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 § 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 44-49 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.
The claims require at least two malleable sections, and at least one joint, to form a pipeline. Shouldn’t there be at least two joints to form a pipeline using at least two malleable sections? Further, shouldn’t there be the same number of joints as sections? Also in claim 44, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “each interconnecting means”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 44-49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant does not disclose an embodiment of a pipeline which uses at least two malleable sections but only one bracket (e.g., see Applicant’s FIGS 20-23).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 30-36 and 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Pollmeier (EP 1400167 A2), which discloses:
30. A pipeline assembly, comprising:
a. at least one malleable sheet (1a, 1B, which are at least minimally malleable) with two first edges opposite to one another (see FIG 1); and
b. an interlocking means (2) capable of clamping said first edges of said sheet to each other resulting in a tubular body (as shown in FIG 2), wherein said interlocking means consists of a tongue (3) and groove (5) joint, wherein a tongue is formed at one of said first edges and a groove is formed at the other of said first edges (see FIG 1),
characterized in that said tongue is partially split (see the space between clamping halves 7 and 8), such that said split portion of said tongue is selectively compressible for entering in or exiting said groove (it is inherent that the bulbous ends of 7, 8 must move together during insertion into recess 5 in order to arrive at the configuration of FIG 2) and is configured to form a hole between said tongue and said groove in a length direction of said tubular body when said tongue and said groove are clamped to one another (as shown in FIGS 2, 3, the space between halves 7, 8 exist along the length of the pipe), wherein said hole is capable of receiving a liquid plastic, adhesive material or an electrofusion component (it is so capable).
31. The pipeline assembly of claim 30, wherein said tongue and said groove are clampable to one another by sliding or inserting said tongue into said groove (claim 6: “the clamp closure 2, which has a projection 3 on the side of the one wall element 1a, which can be inserted into a recess 5 on the side of the other wall element 1b”).
32. The pipeline assembly of claim 30, wherein said electrofusion component is at least one electrically conductive component to allow electrofusion welding between said tongue and said groove (further defining the electrofusion component does not operate to transform the electrofusion component into a positive recitation; this claim is met in that Pollmeier discloses a hole which is capable or receiving such an electrofusion component or an adhesive or a liquid plastic).
33. The pipeline assembly as claimed in claim 30, wherein said tubular body has a circular cross section, elliptical cross section or oval cross section (see FIG 3).
34. The pipeline assembly of claim 30, wherein said sheet includes at least one reinforcement hole in a length direction of said sheet for receiving a reinforcement member (see the holes created by the other clamp(s), FIGS 2 and 3).
35. The pipeline assembly of claim 30, wherein said sheet is made of an elastomeric material (“the outer Cover layer 12 and the inner cover layer 14 made of GRP or other suitable plastic”).
36. The pipeline assembly of claim 35, wherein said elastomeric material includes plastics (“the outer Cover layer 12 and the inner cover layer 14 made of GRP or other suitable plastic”).
Regarding claim 40, see the analysis of claim 30. Note that the disclosed pipeline includes at least two malleable sheets (1a, 1b), where the adjacent edges of each sheet are clamped together (see FIG 3).
41. The pipeline assembly of claim 40, wherein each interlocking means is configured to press said first edges of one of said sheets against one another between said first edges of the other of said sheets to form an air-tight seal between said pressed edges (“his not only results in a high clamping or locking effect achieved, but also an ideal seal of the interior 9 of the exhaust stack, so that there is an escape of exhaust air is not possible due to the clamp 2”).
Claim(s) 30-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Hageltorn (US 2,739,089), which discloses:
30. A pipeline assembly, comprising:
a. at least one malleable sheet with two first edges (10, 11) opposite to one another (see FIG 1); and
b. an interlocking means (3, 4; FIG 2) capable of clamping said first edges of said sheet to each other resulting in a tubular body (as similarly shown in FIG 9), wherein said interlocking means consists of a tongue (3) and groove (4) joint, wherein a tongue is formed at one of said first edges and a groove is formed at the other of said first edges (see FIG 1),
characterized in that said tongue is partially split (see FIG 2, bead
3 is split to receive 1), such that said split portion of said tongue is selectively compressible for entering in or exiting said groove (the bulbous ends of 3 mest flex inward after passing over 1, in order to arrive at the position of FIG 2) and is configured to form a hole between said tongue and said groove in a length direction of said tubular body when said tongue and said groove are clamped to one another (see the space between 3 and 4, due to their different shapes; FIG 2), wherein said hole is capable of receiving a liquid plastic, adhesive material or an electrofusion component (it is so capable).
31. The pipeline assembly of claim 30, wherein said tongue and said groove are clampable to one another by sliding or inserting said tongue into said groove (col. 2 lines 15-28).
32. The pipeline assembly of claim 30, wherein said electrofusion component is at least one electrically conductive component to allow electrofusion welding between said tongue and said groove (further defining the electrofusion component does not operate to transform the electrofusion component into a positive recitation; at least because this limitation is introduced as an alternatively limitation that is not positively required of claim 30).
33. The pipeline assembly as claimed in claim 30, wherein said tubular body has a circular cross section, elliptical cross section or oval cross section (see FIG 9).
34. The pipeline assembly of claim 30, wherein said sheet includes at least one reinforcement hole in a length direction of said sheet for receiving a reinforcement member (there are at least two spaces formed between 3 and 4, for example on the left and right side of the lower part of member 1; see FIG 2).
35. The pipeline assembly of claim 30, wherein said sheet is made of an elastomeric material (they are “plastic”, e.g. see Title and throughout the specification).
36. The pipeline assembly of claim 35, wherein said elastomeric material includes plastics (it is “plastic”).
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.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 37-39 and 50-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Pollmeier or Hageltorn, and further in view of Noel (US 4,576,846).
Regarding claim 37, Pollmeier and Hageltorn each disclose a device, during the normal and usual provision of which, the claims methods would necessarily be performed (as analogously mapped above regarding claim 30), with exception to the claimed step “b” of introducing a liquid plastic, adhesive material or electrofusion component through said hole. However Noel teaches that it was known to introduce a liquid plastic or adhesive material into such a hole (“it is also possible to produce in situ in the bisector slit projecting into the tube shell a reinforcement or stiffening by using a hardening plastic, which at the same time reinforces the bisector slit following firm adhesion or hardening. Suitable plastics for this purpose are known to the person skilled in the art.”) To create a more durable bond of Pollmeier’s or Hageltorn’s interlock, it would have been obvious to introduce a liquid plastic or adhesive material therein, as claimed by Applicant and taught by Noel.
Regarding claim 38, see the analyses of claim 31 above.
Regarding claim 39, this limitation is given limited patentable weight at least because it further defines an alternative limitation which is not positively required of claim 37.
Regarding claims 50-51, the resultant device of the obviousness analysis immediately above. includes a. a tongue formed at one of said edges; b. a groove formed at the other of said edges; and C. a sealing component for sealing said edges, characterized in that said tongue is partially split, such that said split portion of said tongue is selectively compressible for entering in or exiting said groove and is configured to form a hole between said tongue and said groove in a length direction of said edges when said tongue and said groove are clamped to one another, wherein said hole is capable of receiving said sealing component (see the corresponding analysis set forth above), and wherein said sealing component is at least one of: at least one liquid plastic; an adhesive material; and at least one electrofusion component.
Regarding claim 52, this limitation is given limited patentable weight because it merely further defines an element of the claim which is recited in alternative format and therefore not positively required.
Claim(s) 42-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over either Hageltorn, in view of Pollmeier and Noel.
Regarding claims 42-43, Hageltorn discloses bending one sheet to connect to its own edges using a tongue and groove joint (FIG 9) to create a one-piece pipe, but does not disclose the use of two sections to form a multi-piece pipe or the adhesive/liquid plastic as claimed. Pollmeier teaches that it was known in the art at the time of filing to form a similar pipe using two curved sections (FIG 3; although Pollmeider arguably does not disclose “bending” the sheet as claimed). To create a larger pipe, and/or to repair or replace a damaged section of pipe without replacing the entire pipe, it would have been obvious to use two sections of Hageltorn’s bendable sheet, as similarly taught by Pollmeier, to create two curved pipe sections that connect to one another as claimed. It also would have been obvious to introduce an adhesive or liquid plastic material as claimed and as taught by Noel in order to create a more durable seal at the interlocks.
Claim(s) 44-49 as understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cason (US 4,777,072) in view of Pollmeier.
Regarding claim 44, Cason discloses (FIG 1) using a single malleable sheet (FIG 3) which uses a single bracket interlocking means (FIG 2; note that Cason discloses a 1:1 relationship between the number of sheets and the number of brackets) to form a single round pipeline, where the bracket is clampable between by means of multiple interlocking means (52, 74), wherein each interconnecting means consists of a tongue and groove joint (52, 74), wherein one of tongue and groove of each interconnecting means is formed at an edge of one of said sheets, while the other of said tongue and groove is formed at an edge of said bracket corresponding to said edge of said sheet (see FIG 4), characterized in that each tongue is partially split (FIGS 3, 4), such that said split portion is selectively compressible for entering or exiting said groove (due to inherent flexibility thereof) and is configured to form a hole (64) between said tongue and said groove in a length direction when said tongue and said groove are clamped to one another, wherein said hole is capable of receiving a liquid plastic, adhesive material or an electrofusion component (the hole is so capable). As understood, Cason does not disclose multiple sheets/sections and multiple brackets/interconnecting means as claimed. However Pollmeier teaches that it was known to use multiple sections and multiple interconnecting means to similarly form a pipeline (see FIG 3). To create a larger pipeline, or replace only a smaller section of pipeline where damage occurs, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use multiples of Cason’s sheet and bracket, as similarly taught by Pollmeier.
45. The pipeline assembly of claim 44, wherein said tubular bodies are coplanar to one another (they are in the same plane, e.g., the plane of the page of FIG 3).
46. The pipeline assembly of claim 45, wherein said tubular bodies are coaxial to one another (they share the same axis, at the center of FIG 3).
47. The pipeline assembly of claim 44, wherein each of said malleable sheets and said bracket is made of an elastomeric material.
48. The pipeline assembly of claim 47, wherein said elastomeric material includes plastics (see the hatching pattern of the figures).
Regarding claim 49, the method would necessarily be performed during the normal and usual provision of the pipeline set forth in the obviousness analysis immediately above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, or 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
2/9/26