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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/15/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I in the reply filed on 12/15/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that only conclusory statements are provided. This is not found persuasive because the apparatus can clearly be used in a multitude of other methods, such as varying the temperature of the third medium to be in between the first and second medium in a different mode or lower than both in a shut down operation. Other temperature differences and variations would also be possible for different modes of operation, turn on and shut down operations.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
(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) 1-7, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ENOMURA US 2023/0022084 Al.
Re claim 1, ENOMURA teach an apparatus for heating process media in a fiber molding process, having a double pipe assembly made of an at least sectionally heat-conducting material, wherein at least a heat-conducting section of the double pipe assembly is accommodated in a container (62) that is filled with a first process medium, wherein the double pipe assembly has at least a first pipe assembly (51) and at least a second pipe assembly (41), wherein the first pipe assembly has a diameter larger than a diameter of the second pipe assembly (figs), and the second pipe assembly is accommodated at least sectionally within the first pipe assembly, further having connections (13, 32) for connecting the double pipe assembly to units (13, 32 flanges fig 1) for providing process media, wherein the second pipe assembly is configured to guide a second process medium within the second pipe assembly, and the first pipe assembly is configured to guide a third process medium within the first pipe assembly (noting pipes are naturally configured to carry any amount of process media).
Re claim 2, ENOMURA teach wherein at least a third pipe assembly (61) is arranged at least sectionally within the first pipe assembly and/or within the second pipe assembly.
Re claim 3, ENOMURA teach wherein the second pipe assembly within the container opens into the first pipe assembly in a receiving space for the first process medium and/or is led out of the first pipe assembly (figs).
Re claim 4, ENOMURA teach wherein the diameter of the first pipe assembly and/or the second pipe assembly vary within the container (figs).
Re claim 5, ENOMURA teach wherein the first pipe assembly and the second pipe assembly have separately controllable connections for introducing and discharging process media (figs).
Re claim 6, ENOMURA teach wherein a quantity and speed of the process media introduced into the double pipe assembly is controlled separately.
For clarity, the recitation “…a quantity and speed of the process media introduced into the double pipe assembly is controlled separately …” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above.
Re claim 7, ENOMURA teach wherein the first pipe assembly and/or the second pipe assembly are designed as a corrugated pipe at least in a region of the container in a receiving space for the first process medium (figs).
Re claim 12, ENOMURA teach the third process medium guided in the first pipe assembly is configured to be at a higher temperature than a temperature of the first process medium and a temperature of the third process medium.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the third process medium guided in the first pipe assembly is configured to be at a higher temperature than a temperature of the first process medium and a temperature of the third process medium” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Re claim 13, ENOMURA teach wherein the first pipe assembly and the second pipe assembly are configured to guide the second process medium and the third process medium in countercurrent flow (figs).
Re claim 14, ENOMURA teach wherein the first pipe assembly and the second pipe assembly are configured to guide the second process medium and the third process medium in cocurrent flow (figs).
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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ENOMURA in view of US 20160003550 A1.
Re claim 15, ENOMURA fail to explicitly teach control details.
TOKUDA teach wherein a quantity and/or speed of the second process medium and/or the third process medium are configured to be controlled according to temperatures of the first process medium, the second process medium, and the third process medium (para 58) to vary fluid flow with a central control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to include control details as taught by TOKUDA in the ENOMURA invention in order to advantageously allow for temperature adjustments during different operating conditions.
Additionally noting that for clarity, the recitation “the third process medium guided in the first pipe assembly is configured to be at a higher temperature than a temperature of the first process medium and a temperature of the third process medium” has been considered a recitation of intended use. It has been held that the recitation with respect to the matter in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. See MPEP 2114. In the instant case, the prior art meets all of the structural limitations, and is therefore capable of performing the claimed recitations set forth above. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115. Finally, the intended fluid used in the apparatus to perform the intended function does not affect the patentability of the apparatus, since the apparatus is capable of using said intended fluid. See MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GORDON A JONES whose telephone number is (571)270-1218. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5 M-F PST.
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 at 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 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.
/GORDON A JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 3763