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 .
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 fasteners of claim 10, the secondary body region being formed of at least two segments coupled together of claim 14, and the main body region being formed of at least two segments coupled together of claim 16 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 16 states that the at least one main body region is formed from at least two segments coupled together, but the specification does not provide proper antecedent basis for the feature.
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.
Claims 1,2,3,4,6,7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Boer (US 20060087448 A1), hereafter known as Den Boer, in view of AML3D’s press release “AML3D 3D prints world’s largest, verified Oil & Gas piping component”, hereafter known as AML3D.
Regarding claim 1, Den Boer discloses a duct for fluid transport (para 0047, pipe of Den Boer is for fluid transport, Den Boer), comprising:
a first duct segment (fig 18, first duct segment 304, Den Boer) and a second duct segment (fig 18, second duct segment 305, Den Boer), each segment having a body region and an edge region (fig 18, each of the duct segments has a body region extending towards the top and bottom and an edge region where they meet in the middle, Den Boer) , the second segment being configured to couple with the first segment along the edge region ( fig 18, second segment 305 is coupled to first segment along the edge region in the middle, Den Boer);
at least one projection extending from the edge region of the first segment ( fig 18, first segment 304 has at least one projection on the edge extending downwards, Den Boer) and at least one recess disposed along the edge region of the second segment (fig 18, second segment 305 has at least one recess along its edge, Den Boer), the recess being substantially similar in shape to the projection (fig 18, the projections and recesses are complimentary in shape, Den Boer);
wherein: the first and second duct segments are formed using an additive manufacturing process (not disclosed);
and at least one of the first duct segment and the second duct segment includes a lip extending along a length of the edge region (not disclosed in the embodiment of fig 18, but disclosed as protruding lip 209 in fig 13, Den Boer).
Den Boer embodiment of fig 18 does not disclose a lip extending along a length of the edge region. However, Den Boer embodiment of fig 13 teaches a lip extending along a length of the edge region (protruding lip 209 in fig 13, Den Boer). Den Boer describes a fluid transporting pipe with protruding and recessed sections, a field closely related to the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Den Boer fig 13 into Den Boer fig 18 and add lip 209 and corresponding recess 210 of fig 13 Dan Boer into the pipe segments fig 18 of Dan Boer. The lip and recess increase the surface area, leading to stronger welds (paragraph 0100).
Den Boer does not disclose the segments formed using additive manufacturing. However, AML3D teaches printing pipe components with additive manufacturing (title, AML3D). AML3D is a press release about a 3D printed pipe components, a field closely related to Den Boer and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of AML3D into Den Boer and constructed the pipe pf Den Boer using additive manufacturing in the manner described in AML3D. The method of AML3D can reduce the number of parts, improve part performance, and reduce manufacturing time (page 3, second paragraph, AML3D). Additionally, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process limitation is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the limitation is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
Regarding claim 2, Den Boer in view of AML3D discloses the duct according to claim 1, wherein the duct is formed from a material selected from a group consisting of: aluminum, aluminum alloy, titanium, titanium-based alloy, Inconel, steel, steel alloy, stainless steel, copper, or copper-based alloy (para 0101, the forge welded pipes can be made of steel, Den Boer).
Regarding claim 3, Den Boer in view of AML3D discloses the duct according to claim 1, wherein the at least one projection extending from the edge region of the first segment is a plurality of projections extending from the edge region of the first segment (fig 18, first segment 304 has two projections extending from its edge region, one is shown in the cross section, Den Boer), and the at least one recess disposed along the edge region of the second segment is a plurality of recesses disposed along the edge region of the second segment (fig 18, second segment 305 has two recesses extending into its edge region, one is shown in the cross section, Den Boer).
Regarding claim 4, Den Boer in view of AML3D discloses the duct according to claim 1, wherein the at least one projection is a substantially symmetrical tab forming a continuous, tangential curve along a portion of the edge region of the first segment (fig 18, para 0125, the projection of segment 304 is sinusoidal, and so is a continuous tangential curve, De Boer).
Regarding claim 6, Den Boer in view of AML3D discloses the duct according to claim 1, further comprising at least one projection extending from the edge region of the second segment (fig 18, second segment 305 has a projection extending upward form its edge region, Den Boer) and at least one recess disposed along the edge region of the first segment (fig 18, first segment 304 has a recess on its edge region, Den Boer), the recess being substantially similar in shape to the projection, (fig 18, the projection and recess are complimentary in shape, Den Boer)
Regarding claim 7, Den Boer in view of AML3D discloses the duct according to claim 1, wherein each of the first duct segment and the second duct segment includes a lip extending along the length of the edge region (protruding lip 209 in fig 13 extends around the circumference of the edge of the second (bottom) segment, and the lip on the first (top) segment formed by the concavity 210 extends around the circumference of the edge of the top segment, Den Boer)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Boer in view of AML3D in further view of Frantz (US 20080308674 A1), hereafter known as Frantz.
Regarding claim 5, Den Boer in view of AML3D discloses the duct according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the at least one projection is an asymmetrically formed tab forming a continuous, tangential curve along a portion of the edge region of the first segment. The projections of Den Boer in view of AML3D are a continuous, tangential curves, but are not asymmetrical. However, Frantz teaches continuous asymmetrical curved projections along pipe segments (fig 12b, projections along edge seam 1202, Frantz). Frantz describes a welded pipe with projections, a field related to Den Boer, AML3D, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Frantz into Den Boer in view of AML3D and made the projections of Den Boer in view of AML3D asymmetrical. The asymmetrical profiles interlock with each other, making the weld stronger (para 0099, Frantz),
Claims 8,9,11,12,13,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Boer in view of Nucor Steel’s webpage “Rolled & Welded Steel Pipe “, hereafter known as Nucor, in further view of AML3D.
Regarding claim 8, Den Boer discloses a duct for fluid transport (para 0047, pipe of Den Boer is for fluid transport, Den Boer), the duct comprising:
a body having an inlet at a first end and an outlet at a second end (fig 12 and 13, pipe has inlet and outlet on the top and bottom ends, Den Boer) and comprising at least one main body region and at least one secondary body region (fig 12 and 13, main body region 201, secondary body region 202, Den Boer),
each body region having an edge portion extending along a perimeter thereof (figs 12 and 13, body regions 201 and 202 each have edges that meet in the middle at 306, Den Boer); wherein:
the at least one main body region is formed from sheet metal (not disclosed);
the at least one secondary body region is formed an additive manufacturing process (not disclosed);
the edge portion of the at least one main body region and the edge portion of the at least one secondary body region are rigidly coupled together (fig 12, para 0105, the edges of 201 and 202 are welded together, Den Boer).
Den Boer does not disclose the main body region formed from sheet metal. However, Nucor teaches making a pipe with a sheet of steel (pages 2-5, sheet of steel is formed into a pipe, Nucor). Nucor is a product information page about forming and welding metal pipes, a field closely related to Den Boer and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Nucor into Den Boer and form the main body region of Den Boer in the manner described by Nucor. The manufacturing process of Nucor can create pipes with a wide variety of sizes and wall thicknesses (page 1, diameters up to 204 inches, wall thickness up to 2.25 inches, with custom services available, Nucor), allowing the pipe to fit a wide range of applications.
Den Boer in view of Nucor does not disclose the secondary body region formed from additive manufacturing. However, AML3D teaches printing pipe components with additive manufacturing (title, AML3D). AML3D is a press release about a 3D printed pipe components, a field closely related to Den Boer and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of AML3D into Den Boer and constructed the pipe pf Den Boer using additive manufacturing in the manner described in AML3D. The method of AML3D can reduce the number of parts, improve part performance, and reduce manufacturing time (page 3, second paragraph, AML3D).
Additionally for both limitations, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process limitation is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the limitation is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 9, Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D discloses the duct according to claim 8, wherein the at least one main body region and the at least one second body region are coupled together via welding (para 0101, the main and second body regions are forge welded, Den Boer).
Regarding claim 11, Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D discloses the duct according to claim 8, wherein the at least one secondary body region further includes a lip extending at least partially along the edge portion thereof, such that the lip extends at least partially over the edge portion of the at least one main body region (figs 12-13, secondary body region 202 has lip 209 along its edge portion, and it extends over the edge of body portion 201, Den Boer).
Regarding claim 12, Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D discloses the duct according to claim 8, but does not disclose further comprising at least one projection extending from the edge portion of the at least one main body region and at least one recess disposed along the edge portion of the at least one secondary body region, the recess being substantially similar in shape to the projection. However, fig 18 of Dan Boer teaches at least one projection extending from the edge region of the main body portion (fig 18, first segment 304 has a projection extending downward form its edge region, Den Boer) and at least one recess disposed along the edge region of the secondary body portion (fig 18, second segment 305 has a recess on its edge region, Den Boer), the recess being substantially similar in shape to the projection, (fig 18, the projection and recess are complimentary in shape, Den Boer). Den Boer describes a fluid transporting pipe with protruding and recessed sections, a field closely related to the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Den Boer fig 18 into Den Boer fig 13 in view of Nucor and AML3D and add the sinusoidal projections corresponding recesses into the pipe segments of fig 13 of Dan Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D. The sinusoidal shape increase the surface area, reducing the load on the welds (paragraph 0124-0125, Den Boer).
Regarding claim 13, Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D discloses the duct according to claim 8, wherein each secondary body region of the at least one secondary body region is formed from a single piece of material (figs 12-13, body region 202 is one piece of material, Den Boer).
Regarding claim 15, Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D discloses the duct according to claim 8, wherein each main body region of the at least one main body region is formed from a single piece of material (figs 12-13, body region 202 is one piece of material, Den Boer).
Claims 10,14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D, in further view of Permalok’s product page “Joints”, hereafter known as Permalok.
Regarding claim 10, Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D discloses the duct according to claim 8, but does not disclose wherein the at least one main body region and the at least one secondary body region are coupled together via mechanical fasteners. However, Permalok teaches pipes coupled with mechanical fasteners (last page, the joint has interlocking ridges that mechanically fasten the two pipes together, Permalok). Permalok is a product page for metal pipe joints, a field related to Den Boer, Nucor, AML3D, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Permalok into Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D and use the locking joints of Permalok to couple the pipes in place of the forge welds of Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D. The joints of Permalok do not need to be welded (page 1, first paragraph), saving time during installation.
Regarding claims 14, Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D discloses the duct according to claim 8, but does not disclose wherein each secondary body region of the at least one secondary body region is formed from at least two segments coupled together. However, Permalok teaches forming the pipe body out of two pieces, with a separate edge region that is later welded on (last page, the joint edge regions have a weld line, thus they were manufactured separately from the pipe and welded onto the pipe body during assembly, Permalok). Permalok is a product page for metal pipe joints, a field related to Den Boer, Nucor, AML3D, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Permalok into Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D and made the edge portions of secondary body region 202 of into Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D separately from the body region and weld them together during assembly. The separate edge and body portions allow for different edge profiles to be used with one type of pipe body, making the pipe more versatile. Additionally, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process limitation is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the limitation is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Regarding claim 16, Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D discloses the duct the duct according to claim 14, but does not disclose wherein each main body region of the at least one main body region is formed from at least two segments coupled together. However, Permalok teaches forming the pipe body out of two pieces, with a separate edge region that is later welded on (last page, the joint edge regions have a weld line, thus they were manufactured separately from the pipe and welded onto the pipe body during assembly, Permalok). Permalok is a product page for metal pipe joints, a field related to Den Boer, Nucor, AML3D, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Permalok into Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D and made the edge portions of main body region 201 of into Den Boer in view of Nucor and AML3D separately from the body portion and weld them together during assembly. The separate edge and body portions allow for different edge profiles to be used with one type of pipe body, making the pipe more versatile. Additionally, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process limitation is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the limitation is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abt (US 9757536 B2) and Richard (US 1857519 A) discloses projections connecting two tubes
Hackius (US 8039115 B2) discloses a method of welding that uses a seam with projections to increase weld area
Callan (US 2396826 A) discloses an air conduit with interlocking main and secondary body regions
Liady (US 1260690 A) and Treitz (DE 19640883 A1) discloses a pipe welding joint with interlocking projections
Mauz (DE 102011012198 A1) discloses welded pipes with asymmetrical projections.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 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 supervisor, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KEVIN F MURPHY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights