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 § 102
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, 5-7, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PGPub 2020/0116291 (Mersmann).
In Re claim 1 Mersmann discloses a liner for lining pipes comprising an inner film (internal coating in Paragraph 18), an outer film (exterior layer in Paragraph 18) facing an inner wall of the pipe in the installed state, and at least one reinforcing layer (resin-impregnated fibrous layer in Paragraph 18) arranged between the inner film and the outer film and comprising a reinforcing material impregnated with a curable reaction material, wherein the reaction material contains a solid and a solvent mixture (described in Paragraph 32), and wherein the solid in the reaction material has a proportion of less than 65 percent by weight (solvent mixture is 40-50 percent indicating a solid portion of 50-60 percent in Paragraph 32), wherein the solvent mixture is a mixture of at least one of styrene (Paragraph 33) or vinyltoulene and at least one solvent which is not styrene or vinyltolulene (methacrylate in Paragraph 33), wherein at least one of the styrene or vinyltolulene in the solvent mixture has a proportion of between 5 and 80 percent by weight. (solvent mixture contains adulterants in the range of approximately 20 to 60 percent in Paragraphs 34-40, indicating a diluent percentage in the claimed range)
In Re claim 5 Mersmann discloses methacrylate (Paragraph 33).
In Re claim 6 Mersmann discloses unsaturated polyester resin (Paragraph 33).
In Re claim 7 Mersmann discloses a mixture of isophthalic acid and neopentyl glycol (Paragraph 52).
In Re claim 9 Mersmann discloses a method for manufacture of a liner hose comprising: feeding a tubular film (internal coating in Paragraph 18); feeding at least one reinforcing layer, which as a reinforcing material (resin-impregnated fibrous layer in Paragraph 18), enclosing the at least one reinforcing layer in an outer film (exterior layer in Paragraph 18); impregnating the at least one reinforcing layer with a curable reaction material, wherein the reaction material contains a solid and solvent mixture (described in Paragraph 32), and wherein the solid in the reaction material has a proportion which is less than 65 percent by weight (solvent mixture is 40-50 percent indicating a solid portion of 50-60 percent in Paragraph 32), wherein the solvent material is a mixture of at least one of styrene (Paragraph 33) or vinyltolulene and at least one solvent which is not styrene or vinyltolulene (methacrylate in Paragraph 33), wherein the at least one of styrene or vinyltolulene in the solvent mixture has a proportion of between 5 and 80 percent by weight (solvent mixture contains adulterants in the range of approximately 20 to 60 percent in Paragraphs 34-40, indicating a diluent percentage in the claimed range).
In Re claim 11 Mersmann discloses butanediol dimethacrylate (Paragraphs 58 and 63).
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) 2, 3, 4, 10, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mersmann.
In Re claim 2 Mersmann discloses many limitations, but doesn’t disclose the use of styrene in the solvent mixture in a range between 15 to 50 percent by weight. It would have been obvious to manufacture the solvent mixture with 15 to 50 percent by weight of styrene, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In Re claim 3 Mersmann discloses many limitations, but doesn’t disclose the reaction mixture comprising solid in a range of 52 to 58 percent. It would have been obvious to manufacture the reaction mixture to comprise 52 to 58 percent solid by weight, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In Re claim 4 Mersmann discloses many limitations, but doesn’t disclose the use of styrene in the reaction material in a range between 5 to 20 percent by weight. It would have been obvious to manufacture the reaction material with 5 to 20 percent by weight of styrene, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In Re claim 10 Mersmann discloses many limitations, but doesn’t disclose the reaction mixture comprising solid in a range above 45 percent by weight. It would have been obvious to manufacture the reaction mixture to comprise above 45 percent by weight, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
In Re claim 12 Mersmann discloses a liner hose comprising an inner film (interior layer in Paragraph 18), an outer film facing the interior wall of a pipe in an installed state (exterior layer in Paragraph 18), and at least one reinforcing layer arranged between the inner film and the outer film and comprising a reinforcing material impregnated with a curable reaction material, wherein the reaction material contains a solid and a solvent mixture (resin-impregnated fibrous layer in Paragraph 18), wherein the solvent mixture is a mixture of styrene and methacrylate (Paragraph 33)
Mersmann fails to disclose a proportion of styrene in the solvent mixture having a proportion between 15 and 50 percent by weight.
It would have been obvious to manufacture the solvent mixture with 15 to 50 percent by weight of styrene, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mersmann in view of US PGPub 2018/0142828 (Reichel).
In Re claims 8 and 13 Mersmann discloses many limitations, but fails to disclose a lining tube obtained by expanding an initially collapsed liner hose.
Reichel discloses a liner which is installed by expanding an initially collapsed hose (Paragraph 88).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Mersmann apparatus by providing an initially collapsed liner hose which could be expanded, in order to provide a user with a mechanism to install the liner in pipes with irregular inner surfaces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 5,794,662 discloses a pipe liner which is inserted into a pipe in a collapsed state and expanded.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON KAROL NIESZ whose telephone number is (571)270-3920. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 EST.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
/JASON K NIESZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights