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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “350” has been used to designate both a “valve” and a “sleeve”. 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. 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:
Paragraph [0081] line 13 recites “forming 350”. This should be “forming 250”.
Paragraph [0081] line 18 recites “groove 250”. The groove is “320”.
Paragraph [0087] lines 1, 2 and 3 recite “groove 311”. This should be “groove 320” in each instance.
Paragraph [0087 line 1 recites “flange portion 230”. This should be each ”flange portion 311”.
Paragraph [0090] line 11 recites “passage 470”. This should be “passage 570”.
Paragraph [0091] line 3 recites “passages 470b”. This should be “passage 570b”.
Paragraph [0091] line 4 recites “connectors 471b”. This should be “connectors 571b”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8,10-13 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CA 2668745A1 (disclosed by applicant) in view of JPS55140680 (disclose by applicant). CA 2668745A1 discloses a method of repairing a pipe comprising inserting a tubular insert #2, defining a flow path, into a discharge pipe #5 so that a space (area between pipe #2 and pipe #5) is defined between the tubular insert #2 and the discharge pipe #5; the tubular insert having a passage #3 through a circumferential wall of the tube fluidically connecting the flow path with an outer surface of the tube, whereby during installation of the tubular insert in the discharge pipe, adhesive #4 and/or chocking material #4 is passable from the flow path via the passage #3 to the outer surface of the tube for adhering and or chocking the outer surface of the tube in the discharge pipe. CA 2668745A1 also discloses as prior art does not explicitly disclose an overboard discharge pipe of a marine vessel or blocking an outboard opening into the space at an outboard end of the space.
JPS55140680 discloses and undersea repair method of an oceanic structure which includes blocking an outboard opening into the space being repaired by installing a watertight mold frame 1 to prevent water from flowing into the space which is located below the waterline and draining the space after installing the blocking. Blocking the water flow into the space and draining the space allows the repair to be done below sea level and prevents water from entering the space and diluting the adhesive or chocking.
Regarding claims 6 and 17: the examiner considers the choice of a flexible or resilient cover to outboard opening and the density of the tubular insert to be simple design choices made by an artisan.
Regarding claim 10: Blocking the inboard opening into the space would be an obvious safety measure preventing water inflow in the event the outboard blocking failed.
Regarding claim 11: the claimed vent has no specific structure, any of the multiple passages #3 in the circumferential wall of the tubular insert could serve as a vent, as well as the unblocked end of the space.
Regarding claim 12: unblocking the outboard opening is an obvious step after repair is complete.
Regarding claims 18-20: the kit comprising the tubular insert installed on a vessel is embodied in the combination of CA 2668745A1 and JPS55140680.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of CA 2668745A1 for underwater repairs as modified by JPS55140680 by adding blocking on the outboard opening into the space to prevent water inflow during repair and to add blocking on the inboard opening into the space as an additional measure in the event of failure of the outboard blocking and the to use the repair method on a marine vessel overboard discharge pipe.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 14 and 15 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY D WIEST whose telephone number is (571)270-5974. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:00 - 3:00.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at 571 272 4530. 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.
/ANTHONY D WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615