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 .
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 8/19/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-17, 19 and 20 remain pending. Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 have been amended. The applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection below. This action is Final.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's amendment to recite an induction heating compatible material (IHCM) comprising a distinct layer has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground(s) of rejection is applied to the claims below. As such, applicant's arguments with respect to the 102 rejection over Dyksterhouse (US 2014/0238977) have not been found persuasive. Rocher et al. (US 2012/0048455) as stated below in the 102 rejection teaches each and every limitation including an induction heating compatible material (IHCM) comprising a distinct layer.
Applicant argues that the amendments to claim 10 overcome the current interpretation of Dyksterhouse because the presence of a conductive material in a thermoplastic pipe differs from “supplying the IHCM in at least one of a sufficient quantity or specified form such that the pipe is electrically conductive” as recited in claim 10. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Para. [0022] – [0023] discusses including additives such as carbon fiber or iron which are known to be electrically conductive. These “additives” would necessarily need to be supplied and are not naturally found in the IHCM. For at least this reason, the 102 rejection is maintained.
Applicant's amendments to the claims have necessitated further search and/or consideration and/or revision of the rejection, and accordingly, this action must be made Final.
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 6 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 6, the limitation of “further comprising an IHCM…” is indefinite. This claim is dependent on claim 1 which already introduces an IHCM. It is not clear if Applicant is intending to introduce a second IHCM or reference the same IHCM introduced in claim 1. Please amend the claim accordingly.
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 and 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rocher et al. (US 2012/0048455, hereafter “Rocher”).
Regarding claim 1, Rocher discloses a pipe (50) comprising: an inner thermoplastic pipe (21); an outer layer of thermoplastic material (40) wrapped around the inner thermoplastic pipe (Fig. 1), wherein the outer layer of thermoplastic material is fused with the inner thermoplastic pipe (as disclosed in para. [0050], the layers are fused together); and an induction heating compatible material (IHCM) (30; para. [0035] – [0042]) comprising a distinct layer (para. [0043] mentions a woven fabric can be a distinct layer) between of the inner thermoplastic pipe and the outer layer of thermoplastic material. (Fig. 2; para. [0035] – [0043])
Regarding claim 2, Rocher further discloses the pipe of claim 1, wherein the IHCM is configured to provide heat through induction heating for fusing the inner thermoplastic pipe and the outer layer of thermoplastic material. (Fig. 2; para. [0035] – [0043])
Regarding claim 3, Rocher further discloses the pipe of claim 1, wherein the outer layer of thermoplastic material includes at least one of a strand, tape, or sheet. (para. [0044] – [0048])
Regarding claim 5, Rocher further discloses the pipe of claim 1, wherein the IHCM is permeable to allow at least one of the inner thermoplastic pipe or the outer layer of thermoplastic material to seep through the IHCM and fuse with at least one of the inner thermoplastic pipe or the outer layer of thermoplastic material. (Fig. 2; para. [0035] – [0043])
Regarding claim 6, Rocher further discloses the pipe of claim 1, further comprising an IHCM within the outer layer of thermoplastic material. (Fig. 2; para. [0035] – [0043])
Regarding claim 7, Rocher further discloses the pipe of claim 1, wherein the IHCM includes carbon fiber. (Fig. 2; para. [0035] – [0043])
Regarding claim 8, Rocher further discloses the pipe of claim 1, wherein the pipe is electrically conductive. (iron and carbon fiber are conductive)
Regarding claim 9, Rocher further discloses the pipe of claim 1, wherein the pipe is reinforced with fiberglass. (Fig. 2; para. [0028] and [0035])
Claim(s) 10-17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dyksterhouse (US 2014/0238977).
Regarding claim 10, Dyksterhouse further discloses a method of manufacturing a pipe (250), the method comprising: wrapping an inner thermoplastic pipe (254) with an outer layer of thermoplastic material (202b-c), wherein at least one of the inner thermoplastic pipe, the outer layer of thermoplastic material, or a separate layer provides an induction heating compatible material (IHCM) (para. [0038] – [0039]), including supplying the IHCM in at least one of a sufficient quantity or specified form such that the pipe is electrically conductive (para. [0022] – [0023] discusses including additives such as carbon fiber or iron which are known to be electrically conductive); and using an induction heater, heating the IHCM to fuse the inner thermoplastic pipe with the outer layer of thermoplastic material (Figs. 5 and 6; para. [0035]).
Regarding claim 11, Dyksterhouse further discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising applying a material including an IHCM as a distinct layer (228a) between the inner thermoplastic pipe and an outer layer of thermoplastic material. (Figs. 4-6; para. [0035])
Regarding claim 12, Dyksterhouse further discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising applying the IHCM as at least one of a tape, strand, sheet, or distributed particle. (para. [0035])
Regarding claim 13, Dyksterhouse further discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the IHCM is permeable to allow at least one of the inner thermoplastic pipe or the outer layer of thermoplastic material to seep through the IHCM and fuse with at least one of the inner thermoplastic pipe or the outer layer of thermoplastic material. (para. [0033])
Regarding claim 14, Dyksterhouse further discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the IHCM is infused in the outer layer of thermoplastic material before the wrapping the inner thermoplastic pipe with the outer layer of thermoplastic material. (Figs. 4-6; para. [0035])
Regarding claim 15, Dyksterhouse further discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the outer layer of thermoplastic material is manufactured by impregnating an IHCM with a thermoplastic material. (Figs. 4-6; para. [0035])
Regarding claim 16, Dyksterhouse further discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising applying the IHCM to a face of the outer layer of thermoplastic material before the wrapping the inner thermoplastic pipe with the outer layer of thermoplastic material. (Figs. 4-6; para. [0035])
Regarding claim 17, Dyksterhouse further discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the wrapping the inner thermoplastic pipe with the outer layer of thermoplastic material includes wrapping the inner thermoplastic pipe with at least one of a strand, tape, or sheet. (Figs. 4-6; para. [0035])
Regarding claim 19, Dyksterhouse further discloses the method of claim 10, wherein the IHCM is located at or near a seam between the inner thermoplastic pipe and the outer layer of thermoplastic material. (Figs. 4-6; para. [0035])
Regarding claim 20, Dyksterhouse further discloses the method of claim 10, further comprising continuously moving the pipe through the induction heater longitudinally to create a continuous production process. (para. [0025] – [0027])
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights