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 claims 1-16 in the reply filed on 7/7/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-7, 10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenthal et al. 2013/00484135 in view of Herrington 2004/0187946.
In regard to claim 1, Blumenthal et al. (fig. 5) discloses a monolithic metal thermal insulating sleeve liner 302 configured for use in a high pressure fluid flow device subjected to cyclic extreme thermal shock, said configured thermal insulating sleeve liner comprising:
a monolithic hollow metal cylindrical sleeve 302 having two opposing spaced-apart
ends and an outer diameter sized to slide into a bore of a fluid flow device, said ends
being configured to seal against fluid flow between an inner surface of the fluid flow
device bore and the outer diameter of the sleeve between said ends, while
accommodating a fluid flow path there-within along an inside bore of said sleeve, said
sleeve including internal interstices providing increased thermal resistance to heat
flowing from inside the sleeve to outside the sleeve;
said monolithic hollow metal cylindrical sleeve comprising outer 320 and inner 310 shells integrally formed with support structures 350 arrayed there-between, wherein a
surface of the inner shell 310 is coated with a ceramic coating 120 (see paragraph 31).
Blumenthal et al. discloses a double walled sleeve with supports 350 that structurally reinforce the double wall assembly, but does not disclose the use of tessellated supports. Herrington teaches that providing tessellated supports 206 in a similar type of double walled assembly, in order to improve the structural integrity of the double walled sleeve, is common and well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the supports of Blumental et al. to include tessellated supports, as taught by Herrington, in order to improve the structural integrity of the sleeve.
In regard to claim 3, wherein the ceramic coating is sprayed on the surface of the inner shell (this is a product by process limitation that carries little patentable weight in an apparatus claim, Blumenthal et al. discloses a ceramic coating 120 and is therefore deemed to anticipate the structural limitation of the claim).
In regard to claim 4, wherein the ceramic coating is wiped on the surface of the inner shell (this is a product by process limitation that carries little patentable weight in an apparatus claim, Blumenthal et al. discloses a ceramic coating 120 and is therefore deemed to anticipate the structural limitation of the claim).
In regard to claim 5, wherein said support structures are uniformly distributed circumferentially around and axially along and between said inner and outer shells (see fig. 15 of Herrington).
In regard to claim 6, wherein said inner shell 310 is thicker than said outer shell 320 (see fig. 5 of Blumenthal et al.).
In regard to claim 7, wherein said tessellated support structures 206 create a cylindrical array of interstices and said outer shell 204 includes an aperture (the bore at the end of 204) aligned with each said interstice 206.
In regard to claim 10, monolithic metal thermal insulating sleeve liner as in claim 1 manufactured by a 3D printing additive manufacturing process (this is a product by process limitation that carries little patentable weight in an apparatus claim, Blumenthal et al. in view Herrington disclose all of the structural limitations and are therefore deemed to anticipate the claim).
In regard to claim 13. The monolithic metal thermal insulating sleeve liner as in claim 1 wherein said sleeve is dimensioned for a non-interference fit into said bore of the fluid flow device, one of said ends is configured to sealingly engage with a mated internal
configuration at a respectively corresponding one end of the fluid flow device bore; and
the other of said ends is configured to engage with a scaling washer and retaining
spring captured within a retaining configuration at the other end of the fluid flow device
bore (the sleeve of Blumenthal et al. in view of Herrington has an outer dimension and is therefore configured to form a non-interference fit with a bore of a slightly larger diameter. The sleeve of Blumenthal et al. in view of Herrington would also have an axial dimension that is capable of sealing with components in contact with either end of the sleeve).
In regard to claim 14, the monolithic metal thermal insulating sleeve liner as in claim 13 wherein said other end of the sleeve liner is internally configured to engage with an extraction tool when inserted therein (The sleeve of Blumenthal et al. in view of Herrington has an internal surface or bore that is capable of being engaged by an extraction tool).
In regard to claim 15, the monolithic metal thermal insulating sleeve liner as in claim 1 wherein:
said sleeve is dimensioned for an interference fit into said fluid flow device bore at each of said two ends, said sleeve liner being insertable into said fluid flow device bore when dimensions of at least one of the sleeve liner and/or the protected fluid flow device is temporarily altered into a non-interference fit condition (the sleeve of Blumenthal et al. in view of Herrington has an outer dimension and is therefore configured to form a non-interference fit with a bore of a slightly larger diameter. The sleeve of Blumenthal et al. in view of Herrington would also have an axial dimension that is capable of sealing with components in contact with either end of the sleeve).
In regard to claim 16, the monolithic metal thermal insulating sleeve liner as in claim 1 wherein said support structures comprise struts 206 extending obliquely with respect to the inner 202 and outer 204 shell internal surfaces.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blumenthal et al. 2013/00484135 in view of Herrington 2004/0187946 and further in view of Kobres, Jr. 4,014,369.
In regard to claim 9, Blumenthal et al. discloses that the sleeve can be made from carbon steel (see paragraph 4), but does not disclose the sleeve as being made from a nickel alloy. Kobres, Jr. teaches that it is common and well known in the art to make similar sleeves from either carbon steel or nickel alloys (see col. 2, lines 50-51). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the sleeve of Blumenthal et al. from a nickel alloy instead of carbon steel because inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 8 and 11-12 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Harry, Lorusso, Peuchmaur, Farfaletti-Casali, Brunner and Squires disclose similar couplings that are common and well known in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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 BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights