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 .
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, 11 and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grabau 2017/0326668.
In regard to claim 1, Grabau discloses a method for constructing a flange on a pipe, comprising:
using an additive manufacturing process to build a flange (16 and then 36) on an outer surface of a pipe 20 at a first end of the pipe.
In regard to claim 2, wherein the pipe retains mechanical properties compared to welding a flange onto the pipe (the pipe 20 maintains mechanical properties after the outer flange 36 is added and the structure of pipe 20 is unchanged when flange 36 is added by additive manufacturing).
In regard to claim 3, wherein the mechanical properties are selected from the group consisting of hardness, tensile strength, yield strength, fracture toughness, creep strength, fatigue, and combinations thereof.
In regard to claim 4, wherein the pipe retains its microstructure compared to welding a flange onto the pipe (pipe 20 is unchanged when flange 36 is added by additive manufacturing).
In regard to claim 11, Grabau discloses a pipe and flange, comprising:
a pipe 20 having a first end comprising an exposed cross-sectional surface and an outer cylindrical surface; and
a flange 16 and 36 attached to the pipe on the outer cylindrical surface at the first end such that the cross-sectional surface of the pipe is exposed;
wherein said flange comprises an additive manufactured flange.
In regard to claim 21, wherein said pipe comprises a hoop strength that is the same or lower than a hoop strength of a pipe having a flange manufactured by a method different from said additive manufactured flange.
In regard to claim 22, wherein the pipe retains mechanical properties compared to welding a flange onto the pipe (the pipe 20 maintains mechanical properties after the outer flange 36 is added).
In regard to claim 23, wherein the mechanical properties are selected from the group consisting of hardness, tensile strength, yield strength, fracture toughness, creep strength, fatigue, and combinations thereof.
In regard to claim 24, wherein the pipe retains its microstructure compared to welding a flange onto the pipe (pipe 20 is unchanged when flange 36 is added by additive manufacturing).
Claim(s) 1 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pfeffer et al. 2021/0299772.
In regard to claim 1, Pfeffer et al. discloses a method for constructing a flange 206 on a pipe, comprising:
using an additive manufacturing process to build a flange 206 on an outer surface of a pipe at a first end of the pipe.
In regard to claim 8, wherein the additive manufacturing process is selected from the group consisting of directed energy deposition (see claim 2).
Claim(s) 1, 6 and 11 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bruck 2017/0080526.
In regard to claim 1, Bruck discloses a method for constructing a flange 10 on a pipe, comprising:
using an additive manufacturing process (see paragraph 1) to build a flange 10 on an outer surface of a pipe 12 at a first end of the pipe (see fig. 3).
In regard to claims 6, wherein the pipe comprises a nickel-based alloy (see paragraph 39).
In regard to claim 11, Bruck discloses a pipe 12 and flange 10, comprising:
a pipe 10 having a first end comprising an exposed cross-sectional surface and an outer cylindrical surface; and
a flange 10 attached to the pipe on the outer cylindrical surface at the first end such that the cross-sectional surface of the pipe is exposed (see fig. 3);
wherein said flange comprises an additive manufactured flange (see paragraph 1).
In regard to claim 19, wherein said pipe comprises a nickel-based alloy (see paragraph 39).
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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grabau . 2017/0326668.
In regard to claims 9-10, Grabau discloses a method of adding a flange in two stages
(first flange 16 and then additional flange 36) using a first process of powder bed fusion or laser cladding (see paragraph 20) and then adding an additional flange material using a second process (see paragraph 20) of directed energy deposition, but does not disclose the exact thickness dimensions of the first portion and second portion of the flanges. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the first 5-10 mm of the flange from the first process and the remainder from the second process because a change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 5, 7, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruck 2017/0080526.
In regard to claims 5, 7, 18 and 20, Bruck discloses the use of a high strength nickel
alloy, but does not specifically disclose if the alloy contains an oxide dispersion alloy or precipitation strengthened alloy. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use these alloys because the selection of a known material based upon its suitability for the intended use is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/10/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Grabau does not disclose a flange attached to a pipe. The Examiner disagrees, as element 16 is a pipe extending away from the valve body 10. “Pipe” is defined as a tube of metal, plastic or other material used to convey a fluid substance. Grabau clearly discloses a tubular structure at 18 or 20, with a bore that is intended to convey fluid either to or from portion 12 to an adjoining pipe. Therefore the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues that Pfeffer et al. does not disclose the construction of a flange on a pipe using additive manufacturing. The Examiner disagrees, as 206 is added using additive manufacturing (see paragraph 22), the initial rejection incorrectly listed element 210 instead of element 206. A flange is defined as a projecting rib or collar on an pipe, which 210 is, as seen in fig. 2. Therefore the rejection has been maintained.
Applicant argues that Bruck fails to disclose a constructing a flange using additive manufacturing. The Examiner disagrees, as Bruck discloses building up a component by using additive manufacturing (see paragraph 1). Paragraph 16 discloses adding layer 10 (the flange) to 12 (the pipe) in an additive manufacturing process. Therefore the rejection has been maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claims 9 and 10, because the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1 in view of Grabau is proper for the reasons give above, the obviousness rejection of claims 9 and 10 are also maintained.
Regarding the rejection of claims 5, 7, 18 and 20, because the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 1 in view of Bruck is proper for the reasons give above, the obviousness rejection of claims 6,7,18 and 20 are also maintained.
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 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