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(b)
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 19 is 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 19, the claimed “the washing unit” lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be the cleaning unit.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“polishing unit” of claims 1 and 21 with means “to polish the inner surface of the pipe”. Applicant describes the “polishing unit” as “the polishing unit 100 may include a first support member 110 for supporting the pipe 10 to form a downward slope; a polishing member 120 for polishing the inner surface of the pipe 10; a polishing rod member 130 for supporting the polishing member 120 such that the polishing member 120 is inserted into the interior of the pipe 10; and a polishing drive member 140 for rotating the pipe 10 supported by the first support member 110.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0076]. Applicant shows the polishing unit 100 as numerals 110, 120, 130, 150 in Fig. 1. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider the polishing unit as described in the specification, as well as equivalents thereof, either separately or in combination.
“cleaning unit” of claims 1 and 21 with means “to clean the inner surface of the pipe whose inner surface has been polished by the cleaning unit”. Applicant describers the cleaning unit as “the cleaning unit 200 may include a second support member 210 for supporting the pipe 10 to form a downward slope; a spray member 220 for spraying a fluid to clean the inner surface of the pipe 10; and a cleaning rod member 230 for supporting the spray member 220 such that the spray member 220 is inserted into the interior of the pipe 10 and supplies a fluid into the interior of the spray member 220.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0112]. Applicant shows the cleaning/washing unit 200 as numerals 210, 220, and 230 in Fig. 1. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider the cleaning unit as described in the specification, as well as equivalents thereof, either separately or in combination.
“drying unit” of claims 1 and 21 with means “to dry the inner surface of the pipe whose inner surface has been cleaned by the cleaning unit”. Applicant describes the “drying unit” as “the drying unit 300 may include a third support member 310 for supporting the pipe 10 to form a downward slope; a drying member 320 for spraying high-temperature air to dry the inner surface of the pipe 10; and a drying rod member 330 for supporting the drying member 320 such that the drying member 320 is inserted into the pipe 10 and supplies high-temperature air into the interior of the drying member 320.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0120]. Applicant shows the drying unit 300 as numerals 310, 320, 330 in Fig. 1. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider the drying unit as described in the specification, as well as equivalents thereof, either separately or in combination.
“control unit” of claims 1 and 21 with means “to control the operation of each unit”. Application states “a control unit 400 for controlling the operation of each unit.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0133]. The examiner will consider this to be a controller, or equivalents thereof, configured for performing the claimed function.
“polishing member” of claim 2 with means “to polish the inner surface of the pipe”. Applicant describes this as “For the polishing member 120, a material which is capable of maximizing a grinding force in order to improve the polishing characteristics of the inner surface of the pipe 10 may be used.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0079]. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “a material which is capable of maximizing a grinding force in order to improve the polishing characteristics of the inner surface of the pipe 10” and equivalents thereof.
“spray member” of claim 13 with means “to spray a fluid to clean the inner surface of the pipe”. Applicant describes the spray member as “the spray member 220 may include a spray housing 221 which is provided with a third flow path 221a through which a fluid is supplied, and a third outlet 221b through which the fluid supplied through the third flow path 221a is sprayed to the outside.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0115]. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider the “spray member” to be a housing or nozzle with an outlet, or equivalents thereof.
“drying member” of claim 16 with means “to spray high-temperature air to dry the inner surface of the pipe”. Applicant describes the drying member as “the drying member 320 may include a drying housing 321 which is provided with a fourth flow path 321a through which high-temperature air is supplied, and a fourth outlet 321b through which the air supplied through the fourth flow path 321a is sprayed to the outside.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0123]. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider the “drying member” to be a housing or nozzle with an outlet, or equivalents thereof.
“transfer unit” of claim 19 with means “to move the pipe”. Applicant describes the transfer unit as “he transfer unit 500 may include not only a configuration that automatically moves the pipe 10 using the control unit 400, but also a configuration that allows the operator to manually move the pipe 10 using a separate tool.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0130] For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be any configuration that automatically moves the pipe in the way described by the claims.
“inspection unit” of claims 1 and 21 with means “to inspect a polished state of the pipe whose inner surface has been dried by the drying unit.” Applicant describes this as “the inspection unit 600 may include a fourth support member 610 for supporting the pipe 10; a photographing member 620 for photographing the inner surface of the pipe 10; an inspection rod member 630 for supporting the photographing member 620 such that the photographing member 620 is inserted into the interior of the pipe 10; and an inspection drive member 640 for rotating the pipe 10 supported by the fourth support member 610.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0136].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snow (US-2013/0220389) in view of Ferguson (US-2020/0333093) and Judge (US-5,529,529).
Regarding claim 1, Snow (US-2013/0220389) discloses a polishing device for an inner surface of a pipe, comprising:
a polishing unit (mill 134) configured to polish the inner surface of the pipe (“mill for removing the bulk of the scale found within a pipe”) [Snow; paragraph 0010];
a cleaning unit (jet nozzle 138) configured to clean the inner surface of the pipe whose inner surface has been polished by the polishing unit (134) (“the pump 132 is energized to deliver a stream of water to the mill 134 and the jet nozzle 138”) [Snow; paragraph 0058] (“the jet nozzle 138 blasts the interior of the first pipe 14 and flushes any scale residue into the drain pan 26”) [Snow; paragraph 0058];
Snow fails to disclose a drying unit configured to dry the inner surface of the pipe whose inner surface has been cleaned by the cleaning unit; and a control unit configured to control the operation of each unit. Snow also fails to disclose a baseplate wherein on the base plate, the polishing unit and the cleaning unit are disposed, the polishing unit and the drying unit are disposed, the cleaning unit and the drying unit are disposed, or the polishing unit, the cleaning unit and the drying unit are disposed.
As to the drying unit, Ferguson (US-2020/0333093) teaches a drying unit (drying lance 404) configured to dry the inner surface of the pipe whose inner surface has been cleaned by a cleaning unit (“the air-dry cleaning lance may be inserted into bores after the water jet cleaning lance to dry the bores before examination.”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0011]. Since Snow teaches using water jet cleaning (“the jet nozzle 138 blasts the interior of the first pipe 14 and flushes any scale residue into the drain pan 26”) [Snow; paragraph 0058], it therefore would’ve been obvious to modify the device of snow to include a drying unit as taught by Ferguson in order to dry the bores of the pipe after water cleaning (“the air-dry cleaning lance may be inserted into bores after the water jet cleaning lance to dry the bores before examination.”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0011].
As to the control unit, Ferguson (US-2020/0333093) teaches a control unit configured to control the operation of each unit of a pipe polishing device (“For example, each lance may be designed to perform a specific cleaning or examination function, water cutting, water polishing, air-drying, video inspection, and non-destructive testing.”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0049] (“A controller 206 may control the cleaning and examination lances 212, 214, the indexer 208, and one or more lance feeders 218.”) (“The controller 206 may also control the one or more lance feeders 218 to individually extend lances into and retract lances from the bores of the heat exchanger 210. The controller 206 may also control the cleaning lances to clean the bores and the examination lances to examine the bores. In some embodiments, the controller 206 may also control the safety valve 216 to enable or prevent flow of a fluid, such as water, from the pump 202 to a cleaning lance 212 and the pump 202 to begin or stop pumping water to the cleaning lance.”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0044]. Since automation is a known improvement, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Snow with a control unit as taught by Ferguson to automate the movement and use of the operation of each unit of the pipe device of Snow [Ferguson; paragraph 0044].
As to the base plate, Judge (US-5,529,529) teaches a base plate (frame 32) for disposing a pipe processing unit (tool 16) on. Since frames are known structures to support processing units such as those taught by Ferguson and Snow, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a base plate, as taught by Judge, to support the polishing unit, the cleaning unit, and the drying unit thereon.
Regarding claim 19, Snow, as modified by Ferguson, discloses the polishing device of claim 1, further comprising: a transfer unit (pipe conveyors 44) configured to move the pipe (“The assembly 28 also has a pair of pipe conveyors 44 for moving pipe 14 across the bridges 38-42. A respective one of the pipe conveyors 44 is positioned adjacent each of the outermost bridges 38 and 42.”) [Snow; paragraph 0026], wherein the control unit controls the transfer unit to sequentially move the pipe to the polishing unit, the washing unit, and the drying unit (Ferguson teaches “all aspects of the system” controlled by the controller) (“For example, the system 1000 may be operated in a full manual mode with an operator at a control panel of the controller 1046 manually controlling operation of all aspects of the system”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0062].
Regarding claim 20, Snow, as modified, discloses the polishing device of claim 1, but fails to disclose an inspection unit configured to inspect a polished state of the pipe whose inner surface has been dried by the drying unit.
However, Ferguson teaches an inspection unit (video borescope lance 406) configured to inspect a polished state of the pipe whose inner surface has been dried by the drying unit (“examination lance may, for example, include a video borescope for video analysis of the bores or a non-destructive testing probe”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0008] (“the air-dry cleaning lance may be inserted into bores after the water jet cleaning lance to dry the bores before examination.”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0011]. Since Ferguson is in the same field of endeavor as Snow, the interior processing of pipes, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Snow with an inspection unit as taught by Ferguson in order to inspect the bores after processing [Ferguson; paragraph 0008].
Regarding claim 21, Snow discloses a polishing device for an inner surface of a pipe, comprising:
a polishing unit (mill) (“mill for removing the bulk of the scale found within a pipe”) [Snow; paragraph 0010] that is configured to polish the inner surface of the pipe (“mill for removing the bulk of the scale found within a pipe”) [Snow; paragraph 0010];
a cleaning unit (water jet nozzle 138) that is configured to clean the inner surface of the pipe whose inner surface has been polished by the polishing unit (“a water jet nozzle 138 is affixed to the remaining lance 96. In use, water blasts through radial openings (not shown) in the nozzle 138 forming small bubbles that collapse on impact with the scale causing a forceful, erosive effect that is not damaging to pipe 14”) [Snow; paragraph 0037];
a drying unit that is configured to dry the inner surface of the pipe whose inner surface has been cleaned by the cleaning unit;
an inspection unit to inspect the polished state of the pipe whose inner surface has been dried by the drying unit; and
Snow fails to disclose a drying unit that is disposed on an other side of the center of the base plate in the width direction and configured to dry the inner surface of the pipe whose inner surface has been cleaned by the cleaning unit; an inspection unit that is disposed on the other side of the center of the base plate in the width direction to inspect the polished state of the pipe whose inner surface has been dried by the drying unit; and a control unit configured to control the operation of each unit. Snow also fails to disclose a base plate with the polishing unit, the cleaning unit, the drying unit, and the inspection unit disposed thereon.
As to the drying unit, Ferguson (US-2020/0333093) teaches a drying unit (drying lance 404) configured to dry the inner surface of the pipe whose inner surface has been cleaned by a cleaning unit (“the air-dry cleaning lance may be inserted into bores after the water jet cleaning lance to dry the bores before examination.”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0011]. Since Snow teaches using water jet cleaning (“the jet nozzle 138 blasts the interior of the first pipe 14 and flushes any scale residue into the drain pan 26”) [Snow; paragraph 0058], it therefore would’ve been obvious to modify the device of snow to include a drying unit as taught by Ferguson in order to dry the bores of the pipe after water cleaning (“the air-dry cleaning lance may be inserted into bores after the water jet cleaning lance to dry the bores before examination.”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0011].
As to the control unit, Ferguson (US-2020/0333093) teaches a control unit configured to control the operation of each unit of a pipe polishing device (“For example, each lance may be designed to perform a specific cleaning or examination function, water cutting, water polishing, air-drying, video inspection, and non-destructive testing.”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0049] (“A controller 206 may control the cleaning and examination lances 212, 214, the indexer 208, and one or more lance feeders 218.”) (“The controller 206 may also control the one or more lance feeders 218 to individually extend lances into and retract lances from the bores of the heat exchanger 210. The controller 206 may also control the cleaning lances to clean the bores and the examination lances to examine the bores. In some embodiments, the controller 206 may also control the safety valve 216 to enable or prevent flow of a fluid, such as water, from the pump 202 to a cleaning lance 212 and the pump 202 to begin or stop pumping water to the cleaning lance.”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0044]. Since automation is a known improvement, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Snow with a control unit as taught by Ferguson to automate the movement and use of the operation of each unit of the pipe device of Snow [Ferguson; paragraph 0044].
As to the inspection unit, Ferguson teaches an inspection unit (video borescope lance 406) configured to inspect a polished state of the pipe whose inner surface has been dried by the drying unit (“examination lance may, for example, include a video borescope for video analysis of the bores or a non-destructive testing probe”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0008] (“the air-dry cleaning lance may be inserted into bores after the water jet cleaning lance to dry the bores before examination.”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0011]. Since Ferguson is in the same field of endeavor as Snow, the interior processing of pipes, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Snow with an inspection unit as taught by Ferguson in order to inspect the bores after processing [Ferguson; paragraph 0008].
As to the base plate, Judge (US-5,529,529) teaches a base plate (frame 32) for disposing a pipe processing unit (tool 16) on. Since frames are known structures to support processing units such as those taught by Ferguson and Snow, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a base plate, as taught by Judge, to support the polishing unit, the cleaning unit, and the drying unit thereon.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snow (US-2013/0220389) in view of Ferguson (US-2020/0333093) and Judge (US-5,529,529), and further in view of Castille (US-6,158,074).
Regarding claim 22, Snow, as modified by Ferguson) discloses the polishing device of claim 21, wherein the inspection unit comprises:
a fourth support member (pipe support assembly 28 of Snow) configured to support the pipe (14 of Snow) (Figs. 3 and 4 of Snow);
a photographing member (“camera”) configured to photograph the inner surface of the pipe (“examination lance may, for example, include a video borescope for video analysis of the bores or a non-destructive testing probe”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0008]
an inspection rod member configured to support the photographing member (lance 406 of Ferguson) such that the photographing member (video borescope) is inserted into an interior of the pipe (“an examination lance for examining the plurality of bores”) [Ferguson; paragraph 0008], but fails to disclose an inspection drive member configured to rotate the pipe supported by the fourth support member.
However, Castille (US-6,158,074) teaches an inspection drive member (40) configured to rotate the pipe (“While pipe 42 is rotating, the exterior of pipe 42 is cleaned by a conventional rotating wire brush assembly generally indicated by the numeral 34 in FIGS. 1B, 2B, 10, 11, and 12”) [Castille; col. 3, lines 31-33]. Since Castille is in the same field of endeavor as Snow, it therefore would’ve been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide an inspection drive member as taught by Castille for the pipe supported by the fourth support member of Snow in order to increase relative rotation between the pipe and the processing units, thereby decreasing processing time by rotating both the processing device and the pipe (“While pipe 42 is rotating, the exterior of pipe 42 is cleaned by a conventional rotating wire brush assembly generally indicated by the numeral 34 in FIGS. 1B, 2B, 10, 11, and 12.”) [Castille; col. 3, lines 31-33].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 3-12, 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.
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “a first support member configured to support the pipe to form a downward slope.”
Claim 13, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 14-15, 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.
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “a second support member configured to support the pipe to form a downward slope.”
Claim 16, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 17-18, 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.
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “a third support member configured to support the pipe to form a downward slope.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-9597717 and US-5233791 are pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights