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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 10 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 10 August 2026.
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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 contains the trademark/trade name ZAL-45. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the type of ceramic material used and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent No. 6716275 to Reed et al. (Reed).
With regard to claim 1, Reed discloses a fluid delivery tubing (Reed, abstract) for a high-temperature system (abstract, “used for high temperature gas separating processes”), the tubing comprising:
a ceramic wall (10, fig. 2, column 3, lines 58-63) comprising a low thermal conductivity porous composition (column 3, lines 45-57); and
an impermeable coating (12, fig. 2, column 3, lines 61-63) sealing the ceramic wall, wherein the impermeable coating has a thickness of less than or equal to 200 microns (column 7, lines 11-13 – 0.001-0.005 inches which is less than or equal to 200 microns).
With regard to claim 2, Reed discloses the tubing of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the impermeable coating has a thickness of less than or equal to 100 microns (column 7, lines 11-13).
With regard to claim 3, Reed discloses the tubing of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the ceramic wall defines an inner surface and an outer surface (shown in fig. 2, the ceramic wall has both inner and outer surfaces), wherein the impermeable coating is deposited on one or both of the inner surface or the outer surface (shown in fig. 2, the impermeable coating is deposited on the outer surface).
With regard to claim 5, Reed discloses the tubing of claim 3 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the impermeable coating is deposited on only the outer surface (shown in fig. 2).
With regard to claim 6, Reed discloses the tubing of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein a matrix of the impermeable coating is nonporous (after processing the fused glass of the impermeable coating is nonporous).
With regard to claim 7, Reed discloses the tubing of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the impermeable coating has a density higher than that of the ceramic wall (the porous material of the ceramic is less dense than the impermeable layer after hardening of the impermeable coating).
With regard to claim 8, Reed discloses the tubing of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the ceramic wall comprises at least one of silicon carbide, zirconia, alumina, silica, or mullite (column 3, lines 45-57).
With regard to claim 11, Reed discloses the tubing of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the impermeable coating comprises a ceramic or a glass (column 5, lines 14-16).
With regard to claim 12, Reed discloses the tubing of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the impermeable coating has a coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) that differs from a CTE of the ceramic wall by less than or equal to 1 ppm/ºC (claim 4).
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.
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 4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 6716275 to Reed et al. (Reed).
With regard to claim 4, Reed discloses the tubing of claim 3 as set forth above, but does not further disclose wherein the impermeable coating is deposited on only the inner surface.
Reed discloses dipping the tubular ceramic into a solvent and glass mixture as one method of applying the impermeable coating. Reed also discloses other methods of application including spin coating (column 7, lines 17-20). When the pipe size is sufficiently large that dipping does not evenly distribute the glass particles, the spin coating approach can be used. In that scenario, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the impermeable coating first only on the inner surface prior to using one of the other disclosed methods to apply a coating to the outside of the ceramic pipe.
With regard to claim 9 and in view of the 112 rejection set forth above and in the interests of compact prosecution, the ZAL-45 limitation is considered to require only a commercially available alumina, Reed discloses the tubing of claim 1 as set forth above, but fails to further disclose wherein the ceramic wall comprises ZAL-45 alumina. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the tubing of Reed with a ceramic wall material made of commercially available material such as ZAL-45 in order to avoid the expensive production cost of creating such tubular members stock materials.
With regard to claim 10, Reed discloses the tubing of claim 1 as set forth above, but does not further disclose wherein the ceramic wall has a thermal conductivity of less than 0.5 W/mK.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to choose a ceramic material that has a thermal conductivity that is very low in order to allow use in elevated temperature applications. The rate of less than 0.5 W/mK would be a desirable target in order to ensure the final product was capable of use in its field of intended use of high temperature applications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 11395988 discloses a ceramic material with a double skin membrane. USPNs 2005/0067038 and 2010/0040934 disclose similar alumina ceramic tubular member.
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