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Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/10/26.
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) 1-4, 6 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dyksterhouse 2014/0238977.
In regard to claim 1, Dyksterhouse discloses a pipe comprising:
an inner thermoplastic pipe 254;
an outer layer of a fiber reinforced laminate (202b, portion 226b of 202b includes glass fiber); and
a bond material 228a, disposed between the inner thermoplastic pipe 254 and the outer layer 202b of fiber reinforced laminate, wherein the bond material 228a is partially embedded within the inner thermoplastic pipe 254 (see paragraph 35, where it states that 228a is fused to 254), wherein at least one of the inner thermoplastic pipe or the bond material include an induction heating compatible material (IHCM) (iron powder in 228a, see paragraph 33).
In regard to claim 2, wherein the IHCM is configured to provide heat through induction heating for partially embedding the bond material within the inner thermoplastic pipe (see paragraph 25, lines 1-5).
In regard to claim 3, wherein the bond material includes at least one of a strand,
tape, or sheet (202a is a tape that includes the bond material 228a, see paragraph 34).
In regard to claim 4, wherein the bond material is permeable to allow a portion of
the inner thermoplastic pipe to seep through a portion of the bond material (22a is a resin that is melted to allow it to fuse with the liner 254, see paragraph 35).
In regard to claim 6, wherein the inner thermoplastic pipe 122 includes an IHCM (iron powder in 228a, see paragraph 33).
In regard to claim 9, wherein the bond material 228a includes an IHCM (iron powder in 228a, see paragraph 33).
In regard to claim 10, wherein the IHCM includes carbon fiber (see paragraph 22, where it states that matrix can include glass or carbon fibers).
In regard to claim 11, wherein the pipe is electrically conductive (iron powder in 228a would make the pipe conductive).
In regard to claim 12, wherein the fiber reinforced laminate includes fiberglass (202b, portion 226b of 202b includes glass fiber).
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martino et al. 2009/0151805.
In regard to claim 1, Martino et al. discloses a pipe comprising:
an inner thermoplastic pipe (120, 122);
an outer layer 140 of a fiber reinforced laminate (see paragraph 40, where 140 can include a thermoplastic including fiber); and
a bond material (130 160), disposed between the inner thermoplastic pipe 120,122 and the outer layer 140 of fiber reinforced laminate, wherein the bond material 130, 160 is partially embedded within the inner thermoplastic pipe 122 (see paragraph 39, where it states that 130 is fused to surface 118 of core tube 114), wherein the bond material 160 include an induction heating compatible material (IHCM) (see paragraph 47).
In regard to claim 2, wherein the IHCM is configured to provide heat through induction heating for partially embedding the bond material within the inner thermoplastic pipe (the bond material includes IHCM and is therefore configured to provide heat through induction).
In regard to claim 3, wherein the bond material 160 includes at least one of a strand 130.
In regard to claim 4, wherein the bond material 160 is permeable to allow a portion of
the inner thermoplastic pipe 114 to seep through a portion of the bond material (160 is a resin that is melted to allow it to fuse with the liner 114, see paragraph 39).
In regard to claim 5, wherein a bond between an inner thermoplastic layer 114 and the
bond material 160 includes a mechanical bond (see paragraph 39 where the bond can be mechanical) and wherein a bond between the outer layer 140 of fiber reinforced laminate and the bond material 160 includes a chemical bond (see paragraph 41 where the bond between 130 and 140 can be chemical).
In regard to claim 6, wherein the inner thermoplastic pipe includes an IHCM (see paragraph 39, where it states that 160 is fused to 114 and 160 has IHCM, therefore the inner pipe would also have IHCM).
In regard to claim 7, wherein the inner thermoplastic pipe includes an IHCM that
is coextruded onto a surface of the inner thermoplastic pipe (layer 122 would include the IHCM as it is fused with 160 and 122 is co-extruded with layer 120 (see paragraph 34).
In regard to claim 8, wherein the IHCM is included as an additive in the inner thermoplastic pipe (see paragraph 47).
In regard to claim 9, wherein the bond material 160 includes an IHCM (see paragraph 47).
In regard to claim 11, wherein the pipe is electrically conductive (see paragraph 47).
In regard to claim 12, wherein the fiber reinforced laminate includes fiberglass (140 can included glass fiber, see paragraph 40).
In regard to claim 13, wherein the fiber reinforced laminate includes epoxy (see paragraph 49).
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martino et al. 2009/0151805 in view of Dyksterhouse 2014/0238977.
In regard to claim 10, Martino et al. discloses the use of glass fiber, but does not disclose
the use of carbon fiber. Dyksterhouse teaches that using either glass or carbon fiber in a similar type of hose is common and well known in the art (see paragraph 22, where it states that matrix can include glass or carbon fibers). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the material of Martino et al. to include carbon fiber because
inasmuch as the references disclose these elements as art recognized equivalents, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one for the other. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Heller, Park, Roberts-Moore, Park and Rocher disclose similar couplings that are common and well known in the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. BOCHNA whose telephone number is (571)272-7078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:30.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at (571) 270-3654. 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.
/DAVID BOCHNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights