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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the communication filed on 01/22/2026. Currently claims 1-21 are pending in the application; with claims 13-20 withdrawn from consideration.
ELECTION / RESTRICTION
Applicant's election of Group I, claims 1-12, and 21, without traverse, drawn to a system, in the reply filed on 01/22/2026 is acknowledged.
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 4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 4, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
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 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. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Sjoberg et al. (WO 97/10936), hereafter, referred to as “Sjoberg”, in view of Caridis et al. (US Patent Number 3,947,241), hereafter, referred to as “Caridis”.
Regarding claim 1, Sjoberg teaches a system (Fig. 1) for preparing a cross-linked polyethylene a (PEX-a) pipe, the system comprising:
a heating device (Fig. 1, element 6) comprising a chamber having a central axis, an inlet, and an outlet;
a plurality of infrared (IR) lamps (Fig.1, elements 7, 8, 10, and 11), and oscillation is commonly known control process used to achieve precise, and uniform heating;
a controller comprising a program code for regulating oscillation of the IR lamp (implicit feature);
an extruder (Fig. 1, element 1) for conveying a cross-linkable feedstock (Fig. 1, polyethylene element 2 + peroxide element 3) into the chamber; and
a pipe head (Fig. 1, element 5) for forming the PEX-a pipe.
But Sjoberg fails to explicitly teach that the system comprises a water-cooling apparatus for cooling the temperature in the chamber. The objective technical problem to be solved may be regarded as to prevent overheating of the heating device. The use of water-cooling for numerous kinds of housings is well-known in the art and is merely a conventional choice the skilled person would make to solve the problem. Caridis teaches in Figs. 2-3, that the spaced double walls provide a passageway for circulation of a liquid coolant such as water so that the bottom portion inside wall 34 may be maintained at a relatively low temperature. Caridis also teaches in Fig. 5 that inside 35 and outside 40 end walls are arranged spaced apart to provide coolant circulation therebetween and a horizontal baffle 45 is interposed midway along the end walls so as to divide the end portions into upper and lower circulation compartments. Caridis further teaches that coolant is circulated through both the longitudinally extending belt supports 87 and through the tube supports 88 to maintain those members at a sufficiently low temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Caridis, and combine the feature of water-cooling apparatus for cooling the temperature in the chamber. Because that would ensure preventing overheating (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 2, Sjoberg teaches in Fig. 1, wherein the central axis is a vertical axis (element 6).
Regarding claim 3, Sjoberg teaches in Fig. 1, wherein the plurality of IR lamps are disposed at regular intervals around the chamber, optionally along the full length of the chamber (elements 7, 8, 10, 11).
Regarding claim 4, Sjoberg teaches in Fig. 1, a chamber (element 6). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the chamber length would be a matter of tool optimization performed during regular experimentation to provide desired sized products.
Regarding claims 5-6, Sjoberg teaches in Fig. 1, plurality of lamps. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the number of lamps would be a matter of tool optimization performed during regular experimentation to provide desired process temperature (as claimed between 200° C. and 250° C) as required by the process chemistry.
Regarding claim 7, Sjoberg teaches in Fig. 1, an extruder (element 1). It is essential and very common for extruders, particularly in plastic, rubber and food industries to have heating elements. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the extruder would comprise a heating module for melting the cross-linkable feedstock.
Regarding claim 8, Sjoberg teaches in Fig. 1, further comprising a caterpillar for controlling the speed of the PEX-a pipe through the chamber; optionally wherein the caterpillar is adjacent to the outlet (element 14).
Regarding claim 10, Sjoberg teaches in Fig. 1, further comprising a cooling bath for cooling the PEX-a pipe (element 13).
Regarding claim 11, Sjoberg teaches in claim 50, further comprising a co-extruder for applying one or more additional layers to the cross-linked polyethylene a (PEX) pipe; optionally wherein the co-extruder is disposed between the vacuum tank and the cooling bath.
Regarding claim 12, Sjoberg teaches in claims 8-9, wherein the cross-linkable feedstock comprises high-density polyethylene (HPDE) and an organic peroxide; and additional limitations are optional only.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Sjoberg et al. (WO 97/10936), in view of Caridis et al. (US Patent Number 3,947,241), in view of Gatto (US Patent Number 3,902,631), hereafter, referred to as “Gatto”.
Regarding claim 9, Sjoberg teaches a system (Fig. 1) for preparing a cross-linked polyethylene a (PEX-a) pipe. But Sjoberg fails to explicitly teach that the system further comprising a vacuum tank for setting the dimensions of the PEX-a pipe. However, Gatto teaches a plastic calibrating vacuum tank apparatus (title). Gatto teaches that it has been the practice to direct the extruded product into a calibrator tank where the article is properly sized and cooled. Such calibrator tanks are also known as vacuum tanks filled at least partially with a liquid and in which a vacuum is applied (column 1, lines 5-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Gatto, and use a vacuum tank for setting the dimensions of the PEX-a pies (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Sjoberg et al. (WO 97/10936), in view of Caridis et al. (US Patent Number 3,947,241), in view of Heino et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2013/0228955 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Heino”.
Regarding claim 21, Sjoberg teaches an assembly (Fig. 1) for forming piping, comprising: an infrared oven (Fig. 1, element 6) configured to provide 360-degree heating;
a driven master wheel (Fig. 1, element 9) positioned at a top side of the assembly directly adjacent to and outside of the infrared oven (Fig. 1, element 6);
a haul-off device (Fig. 1, element 14) downstream in close proximity to the driven master wheel, the haul-off device being positioned along a center point of the assembly to control stretching of the piping; and
a sensor to measure an outer diameter of the piping (typical quality control for pipe production lines, implicitly disclosed).
Sjoberg fails to explicitly teach that the system comprises a water-cooling apparatus for cooling the temperature in the chamber. The objective technical problem to be solved may be regarded as to prevent overheating of the heating device. The use of water-cooling for numerous kinds of housings is well-known in the art and is merely a conventional choice the skilled person would make to solve the problem. Caridis teaches in Figs. 2-3, that the spaced double walls provide a passageway for circulation of a liquid coolant such as water so that the bottom portion inside wall 34 may be maintained at a relatively low temperature. Caridis also teaches in Fig. 5 that inside 35 and outside 40 end walls are arranged spaced apart to provide coolant circulation therebetween and a horizontal baffle 45 is interposed midway along the end walls so as to divide the end portions into upper and lower circulation compartments. Caridis further teaches that coolant is circulated through both the longitudinally extending belt supports 87 and through the tube supports 88 to maintain those members at a sufficiently low temperature. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Caridis, and combine the feature of water-cooling apparatus for cooling the temperature in the chamber. Because that would ensure preventing overheating (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143).
But Sjoberg and Caridis fails to explicitly teach an assembly in that a plurality of infrared ovens is provided, each configured to provide 360-degree heating, However, Heino teaches in Fig. 1, an apparatus for performing an infrared treatment on a plastic or elastomeric product or material in separate zones (para. [0019-0021]); to improve the temperature control. This would motivate the skilled person to use separate heating zones with independent temperature control. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Heino and provide plurality of infrared ovens, each configured to provide 360-degree heating for improved temperature control. (KSR Rationale A, MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Eastern Time).
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742