should be “a position”.
Claim 3 line 9 after “plate” the term “is” should be inserted.
Claim 4 line 32 recites “the exterior” that should be “an exterior”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 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.
Claim 1:
Line 6 recites the limitation “the piece being repaired”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or is referring to “a section of piping” in line 3. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets “the piece” as “the section of piping”.
Line 7 recites the limitation “the main bearing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or is the same as “a bearing” in line 2. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitations as the same as “a bearing” in line 2.
Line 10 recites “the main bearing is further comprised of an outer race and an inner race”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or the same as “an outer bearing race and an inner bearing race”. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as the same as “an outer bearing race and an inner bearing race” in line 5.
Line 17 recites the limitation “the opening of the guide bearing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “an opening of the guide bearing”.
Line 23-24 recites the limitation “the side of the piping”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a side of the piping”.
Line 25 recites the limitation “the circumference”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a circumference”.
Line 25 recites “four guide bearing mounts”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or the same as “guide bearing mounts” in line 22. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as referring to “guide bearing mounts” in line 22. For clarity examiner suggests deleting line 22 and rewriting line 25 as “wherein four guide bearing mounts each corresponding openings…”.
Line 27 recites the limitation “the openings on the guide bearing mount”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further line 22 recites “an opening… on a guide bearing mount” and it is unclear to the examiner if applicant intended for the limitation to refer to “an opening” in line 22 or if applicant intends for the limitation to refer to “four guide bearing mounts” in line 25. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “openings on the four guide bearing mounts”.
Lines 27-28 is unclear to the examiner as the recitation is awkward and confusing since it seems to suggest that “the plurality of rods” is inserted through “each of the openings”, i.e. multiple rods inserted into an opening. This seems to contradict what was described in the specifications and shown in the drawings. It appears applicant had intended to claim “at least one of the plurality of telescoping rods is inserted through a corresponding opening of one of the four guide bearing mounts”.
Claim 3:
Line 3 recites the limitation “the component”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a component”.
Line 6 recites “ the bolts”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “bolts”.
Line 6 recites “the valve”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends to have the limitation be a new structure or if the limitation is the same as “a valve structure” in line 1. For purpose of examination. Examiner interprets the limitation as “the valve section”.
Line 14 recites ”the circumference”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a circumference”.
Line 15 recites ““the outer bearing race”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or referring to “an outer race” that was previously recited. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “the outer race”.
Line 15 recites “four guide bearing mounts”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or the same as “a guide bearing mount” in line 14. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as referring to “a guide bearing mount” in line 14. For clarity examiner suggests deleting line 14 and rewriting line 15 as “wherein four guide bearing mounts are placed on the outer bearing race and around the circumference of the main bearing”.
Line 18 recites “an adjustable arm”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure, if the limitation is referring to “adjustable arm” in line 17, or if “adjustable arm” in line 17 is merely a typo. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as line 17 is a typo and is deleted.
Lines 18 and 19 recites “the inner bearing race”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or referring to “an inner race” that was previously recited. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “the inner race”.
Lines 25-26 recites “a grinding tool is inserted into the opening for a guide bearing on the second end of the adjustable arm” is unclear to the examiner as the recitation is awkward and confusing. It is unclear what is meant by the bolded section above. It would appear that the grinding tool is inserted into the opening of the second end of the adjustable arm, but due to the working of the claim “for a guide bearing” makes the claim unclear how the opening is associated with the guide bearing. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a grinding tool is inserted into the opening of the second end of the adjustable arm wherein the opening contains a guide bearing”.
Line 27 recites “the plurality of rods can telescope within the openings of the guide bearing mounts”. It is unclear to the examiner as the recitation is awkward and confusing since it seems to suggest that “the plurality of rods” telescopes within “the openings”, i.e. multiple rods can be inserted into an opening. This seems to contradict what was described in the specifications and shown in the drawings. It appears applicant had intended to claim “at least one of the plurality of rods can telescope within a corresponding opening of one of the four guide bearing mounts”.
Claim 4:
Line 5 recites the limitation “the piece”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a piece”.
Line 7 recites the limitation “the circumference”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a circumference”.
Line 11 recites “the inner bearing race”. It is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or referring to “an inner race” that was previously recited. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “the inner race”.
Line 21 is unclear to the examiner as the recitation is awkward and confusing since it seems to suggest that “the plurality of rods” is inserted through “each of the openings of the guide bearings”, i.e. multiple rods inserted into an opening. This seems to contradict what was described in the specifications and shown in the drawings. It appears applicant had intended to claim “at least one of the plurality of telescoping rods is inserted through a corresponding opening of one of the four guide bearing mounts”.
Line 25 recites “the pipe”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a pipe”.
Line 26 recites “an elbow” it is unclear to the examiner if applicant intends for the limitation to be a new structure or is the same as “an elbow” recited in claim 1. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “the elbow”.
Line 28 recites “the throat”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitation as “a throat”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claims 1-2, Rajagopalan (2018/0001422) and Illakowicz (4,822,221), the closest prior arts of record, teach some of the limitations of claims but alone or in combination fail to teach, suggest, or make obvious the combination of recited features of claims.
Rajagopalan, one of the closest prior arts of record, discloses the limitations of the claim including support plates, rods, an adjustable arm, a locking mechanism, a grinding tool, and a section of piping, but alone or in combination, does not teach suggest or make obvious wherein the main bearing is mounted to the support plate, wherein the support plate secures the main bearing, wherein a plurality of telescoping rods attach the support plate to the main bearing, wherein the main bearing is further comprised of an outer race and an inner race, wherein the adjustable arm will rotate with the inner bearing race, wherein the adjustable arm has a first end and a second end, wherein an opening is provided on the second end of the adjustable arm, a guide bearing on the second end of the adjustable arm, wherein a grinding tool is inserted into the opening of the guide bearing, wherein the adjustable arm has gradations, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Illakowicz, one of the closest prior arts of record, teaches the limitations of the claim including support plates, rods, bearings, and an adjustable arm, but alone or in combination, does not teach suggest or make obvious wherein a plurality of telescoping rods attach the support plate to the main bearing, wherein the main bearing is further comprised of an outer race and an inner race, wherein an adjustable arm is provided, wherein the adjustable arm is integral to the inner bearing race, wherein the adjustable arm will rotate with the inner bearing race, wherein the adjustable arm has a first end and a second end, wherein an opening is provided on the second end of the adjustable arm, a guide bearing on the second end of the adjustable arm, wherein a grinding tool is inserted into the opening of the guide bearing, wherein the adjustable arm has gradations, and a locking mechanism for the adjustable arm, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Claim 2 would be allowed due to being dependent upon allowed claim 1
Regarding Claim 3, Rajagopalan (2018/0001422) and Illakowicz (4,822,221), the closest prior arts of record, teach some of the limitations of claims but alone or in combination fail to teach, suggest, or make obvious the combination of recited features of claims.
Rajagopalan, one of the closest prior arts of record, discloses the limitations of the claim including support plates, rods, an adjustable arm, a locking mechanism, a grinding tool, and a section of piping, but alone or in combination, does not teach suggest or make obvious a vertical support plate, a horizontal support plate, a main bearing, wherein the main bearing is mounted to the vertical support plate, wherein the vertical support plate secured the main bearing, wherein a plurality of telescoping rods attaches the vertical support plate to the main bearing, wherein the main bearing is further comprised of an outer race and an inner race, wherein the inner bearing race is integral to an adjustable arm, a locking mechanism, wherein the locking mechanism fixes the position of the adjustable arm, wherein a grinding tool is inserted into the opening for a guide bearing on the second end of the adjustable arm, wherein a plurality of rods are inserted through each of the openings on the guide bearing mount, a stop, wherein a stop is provided on each of the plurality of rods, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Illakowicz, one of the closest prior arts of record, teaches the limitations of the claim including support plates, rods, bearings, and an adjustable arm, but alone or in combination, does not teach suggest or make obvious a vertical support plate, a horizontal support plate, a main bearing, wherein the main bearing is mounted to the vertical support plate, wherein the vertical support plate secured the main bearing, wherein a plurality of telescoping rods attaches the vertical support plate to the main bearing, wherein the main bearing is further comprised of an outer race and an inner race, wherein the inner bearing race is integral to an adjustable arm, a locking mechanism, wherein the locking mechanism fixes the position of the adjustable arm, wherein a grinding tool is inserted into the opening for a guide bearing on the second end of the adjustable arm, wherein a plurality of rods are inserted through each of the openings on the guide bearing mount, a stop, wherein a stop is provided on each of the plurality of rods, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Regarding Claim 4, Rajagopalan (2018/0001422) and Illakowicz (4,822,221), the closest prior arts of record, teach some of the limitations of claims but alone or in combination fail to teach, suggest, or make obvious the combination of recited features of claims.
Rajagopalan, one of the closest prior arts of record, discloses the limitations of the claim including support plates, rods, an adjustable arm, a locking mechanism, a grinding tool, and a section of piping, but alone or in combination, does not teach suggest or make obvious a main bearing, wherein the main bearing is further comprised of an outer race and an inner race, an adjustable arm, wherein the adjustable arm is integral to the inner bearing race, wherein the adjustable arm has gradations, a locking mechanism, wherein the locking mechanism fixes the position of the adjustable arm, wherein the adjustable arm has a first end and a second end, wherein an opening is provided on the second end of the adjustable arm, a strap, wherein the strap secures the tool to the throat of the elbow, a pair of horizontal support members, a vertical support member, wherein the main bearing is mounted to the exterior of an elbow in proximity to the throat of the elbow, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Illakowicz, one of the closest prior arts of record, teaches the limitations of the claim including support plates, rods, bearings, and an adjustable arm, but alone or in combination, does not teach suggest or make obvious a main bearing, wherein the main bearing is further comprised of an outer race and an inner race, an adjustable arm, wherein the adjustable arm is integral to the inner bearing race, wherein the adjustable arm has gradations, a locking mechanism, wherein the locking mechanism fixes the position of the adjustable arm, wherein the adjustable arm has a first end and a second end, wherein an opening is provided on the second end of the adjustable arm, a strap, wherein the strap secures the tool to the throat of the elbow, a pair of horizontal support members, a vertical support member, wherein the main bearing is mounted to the exterior of an elbow in proximity to the throat of the elbow, as particularly required by the claim, and in combination with the additional elements of the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Choi (2019/0022773), Unigovsky (4,269,552), Penza (5,899,795), and Bosworth (3,783,722) teaches tools to remove portions from a pipe and can be considered analogous art because they are within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723