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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/9/2024 is being considered.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (KR2018 0135355) in view of Andrisani (US 3,608,098).
Regarding claim 1, Ha discloses a pipe blockage handling device comprising:
a main body part (Item 20) in which high-pressure air capable of removing foreign substances that block a pipe is accumulated;
an air compressor (Item 23) connected to one side of the main body part, and configured to accumulate air inside the main body part so that an air pressure inside the main body part is increased to a preset upper limit pressure (Item 21);
a pipe insertion part (Item 41) connected to an end of the main body part to expand to a preset volume and a preset shape when injected with the air accumulated in the main body part, deformed to correspond to a shape of an outer wall, an inlet, or the like of a blocked pipe so as to seal an inside and an outside of the blocked pipe when pressed in close contact with the outer wall, the inlet, or the like of the blocked pipe, and configured to expand to correspond to a size and a shape of the inside of the pipe to make close contact with an inner circumferential surface of the pipe so as to seal the inside and the outside of the pipe when inserted into the inlet of the blocked pipe (Figure 5); and
an air pressure discharge part (Item 30) provided inside the pipe insertion part, configured to communicate with the main body part,
wherein the air pressure discharge part allows the high- pressure air accumulated inside the main body part to be discharged into the blocked pipe having the inlet that is sealed by the pipe insertion part, so that the foreign substances in the blocked pipe are effectively removed.
Ha fails to explicitly disclose wherein the air pressure discharge part is bendable.
Andrisani teaches a pipe blockage handling device wherein the air pressure discharge part is bendable (Figures 2 and 6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the discharge pipe to be bendable as taught by Andrisani. Such a modification would allow the blockage device to better conform its shape to adapt to different types of plumbing facilities (Andrisani Column 1 Lines 40-47)
Regarding claim 2, Ha in view of Andrisani disclose the pipe blockage handling device of claim 1, wherein the main body part includes: an injection part valve (Ha Item 27) configured to open and close a portion in which the pipe insertion part and the main body part are connected to each other; and a discharge part valve (Ha Items 31 and 45) configured to open and close a portion in which the air pressure discharge part and the main body part are connected to each other, and the injection part valve and the discharge part valve allow the air inside the main body part to selectively communicate with the pipe insertion part and the air pressure discharge part so that a flow of the air is controlled.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (KR2018 0135355) in view of Andrisani (US 3,608,098) in view of Kehoe (US 2018/0133763)
Regarding claim 3, Ha in view of Andrisani disclose the pipe blockage handling device of claim 1, wherein the main body part includes: an accumulator (Item 21) provided inside the main body part; a filling part provided to fill the accumulator with a fluid (connection means between the compressor and the accumulator; air is considered a fluid).
Ha fails to explicitly disclose a pressure gauge configured to indicate the pressure inside the main body part; and a handle provided on one side of the main body part.
Kehoe teaches a blockage device with a pressure gauge (Item 62) configured to indicate the pressure inside the main body part; and a handle (Item 54) provided on one side of the main body part. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ha to include a handle and the pressure gauge as taught by Kehoe. Such a modification would allow a user to be able to view the accumulated pressure (Paragraph 27) and give the user an ergonomic way to hold the device.
Regarding claim 4, Ha in view of Andrisani in view of Kehoe disclose the pipe blockage handling device of claim 3, wherein the accumulator maintains the air pressure inside the main body part at a high pressure and effectively discharges the air, so that the foreign substances in the blocked pipe are easily removed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (KR2018 0135355) in view of Andrisani (US 3,608,098) in view of Donohue (US 2015/0232317)
Regarding claim 5, Ha in view of Andrisani disclose the pipe blockage handling device of claim 1. Ha fails to explicitly disclose wherein the air compressor includes a pressure restriction switch configured to control an operation of the air compressor to stop when the pressure inside the main body part reaches the preset upper limit pressure
Donohue teaches a blockage device wherein the air compressor includes a pressure restriction switch configured to control an operation of the air compressor to stop when the pressure inside the main body part reaches the preset upper limit pressure (Item 906). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ha to include the pressure regulator as taught by Donohue. Pressure regulators are commonly used in the pneumatic arts. They regulate the pressure to ensure the system doesn’t become over pressurized, which can lead to catastrophic failure since air is compressible.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (KR2018 0135355) in view of Andrisani (US 3,608,098) in view of Nilsson (US 2022/0196198)
Regarding claim 6, Ha in view of Andrisani disclose the pipe blockage handling device of claim 1, wherein the pipe insertion part includes: an outer tube (Ha Item 41; Andrisani Item 38) formed of a flexible material having elasticity, and having a hollow shape; and an expansion limit pocket (space where the parts are expanded) accommodated between an outer circumferential surface and an inner circumferential surface of the outer tube, formed of a flexible non-elastic material, and configured to communicate with the main body part, and the air pressure discharge part includes a cover (Adrisani Item 42 and 46) provided on the inner circumferential surface of the expansion limit pocket, provided as a bendable hose having a bellows shape so as to be inserted even into a curved pipe integrally with the pipe insertion part, so that the air is discharged into various types of pipes or holes, and configured to prevent introduction of external foreign substances.
Ha fails to disclose the expansion limit pocket has its own structure as an inflatable bladder.
Nilsson teaches a plugging system wherein here are multiple layers to the liner and bladder (Items 10 and 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ha to include an inflatable bladder that handles the pressure and an outer skin to handle the forces contacted by the outer pipe as taught by Nilsson. Such a modification would ensure the surface wear wouldn’t develop a hole and make the tool not be able to hold pressure.
Regarding claim 7, Ha in view of Andrisani in view of Nilsson disclose the pipe blockage handling device of claim 6, wherein the expansion limit pocket is press-fitted into the outer tube in a form of a folded parachute having a plurality of creases, and expands to a preset volume and a preset shape when injected with the air inside the main body part, so that while the outer tube is prevented from expanding to a limit or more, the pipe insertion part makes close contact with the inlet of the blocked pipe, and the outer tube is prevented from being subjected to plastic deformation (Nilsson teaches an inflatable bladder that would form creases when decompressed similar to how a bike tire works).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha (KR2018 0135355) in view of Andrisani (US 3,608,098) in view of Guttentag (GB 1070560A)
Regarding claim 8, Ha in view of Andrisani disclose the pipe blockage handling device of claim 1, Ha fails to explicitly disclose wherein the air pressure discharge part has an end to which an air hose is connected so as to enable use and air charging of an air tool .
Guttentag teaches a blockage device wherein the air pressure discharge part has an end to which an air hose can be connected (Item 18 and 19) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ha to include the extra port on the discharge part as taught by Guttentag. Such a modification would allow a user to selectively pump air or water into or out of the system. This can be beneficial to help flow water to unclog stubborn leaks or to check to see if the system is free of leaks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOM R RODGERS whose telephone number is (313)446-4849. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8AM-5PM 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, David Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/TOM RODGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights