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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 14 November 2023 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “61”.
The drawings are objected to because:
Regarding Fig. 1, multiple reference characters have been used to designate the same structural element (“7” and “71”; “7” and “72”; “7” and “73”). Only one reference character and its associated lead line should be used to designate a particular structural element. Figs. 2 and 4 - 12 contain similar errors.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4 of paragraph 0025, it appears to Examiner that “Fig. 3” should be changed to “Fig. 2”.
In line 16 of paragraph 0026, it appears to Examiner that “Fig. 3” should be changed to “Fig. 2”.
In line 1 of paragraph 0027, it appears to Examiner that “Fig. 2” should be changed to “Fig. 3”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3 of claim 1, “a pipeline” should be changed to “the pipeline”.
In line 8 of claim 1, “an inside” should be changed to “the inside”.
In line 3 of claim 6, “a pipeline” should be changed to “the pipeline”.
In line 7 of claim 6, “an inside” should be changed to “the inside”.
In line 5 of claim 7, “an outside” should be changed to “the outside” and “an inside” should be changed to “the inside”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1 - 16 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.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear whether “an opening” at the end portion recited in line 3 refers to “an opening” at an end portion as recited in line 3 of claim 2, from which claim 3 depends, or if it represents an additional structural limitation. For purposes of examination, the opening recited in claim 3 and the opening as recited in claim 2 have been interpreted as referring to the same structural limitation.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase “wire-shaped member” as recited in line 2 renders the claim vague and indefinite because “wire-shaped” does not clearly define the shape of the member. For example, wires can have a single linear strand or can be helical in shape. Therefore, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. Claims 13 and 15 contain similar errors.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the following limitations in the claims:
Claim 1, line 5: “the inside”
Claim 6, line 4: “the inside”
Claim 6, line 6: “the cut pieces”
Claim 7, line 4: “the end portion”
Claim 9, line 2: “the extending direction”
Claim 13, line 2: “the cutting pieces”. Examiner has interpreted the aforementioned limitation as “the cut pieces”, as best understood.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 14 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakao et al. (JP 3-272381).
Regarding claim 1, Nakao discloses a method for removing an underground pipeline, comprising: an insertion process of inserting a cutting device (cutting tool) into the pipeline (1a) from a front side toward a back side of the pipeline; a cutting process of spirally cutting the pipeline (spiral body 11) from the inside with the cutting device to form cut pieces, wherein the cut pieces are in strip-like form; and a collection process of drawing out the cut pieces (spiral body 11 is drawn out and wound onto winder 4) from the front side to an outside through an inside of the pipeline (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 2, Nakao further discloses in the collection process, the cut pieces (11) are drawn into the pipeline (1a) from the back side of the pipeline, and the cut pieces are drawn (via winder 4) to the outside from an opening at an end portion of the pipeline on the front side through the inside (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 4, Nakao further discloses a heating process (gas cylinder 6; oxygen cylinder 3; torch 3a; flame ports 3c) of heating the pipeline (1a), wherein the collection process is performed after the heating process (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0001). Examiner notes that Nakao teaches applying the heating process to the pipeline, then removing the heating tool, and then using the winder to collect the strip-like pieces (see page 2 of the translated description provided by Applicant).
Regarding claim 6, Nakao discloses a device for removing an underground pipeline, comprising: a cutting device (cutting tool) that is inserted into the pipeline (1a) from a front side of the pipeline and cuts the pipeline spirally (spiral body 11) from the inside to form a strip-like cut piece; and a collection device (winder 4) that draws out the cut pieces from the front side to an outside through an inside of the pipeline (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 9, Nakao further discloses the cutting device includes a blade portion (blade portion, not shown), and the blade portion rotates inside the pipeline (1a) with the extending direction of the pipeline as a rotation axis for spirally cutting (11) the pipeline from inside the pipeline into the cut pieces (Figs. 1 and 2; page 2 of the translated description provided by Applicant).
Regarding claim 11, Nakao further discloses in the collection process, the cutting device (3) moves toward the front side of the pipeline (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 12, Nakao further discloses the cutting device (3) attaches to a support shaft (unlabeled shaft attached to the end of torch 3a opposite flame port 3c, the unlabeled shaft having a reduced diameter relative to the diameter of the torch 3a), wherein the support shaft includes a wire-shaped member for supporting the cutting device inside the pipeline (Figs. 1 and 2).
Regarding claim 14, Nakao further discloses the pipeline (1a) is embedded underground (Figs. 1 and 2; abstract; paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 15, Nakao further discloses the heating process uses a heating device (torch 3a) to heat the pipeline (1a), and wherein the heating device attaches to a support shaft (unlabeled shaft attached to the end of torch 3a opposite flame port 3c, the unlabeled shaft having a reduced diameter relative to the diameter of the torch 3a), wherein the support shaft includes a wire-shaped member for supporting the heating device inside the pipeline (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0001).
Regarding claim 16, Nakao further discloses the heating process softens the pipeline (1a) for drawing out the cut pieces (11) from the front side of the pipeline (paragraph 0001).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao et al. in view of Goncalves (US 5,487,411). Nakao discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the pipeline is heated with water vapor. Goncalves teaches the pipeline is heated with water vapor (abstract; col. 4, lines 24 - 31). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have substituted a pipeline heater comprising water vapor as taught by for the heating apparatus as disclosed by Nakao as a design consideration within the skill of the art. The substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d 1385(2007).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakao et al. Nakao discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the cutting device moves from the front side of the pipeline toward the backside of the pipeline while spirally cutting the pipeline. Nakao discloses the cutting tool (3) moves from the back side of the pipeline toward the front side of the pipeline while spirally cutting the pipeline (Figs. 1 and 2; paragraph 0001). However, since Nakao teaches the cutting tool is removed before removing the cut pieces, it would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above such that the cutting device moves from the front side of the pipeline toward the backside of the pipeline while spirally cutting the pipeline as a design consideration within the skill of the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 7, 8, and 13 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is (571)270-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 PM.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/SEAN D ANDRISH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
SA
9/26/2025