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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the WO’0233298 shows a vent (5) for venting an annulus (4) between a host pipe (2) and a liner (3). However, the vent shown in JP'725 is for an automotive electric motor and is neither intended nor suitable for use in a pipeline liner. JP'725 is instead concerned with venting hot air in an environment of cooler air. It would not be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine WO'298 with JP'725, as these disclosures lie in entirely different technical fit.
Applicant further argues that WO'298 and JP'725 do not appear to support an assumption that a bond in the vent of JP'725 is stronger than a bond between the body and the check means in WO'298. Similarly, no reason is apparent to assume that a firmer bond is needed, or would be beneficial, in WO'298, such that a modification could be justified.
Examiner states that overmoulding combine materials like such as rigid substrates with soft materials —into a single component. Here, a porous element locks inside the plastic body of the passage of the liner in the vent.
The vent closure in JP’ is disclosing a porous sheet which is overmoulded on the vent-13 (Figures 5-6) . WO’298 discloses the porous element-5 extends across a through passage (page-3, line 12-16). WO’298 didn’t disclose the overmoulding of the porous element with the pipeline wall. JP’725 teaches a way that porous sheet-17 can be attach together with the molded material of the vent-13 which locks the porous part and the vemt-13 in place. Combining the references it would allow the additional layer of the porous material from JP’725 to be added to the existed molded part/vent-13 which provides strong adhesion and waterproofness of the vent
The Applicant appears to argue against the references individually. The references teach both discloses the porous element-5 extends across a through passage (page-3, line 12-16), and JP’725 discloses a porous element is attached to the vent of the molded material (Figures 5-6); therefore, the obviousness of combining these features is discussed in the rejections. It is well-settled that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As a result of this applicant’s arguments are considered to not add any persuasion .
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-11, 14-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’0233298, translation provided hereinafter, WO’298, listed in IDS 03/14/2024, in view of JP 2006315725 hereinafter JP’725, translation attached listed in IDS dated 03/14/2024.
Regarding Claim 1 WO’298, discloses method of manufacturing a vent for a pipeline liner (Figure 1, page-7 line 2-7), the method comprising … to form a vent in which the porous element extends across a through-passage formed in the body (Figure 1, page 3, line 2-6, page 7 , line 12-17). WO’298 fails to teach that manufacturing a vent for a pipeline liner, comprising overmoulding a porous element with a polymer body.
In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, JP’725 discloses overmoulding a porous element with a polymer body (Figure 3, [0028], [0039], [0044], porous element-17, polymer body-13 molded together to form the vent).
It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine WO’298 with the teaching of molding a polymer and the porous element together by JP’725 for the purpose of firm bonding of the two components to form the prefabricated vent assembly.
Regarding Claim 2, WO’ 298 forming at least one internal flange in the through-passage during overmoulding, the flange being positioned to restrain the porous element against movement along the through- passage (Figure 1, non return valve-7 form a flange, page -8 line 19-26) and having a central aperture that maintains fluid communication between the porous element and the through-passage (Figure 1).
3 Regarding claim 3 WO’298/JP’725 discloses that the method, comprising forming a pair of said internal flanges/projections in mutual opposition about the porous element (Figure 1, shows flange surface form by -7 have two mutual opposition surfaces about the vent assembly-5, JP’725 discloses that the vent assembly is formed by molding together a porous element and a polymer body as discussed in Claim 1).
4. Regarding claim 4 JP’725 discloses comprising engaging a polymer material of the body with a textured surface of the porous element, while the polymer material is in a flowable state during overmoulding ([0028]).
5. Regarding Claim 5 JP’725 discloses, comprising forming a molecular bond between the polymer body and the porous element ([0028]).
6. Regarding Claim 6 JP’725 discloses, comprising interposing a resilient insert between the porous element and the body during overmoulding ([0039], backing sheet/insert-21).
7. Regarding Claim 7 JP’725 discloses wherein the insert embraces an edge of the porous element and exposes a central region of the porous element (Figure 5-6, [0031], backing sheet/insert-21, voids-21a).
8. Regarding Claim 8 JP’725, comprising forming the insert around the porous element in a preliminary overmoulding step. ([0030], porous element-17 is configured by laminating with backing sheet/insert-21),
9. Regarding Claim 9 JP’725, comprising engaging a material of the insert, while in a flowable state during overmoulding, with a textured surface of the porous element ([0039]).
10. Regarding Claim 10 JP’725 discloses ,comprising forming a molecular bond between the insert and the polymer body ([0051], the sheet fixing portion of the vent-16 is heat sealed with the backing sheet insert/-21) and/or the porous element ([0039]).
11. Regarding Claim 11, JP’725 discloses wherein the polymer body is a thermoplastic and is overmoulded onto the porous element when the thermoplastic is molten ([0028], [0039]).
12. Regarding Claim 14, JP’725 discloses comprising supporting the porous element in a mould cavity clamped between opposed internal mould forrmations that define at least part of the through-passage (Figure 6, [0038], dies-23, porous element-17 is placed in the cavity which defines the thorugh hole-15).
15. Regarding Claim 15 WO’298 discloses method of manufacturing a pipeline liner, comprising inserting a vent manufactured by the method of 1 into a wall of the liner (page 7, line 1-7).
16. Regarding Claim 16 WO’298 discloses , comprising fusing the body of the vent with the wall of the line upon insertion of the vent into the wall of the liner (page 7 line 1-7).
17. Regarding claim 17 WO’298 discloses , comprising heating interface surface regions of the body and the wall of the liner to a softening or melting temperature before inserting the vent into the wall of the liner ([0028], [0051], JP ).
18. Regarding Claim 19 WO’298 discloses,comprising forming a molecular bond between the polymer body and the wall of the liner ([0010], [0013], venting means is a prefabricated unit-[0030]).
20. Regarding Claim 20 WO’298 discloses,further comprising inserting the liner in to a pipeline or a pipe joint after inserting the vent into the wall of the liner (page-7 line 1-3).
21. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’0233298, translation provided hereinafter, WO’298 in view of JP 2006315725 hereinafter JP’725, translation attached as applied in Claim 1 further in view of WO-0008368.translation provided listed in IDA .
22. Regarding Claim 12, WO’298, discloses method of manufacturing a vent for a pipeline liner (Figure 1, page-7 line 2-7), the method to form a vent in which the porous element extends across a through-passage formed in the body (Figure 1, page 3, line 2-6, page 7 , line 12-17) but WO’298 didn’t disclose that wherein the porous element is a frit or sinter. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, WO’368 discloses the porous element is a sinter (page 7, line 27-31).
23. It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine WO’298 teaching with that of WO’368 sinter porous element for the purpose of preventing any fluid leak.
24. Regarding Claim 13 WO’298/JP’725/WO’368 disclose , wherein the porous element is a sinter of a polymer (page 7 line 27-33, WO’368); JP’725 discloses a molecular bond between the polymer body and the porous element ([0028]) therefore the claim limitation is met.
25. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’0233298, translation provided hereinafter, WO’298, listed in IDS 03/14/2024, in view of JP 2006315725 hereinafter JP’725, translation attached listed in IDS dated 03/14/2024 as applied in Claim 17 further in view of Nyquist (US 20100043961).
26. Regarding claim 18 , WO’298 discloses welding the vent to the wall of the liner (page 7, line 1-7) but did not disclose socket fusion welding the vent to the wall of the liner. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, Nyquist discloses two parts of the pipe components are welded together with socket fusion ([0029]).
27. It would be obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to combine WO’298 teaching with that of Nyquist’s socket fusion for the purpose of strong bond formed between the liner and the vent.
28. Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO’0233298, translation provided hereinafter, WO’298, listed in IDS 03/14/2024, in view of JP 2006315725 hereinafter JP’725, translation attached listed in IDS dated 03/14/2024 as applied in Claim 1 further in view of Barnes (US 20220341515)
29. Regarding Claim 21 WO’298 discloses WO’298 discloses further comprising inserting the liner in to a pipeline or a pipe joint after inserting the vent into the wall of the liner (page-7 line 1-3) but didn’t disclose specifically die-drawing the liner after inserting the vent into the wall of the liner and before inserting the liner into the pipeline or pipe joint. In the related field of endeavor pertaining to the art, reducing the diameter of the liner comprises pulling the liner through a swaging die ([0023]).
30. It would have been obvious for one ordinary skilled in the art to modify WO’298 with the teaching of Barnes to pull aligner through a die to reduce the diameter of the liner before inserting into the pipe and provide a pulling force for the liner to be pulled through the pipe.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEBJANI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8019. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-5:30 pm.
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 at 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.
/DEBJANI ROY/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights