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 .
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.
Claim 4, 6 and 10 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "..." and Claim 6 recites the limitation "...”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the terminology “the severings” in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the terminology will be interpreted as the spacing between two adjacent ends of a cut fiber strand.
Claim 10 recites "the longitudinal direction of the material sheet" and “the longitudinal edges of at least one of the material sheets”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terminologies in the claim. For purposes of compact prosecution, the “longitudinal direction” and “longitudinal edges” will be assumed to be aligned with longitudinal direction of the tube.
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.
Claim(s) 1 - 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11 -13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Renaud et al. (US20020124898A1) hereinafter Renaud.
Regarding claim 1, Renaud discloses a tubular liner (Title, Abstract, figures 1A and 1B) for rehabilitation of pipelines or canals (paragraph [0001]) containing resin-impregnated fibrous layers (“support layers 110 and 120” in paragraph [0050]; 110 and 120 in Figure 2 and 3; “The first support layer 110 includes filamentary elements or fibers 112…” in paragraph [0051]; 112 in Figure 2 and 3; “The second support layer 120 includes filamentary elements or fibers 122…” in paragraph [0053]; 122 in Figure 2 and 3; “The fabric also includes a resinous material…” in paragraph [0065]), wherein at least one of the resin-impregnated fibrous layers (112 of 110 and 122 of 120 in Figure 2 and 3) is a transverse fibrous layer (122 of 120 in Figure 2 and 3).
Renaud discloses transverse fiber layer (122 in Figure 2 and 3) being perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (arrow L in Figure 2 and 3) of the tubular liner, which is within the range of 45 degrees to 135 degrees.
Renaud does not explicitly disclose fibers of the transverse fibrous layer arranged in this way having a median length in a range from 10 to 55% of the circumference of the tubular liner. However, Renaud discloses fibrous layers with fibers being chopped to have length ranging between 2 to 12 inches (paragraph [0105]) and diameter of the tubular liner (“reinforced liner” in paragraph [0107]) ranging between 4 to 64 inches (paragraph [0107]). Renaud also mentions that the stated range is an example (paragraph [0103]) and kept open the option to choose a different fiber length (paragraph [0111]). Calculating the example values provided in Renaud, gives overall fiber length being in the range of around 1% to 95% of circumference (paragraphs 0105 fiber length 2-12 inches and 0107 diameter 4-64 inches, disclosing dimensions that encompass the claimed range).
Regarding claim 2, Renaud discloses a tubular liner according to claim 1 as set forth above and further discloses that a transverse fiber layer (122 in Figures 2 and 3) being perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (arrow L in Figures 2 and 3) of the tubular liner, which is within the range of 80 degrees to 100 degrees of the of the claimed invention and hence the claimed range is anticipated by Renaud.
Regarding claim 3, Renaud discloses a tubular liner according to claim 1 as set forth above and further discloses that the at least one transverse fibrous layer (“support layer” 120 in paragraph [0053], 120 in Figures 2 and 3) mainly comprises fibers (122 in Figure 2 and 3) extending longitudinally (arrow L in Figures 2, 3 and 16-18) essentially around the circumference of the liner (arrow P in Figures 16-18), which, however, are severed (“Fibers 122 are long, chopped fibers…” in [0056]; 122 in Figures 2 and 3) at least one point.
Regarding claim 5, Renaud discloses a tubular liner according to claim 1 as set forth above and further discloses the fibers (122 in Figure 2 and 3) of the transverse fibrous layer (120 in Figure 2 and 3) are severed by cuts (122 in Figure 2 and 3 – show fibers 122 that are separated by a space that defines adjacent in line fibers that are separated (i.e. severed) by spaces (i.e. “cuts”) in the longitudinal direction of the tubular liner having a length range of 5 to 30 cm (paragraph [0105]).
PNG
media_image1.png
262
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 18
Regarding claim 6, Renaud discloses a tubular liner according to claim 1 as set forth above and further discloses the severings extend along one or several cutting lines (Cutting line 1 and Cutting line 2 in Annotated figure 18 that correspond to the spaces between inline fibers 122) arranged in the longitudinal direction (arrow L in Annotated figure 18) of the tubular liner.
Regarding claim 8, Renaud discloses a tubular liner according to claim 1 as set forth above and further discloses several embodiments of discrete fibrous layers (210 in paragraph [0060]; 210 in Figures 2A – 2H) with different embodiments of fibers (paragraph [0060], 212 in Figures 2A – 2H) and several example embodiments of combined fibrous layers liners (“combining the layers 210” in paragraph [0060]; Table 1; Figures 2I – 2R). Among the several disclosed combined fibrous layer embodiments, Renaud discloses liners with outermost fibrous layer (2C in Table 1, 2C in Figures 2I – 2N) being a transverse (arrow P in Figure 2J and 16 - 18) fibrous layer (2I - 2N in Table 1, Figure 2I – 2N).
Regarding claim 9, Renaud discloses a tubular liner according to claim 1 as set forth above and further discloses a resin system of the resin-impregnated liner is cured (“The fabric also includes a resinous material that is cured by the application of energy.” in paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 11, Renaud discloses a tubular liner according to claim 1 as set forth above and further discloses a method of using the tubular liner for the rehabilitation of the pipelines or canals (Abstract; “The invention is useful in the repair and rehabilitation of piping systems that are damaged and/or deteriorated.” In paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 12, Renaud discloses a tubular liner according to claim 1 as set forth above and further discloses a process for rehabilitating pipelines or canals, wherein the tubular liner is introduced into the pipeline or canal (“advance the liner 106 into the interior of the damaged pipe” in paragraph [0100]; Figure 1A) and the tubular liner is cured in the pipeline or canal (“The liner 106 is then cured or hardened by applying the appropriate type of energy to cure the energy setting resin.” In paragraph [0102]).
Regarding claim 13, Renaud discloses a cured tubular liner according to claim 9 as set forth above and further discloses a rehabilitated pipeline or rehabilitated canal, wherein the pipeline or canal comprises the cured liner (“The liner 106 is then cured or hardened by applying the appropriate type of energy to cure the energy setting resin.” In paragraph [0102]; Figures 1A and 1B).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaud.
Regarding claim 4, Renaud discloses a tubular liner according to claim 3 as set forth above. Renaud teaches cuts/ severings along the longitudinal direction of the liner (“Cutting line” between 122’s in Annotated figure 18) where in the cuts are grouped (several cuts on fiber 122 along the length of 122 in Figure 2 and 3). Renaud does not explicitly teach the positions of the group of cuts or the cutting lines in terms of 10 to 40 % of the circumference of the tubular liner. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to make the positions any necessary to ensure a durable and effective liner, as a matter of obvious design choice. Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaud.
Regarding claim 7, Renaud discloses a tubular liner according to claim 6 as set forth above. Renaud teaches cuts and spacing along the length of the liner (spaces between 122's in Figure 2 and 3).
Renaud does not explicitly teach the medians and relationships between lengths and spacing. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant invention to make the spacing any necessary to ensure a durable and effective liner, as a matter of obvious design choice. Furthermore, such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
PNG
media_image2.png
175
761
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 2
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaud as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US20040149095A1) hereinafter Takahashi and Akira et al. (WO9002647A1) hereinafter Akira.
Regarding claim 10, Renaud discloses a tubular liner according to claim 1 as set forth above and further discloses a process for manufacturing the tubular liner (Title, Abstract) wherein the process comprises:
providing at least one material sheet (“discrete or combined layers” in paragraph [0060], 210 in Figures 2A-2H) containing fibers (paragraph [0060], 212 in Figures 2A – 2H) for manufacturing a fibrous layer;
providing at least one additional material sheet (“discrete or combined layers” in paragraph [0060], 210 in Figures 2A-2H) for manufacturing a transverse fibrous layer which mainly comprises fibers (paragraph [0060], 212 in Figures 2A – 2H). Renaud also discloses embodiments combining layers containing fibers in different orientation (212 in Figures 2A – 2H), with one such combination where fiber directions are perpendicular to each other (fibers 212 and 212’ in sub-figure 2J, 2L and 2P of Annotated figure 2 above– the fibers are arranged at an angle of 90 degrees). Renaud keeps open the option for orienting the layer (210 of Figure 2A) with continuous fibers having the fiber length equal to the width of the layer 210 (length of fiber 212 is equal to the width of the fibrous layer 210in Figure 2A) either in longitudinal or in peripheral/transverse direction (“Furthermore, the orientation of the fibers 212 in FIGS. 2A-2R may be changed, for example the fibers 212 illustrated in the P direction in FIG. 2C may be oriented in the L direction, and likewise for the fibers for any of these examples.” in paragraph [0064]).
Renaud does not disclose the process of making longitudinal cuts in the additional material sheet. Takahashi teaches a device (Abstract, Figure 1) and process (Abstract, paragraphs [0030]-[0031]) of creating cuts/ slits (We in Figures 6 and 7) on fibrous layers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing date of the claimed invention to use the device taught by Takahashi to create a series of equally spaced cuts or slits (Figure 6 and 7- equally spaced series of cuts/slits We created on fibers Wb laid out on work piece Wa at one pass when Wa is fed through the device shown in Figure 1) at one pass on multiple fibers of the transverse fibrous layer 210 disclosed by Renaud in order to create expansion flexibility in the radial/peripheral direction (arrow P in Figures 16-18) of the liner.
Renaud discloses fibrous layers with cut or severed fibers to have length ranging between 2 to 12 inches (paragraph [0105]) and width of the material sheet (“width of fabric” in paragraph [0106], W in Figures 2 and 3) ranging between 4 to 100 inches (paragraph [0106]). Renaud also mentions that the stated range is an example (paragraph [0103]) and kept open the option to choose a different fiber length (paragraph [0111]). Calculating the example values provided in Renaud, gives overall length of cut fibers being in the range of around 2% to 50% of the width of the fabric. The median fiber length of the chopped fibers disclosed by Renaud are within 25% to 55% of the fabric width W.
Renaud discloses tubular liner with multiple material sheets / fibrous layers (“combining the layers 210” in paragraph [0060]; Table 1; Figures 2I – 2R). However, Renaud does not explicitly disclose connecting the longitudinal edges of at least one of the material sheets such that this material sheet becomes a tubular fibrous layer, wherein the additional material sheet becomes the transverse fibrous layer and the formed tubular fibrous layers are arranged in one another. Akira teaches connecting two opposing ends of a fiber layer by sewing joining the seams (“the seams are sewn by joining the seams” in page 5, paragraph starting with “(d)”; Figure 6e) or by sewing the overlapping ends (“by overlapping them” in page 5, paragraph starting with “(d)”; Figure 6f) to make a tube (14, Figures 6e and f). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing date of the claimed invention to join the opposing longitudinal edges of one or more fibrous layers of Renaud by sewing the seams on the edges or by overlapping the edges and sewing the edges together as taught by Akira to create a robust tubular liner that will hold under pressure created due to flow of material through the tube or canal.
impregnating the fibrous layers with a resin system (“impregnating the first and second layers with a resinous material.” In Claim 38).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-0113. The examiner can normally be reached Tue, Wed 9:00am-7:00pm and Thurs 8:30am-2:30pm 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 supervisors, Craig M Schneider can be reached at (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 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.
/FAISAL AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/DAVID R DEAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights