DETAILED ACTION
Claims filed on 3/8/2024 have been entered.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5 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 6-12 are allowed.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akahani (US 2022/0390181 A1), in view of Tiwari (US 11,002,497 B1), in view of Boyd (US 2016/0290741 A1), and in view of Kim (US 2020/0191489 A1).
Claim 1: Akahani discloses an anti-freezing pipe (anti freezing) having a built-in tube, the anti-freezing pipe (FIG.3) comprising:
a heat transfer pipe (70) configured to allow a fluid to move therethrough (intended use); and a hollow tube (12) located and supported in the heat transfer pipe (70), wherein the tube (12) has a sealed space (90) defined therein.
Akahani discloses the claimed limitations in claim 1, but fails to disclose sealants sprayed into both end portions thereof at high pressure and is provided on an outer diameter surface thereof with a wing formed in a spiral shape, wherein the heat transfer pipe is provided with a stopper to prevent escape of the tube therefrom.
However, Tiwari teaches sealants sprayed into both end portions thereof at high pressure and is provided on an outer diameter surface thereof (tube 12 filled with sealant 66) for the purpose of avoiding leakage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Akahani to include sealants sprayed into both end portions thereof at high pressure and is provided on an outer diameter surface thereof as taught by Tiwari in order to avoid leakage.
Further, Boyd teaches a wing (flaring 440 used as wing) formed in a spiral shape (sealant 470 adhesive between flaring 440 and pipe 420) for the purpose of providing protection from corrosion (paragraph [30]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Akahani to include a wing as taught by Boyd in order to protect from corrosion.
Further, concerning a spiral shape. The court held that the configuration of the claimed limitation was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that particular configuration of the claimed wing was significant in order to provide protection from corrosion - Change of Shape: MPEP 2144.04.
Further, Kim teaches the heat transfer pipe (101) is provided with a stopper (118) to prevent escape of the tube therefrom (paragraph [78]: stopper 118 to prevent tube 116 from escaping from cylinder 114) for the purpose of limiting movement of the tube preventing it from escaping from the cylinder (paragraph [78]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Akahani to include the heat transfer pipe is provided with a stopper to prevent escape of the tube therefrom as taught by Kim in order to limit movement of the tube preventing it from escaping from the cylinder.
Claims 2, 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akahani (US 2022/0390181 A1), in view of Tiwari (US 11,002,497 B1), in view of Boyd (US 2016/0290741 A1), in view of Kim (US 2020/0191489 A1), and in view of Cummins (US 2016/0238330 A1).
Claim 2: Akahani as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wing (Boyd 440) or the tube is provided with a coating layer (Boyd paragraph [27]: coating on pipes coating 112 on outer surface) integrally formed on an outer surface thereof so as to minimize friction (functional language),
Akahani discloses the claimed limitations in claim 2, but fails to disclose the coating layer is implemented as a Teflon coating layer or a chrome plating layer.
However, Cummins teaches the coating layer is implemented as a Teflon coating layer (paragraph [20]: spraying coating such as Teflon on tubes) or a chrome plating layer for the purpose of mitigating erosion and making tubes more resistance to corrosion and creating additional seal in tubes (paragraph [17]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the invention of Akahani to include the coating layer is implemented as a Teflon coating layer or a chrome plating layer as taught by Cummins in order to mitigating erosion and making tubes more resistance to corrosion and creating additional seal in tubes.
Claim 3: Akahani as modified discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the sealants (Tiwari tube filled with sealant 66) defining the sealed space (90) in the tube are made of the same material as the tube (12), wherein the tube (12) and the wing (Boyd 440) are made of different materials (Boyd paragraph [8]: tubes are aluminum or copper),
Akahani discloses the claimed limitations in claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the wing is made of metal or thermally conductive plastic and is mounted such that at least a portion thereof is in surface contact with an inner diameter surface of the heat transfer pipe.
However, Cummins teaches the wing is made of metal or thermally conductive plastic and is mounted such that at least a portion thereof is in surface contact with an inner diameter surface (inner diameter surface is inherent to the tube) of the heat transfer pipe (paragraph [5]: apply coating to graphite tube and baking the graphite tube to plasticize coating) for the purpose of mitigating erosion and making tubes more resistance to corrosion and creating additional seal in tubes (paragraph [17]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to further modify the invention of Akahani to include the wing is made of metal or thermally conductive plastic and is mounted such that at least a portion thereof is in surface contact with an inner diameter surface of the heat transfer pipe as taught by Cummins in order to mitigating erosion and making tubes more resistance to corrosion and creating additional seal in tubes.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure which is relevant to heat pipe:
Fujii (US 11,460,254 B2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI whose telephone number is (313)446-6612. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00 am to 5:00 pm 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, Len Tran can be reached on (571) 272-1184. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAMRAN TAVAKOLDAVANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/LEN TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763