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 .
Rejections under 35 USC 112
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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 2, 5, and 9 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the metal composite body is formed by an extrusion process at a suitable temperature and shear rate to form an extruded metal composite body having a required density and shrinkage characteristics. The required density and shrinkage characteristics are not defined by claim 2, as such the suitable temperature and shear rate necessary to produce them are likewise undefined. For purposes of examination, claim 2 will be merely be interpreted as required extrusion rather than injection molding.
Claim 5 recites greater than about 80% by weight of the particulate mix. The term about creates confusion as to the precise lower limit of the range and must be removed. This rejection also applies to claim 9.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quesada (US 20200292109 A1) in view of Mark (US 20190255612 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Quesada teaches a method for manufacturing a hardened gripping element for a sealing and restraint system used for forming a pipe joint in a fluid pipeline (ABS) having at least one gripping surface having a plurality of gripping teeth (P0063).
Quesada teaches that the gripping ring could be formed from a composite (P0063) but is not specific to providing a starting material comprised of a metal particulate and polymer composite material; forming a green metal composite article by either extruding the starting material or molding the starting material into a metal polymer composite article having at least one gripping surface having a plurality of gripping teeth; thermally or catalytically debinding and sintering the green metal composite article to produce a brown part; selectively hardening the brown part to a final Rockwell hardness in the range from about 34 HRC to 45 HRC to thereby produce a finished or near finished hardened gripping element.
Mark, in the same field of endeavor, polymer shaping, teaches providing a starting material comprised of a metal particulate and polymer composite material (P0063); forming a green metal composite (P0064) article by extruding the starting material (P0051) into a metal polymer composite article (P0051); thermally debinding and sintering the green metal composite article to produce a brown part (P0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the methods of Mark to make the gripping element of Quesada for the purpose of custom creating a composite while preventing deformation or sagging during the part creation as taught by Mark (P0050).
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Modified Quesada is not specific to selectively hardening the brown part to a final Rockwell hardness in the range from about 34 HRC to 45 HRC to thereby produce a finished or near finished hardened gripping element.
However, the materials and methods of Mark could be used to achieve the hardness range desired. It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Mark teaches the metal composite body is formed by an extrusion process (P0051).
Regarding claim 4, Mark teaches the metal particulate comprise particles of stainless steel (P0064) and the polymer is comprised of a polyolefin polymer (P0097).
Regarding claim 5, Mark teaches the metal particulate phase makes up greater than about 80% by weight of the particulate mix (P0172 where the binder is the polymer and the powder is the metal).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quesada (US 20200292109 A1) in view of Mark (US 20190255612 A1) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Pacheco (US 20220221090 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Modified Quesada is not specific to injection molding a gripping element.
Pacheco, in the same field of endeavor, polymer shaping, teaches a gripping element is formed by an injection molding process (P0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used injection molding to form an object as there are limited methods to use such as extrusion, compression molding or injection molding. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quesada (US 20200292109 A1) in view of Mark (US 20190255612 A1), Pacheco (US 20220221090 A1), and Sherman (US 20210187604 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Quesada teaches a method for manufacturing a hardened gripping element for a sealing and restraint system used for forming a pipe joint in a fluid pipeline (ABS), having at least one gripping surface having a plurality of gripping teeth (P0063).
Quesada teaches that the gripping ring could be formed from a composite (P0063) but is not specific to providing a starting material comprised of an interfacially modified particulate and polymer composite material, the starting material comprising a metal particulate phase and a polymer phase; creating a three dimensional printed metallic mold of the gripping element that is to be manufactured, or machining the mold from tool steel; forming a green metal composite article by injection molding the starting material mix in an injection molding machine into the three dimensional metallic mold to thereby form a metal polymer composite article; thermally or catalytically debinding and sintering the green metal composite article to produce a brown part; selectively hardening the brown part to a final Rockwell hardness in a preferred range from about 42 HRC to 45 HRC to thereby produce a finished or near finished hardened gripping element; and finish machining the hardened gripping element to form a finished hardened gripping element.
Mark, in the same field of endeavor, polymer shaping, teaches providing a starting material comprised of a metal particulate and polymer composite material (P0063); forming a green metal composite (P0064) article by extruding the starting material (P0051) into a metal polymer composite article (P0051); thermally debinding and sintering the green metal composite article to produce a brown part (P0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the methods of Mark to make the gripping element of Quesada for the purpose of custom creating a composite while preventing deformation or sagging during the part creation as taught by Mark (P0050).
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Modified Quesada is not specific to selectively hardening the brown part to a final Rockwell hardness in the range from about 34 HRC to 45 HRC to thereby produce a finished or near finished hardened gripping element.
However, the materials and methods of Mark could be used to achieve the hardness range desired. It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Modified Quesada is not specific to injection molding a gripping element.
Pacheco, in the same field of endeavor, polymer shaping, teaches a gripping element is formed by an injection molding process (P0060) and use of a mold (P0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used injection molding to form an object as there are limited methods to use such as extrusion, compression molding or injection molding. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Modified Quesada is not specific to creating a three dimensional printed metallic mold of the gripping element that is to be manufactured, or machining the mold from tool steel.
However, it would be obvious to form a mold from three dimensional printing or machining as there are limited methods for forming a mold. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Modified Quesada is not specific to finish machining the hardened gripping element to form a finished hardened gripping element.
Sherman, in the same field of endeavor, composite shaping, teaches a sealing element can be made by injection molding, compression molding, extrusion, press and sinter, additive manufacturing, casting, machining, or a combination of two or more of these techniques (P0156).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have machined an object after forming it for the purpose of ensuring the part meets the required specifications. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 7, Mark teaches the metal particulate phase is made up of stainless steel particles (P0064).
Regarding claim 8, Mark teaches the polymer phase is a polyolefin polymer, or other catalytically debindable polymer (P0097).
Regarding claim 9, Mark teaches the particulate phase makes up at least about 80% by weight of the metal polymer composite mix (P0172 where the binder is the polymer and the powder is the metal).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Quesada (US 20200292109 A1) in view of Mark (US 20190255612 A1), Sherman (US 20210187604 A1) and Pacheco (US 20220221090 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Quesada teaches a method forming a sealed and restrained pipe joint between two sections of plastic pipe in a fluid pipeline (ABS), having at least one gripping surface having a plurality of gripping teeth (P0063).
Quesada teaches that the gripping ring could be formed from a composite (P0063) but is not specific to the method comprising the steps of: providing a starting material comprised of a stainless steel particulate and polymer composite material;
creating a three dimensional printed metallic mold of the gripping element that is to be manufactured; forming a green metal composite article by injection molding the starting material mix in an injection molding machine into the three dimensional metallic mold to thereby form a metal polymer composite article;
thermally or catalytically debinding and sintering the green metal composite article to produce a brown part; selectively hardening the brown part to a final Rockwell hardness in a preferred range from about 42 HRC to 45 HRC to thereby produce a finished or near finished hardened gripping element; if necessary, finish machining the near finished gripping element to produce a finished element;
incorporating the finished metal composite article into a sealing and restraint system where the metal composite article is paired with a sealing gasket to thereby form a sealing and restraint system; installing the sealing and restraint system into a mouth region of a section of belled plastic pipe or fitting, ductile iron pipe or ductile iron fitting; installing a male pipe end into the mouth region of the section of belled plastic pipe or ductile iron pipe or fitting to thereby form a sealed and restrained pipe joint.
Mark, in the same field of endeavor, polymer shaping, teaches providing a starting material comprised of a metal particulate and polymer composite material (P0063); forming a green metal composite (P0064) article by extruding the starting material (P0051) into a metal polymer composite article (P0051); thermally debinding and sintering the green metal composite article to produce a brown part (P0009).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the methods of Mark to make the gripping element of Quesada for the purpose of custom creating a composite while preventing deformation or sagging during the part creation as taught by Mark (P0050).
"A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Modified Quesada is not specific to selectively hardening the brown part to a final Rockwell hardness in the range from about 34 HRC to 45 HRC to thereby produce a finished or near finished hardened gripping element.
However, the materials and methods of Mark could be used to achieve the hardness range desired. It is well settled that determination of optimum values of cause effective variables such as these process parameters is within the skill of one practicing in the art. In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Modified Quesada is not specific to injection molding a gripping element. Pacheco, in the same field of endeavor, polymer shaping, teaches a gripping element is formed by an injection molding process (P0060) and use of a mold (P0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used injection molding to form an object as there are limited methods to use such as extrusion, compression molding or injection molding. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Modified Quesada is not specific to creating a three dimensional printed metallic mold of the gripping element that is to be manufactured.
However, it would be obvious to form a mold from three dimensional printing as there are limited methods for forming a mold. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Modified Quesada is not specific to finish machining the hardened gripping element to form a finished hardened gripping element.
Sherman, in the same field of endeavor, composite shaping, teaches a sealing element can be made by injection molding, compression molding, extrusion, press and sinter, additive manufacturing, casting, machining, or a combination of two or more of these techniques (P0156).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have machined an object after forming it for the purpose of ensuring the part meets the required specifications. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Pacheco, in the same field of endeavor, polymer shaping, teaches incorporating the finished article into a sealing and restraint system where the metal composite article is paired with a sealing gasket to thereby form a sealing and restraint system; installing the sealing and restraint system into a mouth region of a section of belled plastic pipe or fitting, ductile iron pipe or ductile iron fitting; installing a male pipe end into the mouth region of the section of belled plastic pipe or ductile iron pipe or fitting to thereby form a sealed and restrained pipe joint (P0062, Claim 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have installed a sealing object as made by modified Quesada using the method of Pacheco for the purpose of keeping the gasket securely in place as taught by Pacheco (P0063).
Regarding claim 11, Mark teaches the particles are formed of stainless steel (P0064) and the polymer phase is comprised of a polyolefin polymer (P0097).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741