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) 1-4, 9-14, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wolfram et al. 8,074,686.
In regard to claims 1 and 11, Wolfram et al. discloses a composite pipe and method comprising:
a hollow, cylindrical liner (10);
a flange end (16) attachment comprising a flange and a cylindrical main body (18) with a bore extending therethrough within which an end portion of the liner is disposed; and
a thermoset outer layer (14) comprising resin-impregnated filaments (see claims 3-5 and 14 and col. 3, lines 10-15), wherein filaments of the thermoset outer layer are in contact with and wound about:
at least a portion of an external surface of the liner (10); and
at least a portion of an external surface of the cylindrical main body (18) of the flange
end attachment (16).
In regard to claims 2 and 12, wherein the external surface of the cylindrical main body (18) of the flange end attachment comprises a protruding ring (38 in fig. 3) an axial distance from the flange (16),
wherein the filaments of the thermoset outer layer are in contact with and wound about at least a portion of the external surface of the cylindrical main body between the ring (38) and the flange (16).
In regard to claims 3 and 13, wherein the axial distance is approximately half the distance between the flange and the portion of the external surface of the cylindrical main body between the ring and the external surface of the liner in contact with the filaments (see fig. 3, where 38 is approximately half the distance between 16 and 36).
In regard to claims 4 and 14, wherein the flanged end attachment (16) is a one-piece flanged cylinder comprising the flange (16) and the cylindrical main body (18).
In regard to claims 9 and 19, wherein the flange end attachment is adhered to the liner by an adhesive (see col. 5, lines 43-49).
In regard to claims 10 and 20, wherein the filaments comprise glass or carbon filaments (see claim 5).
1, 5, 11 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lundy 4,647,078.
In regard to claims 1 and 11, Lundy discloses a composite pipe and method comprising:
a hollow, cylindrical liner (12);
a flange end attachment comprising a flange (22) and a cylindrical main body (14) with a bore extending therethrough within which an end portion of the liner is disposed; and
a thermoset outer layer (18) comprising resin-impregnated filaments (see claims 3, line 67- col. 4, line 20), wherein filaments of the thermoset outer layer are in contact with and wound about:
at least a portion of an external surface of the liner (12); and
at least a portion of an external surface of the cylindrical main body (14) of the flange
end attachment (see fig. 2).
In regard to claims 5 and 15, wherein the flange (22) and the cylindrical main body (14) are separate components of the flanged end attachment.
1, 5, 8, 11, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Walsh et al. 6,361,080.
In regard to claims 1 and 11, Walsh et al. discloses a composite pipe and method comprising:
a hollow, cylindrical liner (14);
a flange end attachment comprising a flange (10) and a cylindrical main body (12) with a bore extending therethrough within which an end portion of the liner (14) is disposed; and
a thermoset outer layer (20, 24) comprising resin-impregnated filaments, wherein filaments of the thermoset outer layer are in contact with and wound about:
at least a portion of an external surface of the liner (14); and
at least a portion of an external surface of the cylindrical main body (12) of the flange
end attachment (see fig. 2).
In regard to claims 5 and 15, wherein the flange (10) and the cylindrical main body (12) are separate components of the flanged end attachment.
In regard to claims 8 and 18, wherein the liner 14 extents outward past the flange end attachment (10, 12) and is flared (see fig. 2).
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) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfram et al. 8,074,686 in view of Mueller et al. 4,702,498.
Wolfram et al. discloses making the pipe liner from a plastic that is abrasion resistant, but
does not specifically disclose the use of polyethylene. Mueller et al. teaches that using liners made from extruded polyethylene in pipes that conduct aggressive media is common and well known in the art (see col. 1, lines 13-17, and col. 3, line 2). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the liner of Wolfram et al. from polyethylene, as taught by Mueller et al.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wolfram et al. 8,074,686 in view of Overath et al. 4,619,470.
Wolfram et al. discloses a liner (10) as described above, but does not disclose the liner
extending outward past the flanged end attachment (16). Overath et al. teaches that providing liners (2) with ends (9) that either extend past the flange end (5), or that do not (liner 2 in fig. 3) are well known in the art. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the liner of Wolfram et al. to extend past the flange end attachment 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 7 and 17 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. Welger, Kuwabara, Peavy, Anthony, Cloos and Lundy disclose similar pipes 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