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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on December 12, 2025 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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 10 and 11 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.
With regards to claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the coil driver.” The coil driver element is no longer in claim 9, instead it is introduced in claim 17.
With regards to claim 11, it is unclear if “a guide table” is meant to refer to one of the guide tables set forth in claim 9 or if it is meant to introduce an additional guide table.
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.
Claims 9, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zepp et al. (hereafter “Zepp”)(US 2012/0151978), previously presented in view of Williamson (US Patent 4,476,703), newly presented.
With regards to claim 9, Zepp discloses a mobile factory, the mobile factory further comprises comprising:
an unwinder (108) configured to receive a steel sheet coil;
at least one press (110);
a first puller (wheel 119 from pipe puller 118) and a second puller (wheel 119 from pipe puller 118) configured to move the steel sheet along a production line;
a calander (112);
guide tables (120) configured to maintain an alignment of the steel sheet in a direction of the calander;
a welding machine comprising a wire welding system [joiner 114 described in paragraph 0041];
a pipe straightener [one of the sets of rollers in 100, as seen in Figure 2]; and
wherein the pipe straightener is positioned preceding the calander and the welding machine, as seen in Figure 1.
Zepp discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for a beveler configured to make chamfers ranging from 150 to 30° on side edges of the steel sheet; wherein the beveler is positioned preceding the calander and the welding machine. Williamson is relied upon to teach a system for forming spiral pipe comprising a beveler for making chamfers in the material [Column 3, lines 25-20 and Column 5, lines 50-55] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zepp’s factory with a beveler because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)].
The following limitation is considered a recitation of intended use: “for production of a helical pipe obtained from steel sheet coils using equipment mounted on an autonomous low trailer, raft, or container.” A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 939, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
With regards to claim 12, Zepp discloses further comprising a second press (110’).
With regards to claim 18, Zepp discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the welding machine contains two to five welding wires per pass. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed number of wire passes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. It is noted that Applicant has not disclosed that having this particular range provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentable distinguish over Zepp.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zepp in view of Williamson and Johnston (US 6,000,261), previously presented.
The combination of Zepp and Williamson discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for wherein the mobile factory further comprises a coil driver positioned before the unwinder and adapted to position the steel sheet coil on the unwinder. Johnston is relied upon to teach a system for forming spiral pipe comprising an uncoiler assembly (30) is designed to allow for the transfer of coils from delivery vehicles [Column 1, lines 65+ - Column 2, lines 1-10]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide Zepp’s factory with a coil driver because combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results require only routine skill in the art. [KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)] and allows for continuous production of the pipes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 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.
Claims 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten 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 and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA M EKIERT whose telephone number is (571)272-1901. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-4:30PM EST.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at 571-270-1477. 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.
/TERESA M EKIERT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3725