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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claims:
An embodiment wherein the first pipe is a pipe on a heat exchanger of a liquified hydrogen system and the second pipe is a pipe on a liquified hydrogen storage container of the liquefied hydrogen system (claims 8 & 15).
No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character not mentioned in the description:
“r” (fig. 5); The other curvature “R” is mentioned in para. 50 but the specification does not appear to reference “r”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification uses the abbreviation “Al” throughout. As best understood, Al was likely intended to mean aluminum, however, the term aluminum does not actually appear in full anywhere in the specification. For clarity, the application should be amended to recited the full term at least the first time “Al” appears.
The specification recites “PolyMide” in several instances (paras. 16, 25, 38). It is unclear if this was intended to read “polyamide” (e.g., nylon), “polyimide” (e.g., Kapton), or PolyMide™ (a CoPA Nylon 6 / Nylon 66 copolymer, marketed by Polymaker for 3D printing applications).
Para. 37 appears to recite that “a heat shrink tube 30”… “is inserted” into the first pipe 10. However, as best understood, the heat shrink tube 30 is installed over the first pipe, not inserted therein.
Para. 41, lines 1-3, appears to contain a similar error, confusingly stating that “the first pipe 10+heat shrink tube 30 is press-inserted into the first pipe 10…and the dissimilar material second pipe 20”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 5, 8, 11 & 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are made of dissimilar materials”, however, claim 1 is already directed to “a method of joining pipes made of dissimilar material”, which is potentially confusing. If claim 1 preamble is seen as limiting, claim 2 might be seen as failing to further limit the claimed subject matter.
Claim 5: “wherein, in the shrinking of the heat shrink tube, the heat treatment is performed in a temperature condition ranging from 100°C to 400°C” is potentially confusing as claim 1 recites a step of “performing heat treatment… to shrink the heat shrink tube”, rather than a step of “shrinking the heat shrink tube”. For clarity, consider “wherein the heat treatment is performed at a temperature ranging from…” or similar.
Claims 8 & 15 recite “wherein the first pipe is made of Al”. For clarity, “Al” should be spelled out as “aluminum”.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are made of dissimilar materials”, however, claim 9 is already directed to “a dissimilar material pipe”, which is potentially confusing. If claim 9 preamble is seen as limiting, claim 11 might be seen as failing to further limit the claimed subject matter.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-15 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “performing heat treatment on the first pipe joined to the heat shrink tube”. While claim 1 recites “inserting an end portion of a first pipe into a heat shrink tube”, it does not necessarily establish that the first pipe is “joined to the heat shrink tube”. Rather, the first pipe is “joined” to the heat shrink tube only after heat treatment shrinks the heat shrink tube.
Claim 1 further recites “plastic deforming and joining a plastic deformation portion where the first pipe, the second pipe, and the heat shrink tube overlap”, which is ambiguous or vague.
As best understood, the “plastic deformation portion” is a portion collectively defined by the overlapping portions of the first pipe, the second pipe, and the heat shrink tube, however, the claim as currently presented might be seen as requiring a separate “plastic deformation portion” (e.g., a separate sleeve / component) to be deformed and joined to the other pipes and heat shrink tube at the overlapping portion.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are not in direct contact with each other”. It is unclear at what stage of the joining method this is intended to apply. As best understood, this likely describes the configuration of the joined pipes, but this is not stated.
Claims 4 & 13 recite “PolyMide”. It is unclear if this was intended to read “polyamide” (e.g., nylon), “polyimide” (e.g., Kapton), or PolyMide™ (a CoPA Nylon 6 / Nylon 66 copolymer, marketed by Polymaker for 3D printing applications).
Claim 6 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the joining operation includes…”, however, claim 1 does not recite “a joining operation”. It is unclear if “the joining operation” is referring to the entire “method of joining pipes” of claim 1, or if this is referring specifically to the step of “plastic deforming and joining a plastic deformation portion…”.
Claim 7 refers to “the jig”, however, claim 6 recites “a plurality of jigs”. It is not clear if the claim 7 limitations apply to all of the jigs, or a particular one of the jigs.
Claim 7 further recites “a curvature of a bent portion…of the jig is 60 ϕ mm or less” is ambiguous or vague. As best understood, this was likely intended to mean that a “radius of curvature” (i.e., the radius of a circular arc which best approximates the curve) is 60 mm or less. It is unclear what the symbol ϕ was intended to mean. It is possible applicant intended to use Ø to indicate a diameter but, as above, curvature is conventionally indicated by radius, not diameter.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the first pipe is made of Al and is a pipe on a heat exchanger of a liquefied hydrogen system, and the second pipe is made of a steel and is a pipe on a liquefied hydrogen storage container of the liquefied hydrogen system” which raises several issues.
First, it is unclear if the limitations wherein the first pipe is “a pipe on a heat exchanger” and wherein the second pipe is “a pipe on a liquified hydrogen storage container” are merely indicating the intended uses of the pipes, or if the claim is actually requiring the first pipe to be on a heat exchanger and the second pipe to be on a hydrogen storage container while performing the claimed process of joining the pipes.
It is also unclear if the first pipe must be a part of the heat exchanger or merely “on” a heat exchanger, and/or whether the second pipe must be a part of the hydrogen storage container or merely “on” such a storage container.
Claim 9 recites “a second pipe into which the end portion of the first pipe coupled to the heat shrink tube is press-inserted”. While claim 9 previously recites that an end portion of the first pipe is inserted into a heat shrink tube, it does not necessarily establish that the first pipe is “coupled” to the heat shrink tube.
Claim 9 further recites “wherein a plastic deformation portion where the first pipe, the second pipe, and the heat shrink tube overlap is plastic-deformed and joined” which raises several issues.
First, as best understood, the “plastic deformation portion” is intended to be a portion collectively defined by the overlapping portions of the first pipe, the second pipe, and the heat shrink tube, however, the claim as currently presented might be seen as requiring a separate “plastic deformation portion” (e.g., a separate sleeve / component) to be deformed and joined to the other pipes and heat shrink tube at the overlapping portion.
Furthermore, it is not necessarily clear whether this limitation is merely a product-by-process limitation which defines the apparatus in terms of its method of production, or an actual process limitation, which would be improper in an apparatus claim. See MPEP 2173.05(p)(I).
Claim 15 recites “wherein the first pipe is made of Al and is a pipe on a heat exchanger of a liquefied hydrogen system, and the second pipe is made of a steel and is a pipe on a liquefied hydrogen storage container of the liquefied hydrogen system” which raises several issues.
First, it is unclear if the limitations wherein the first pipe is “a pipe on a heat exchanger” and wherein the second pipe is “a pipe on a liquified hydrogen storage container” are merely indicating the intended uses of the pipes, or if the claim is actually requiring the first pipe to be on a heat exchanger and the second pipe to be on a hydrogen storage container. In other words, it is unclear if the heat exchanger and hydrogen storage container are required elements of the claimed invention.
Similarly, it is unclear if the claim is still intended to be directed to a dissimilar material pipe, per se (as indicated by the preamble), or if the claim is instead intended to be directed to a liquified hydrogen system comprising a heat exchanger, a liquid hydrogen storage container, and the aforementioned dissimilar material pipe connecting the two components.
Claims recited in the section heading above but not specifically discussed are rejected due to dependency upon at least one rejected claim.
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.
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.
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 1-3, 6, 7, 9-12 & 14 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (NPL: “Tube/tube joining technology by using rotary swaging forming method”; see PTO-892 for complete citation; hereafter Zhang) in view of Sung et al. (KR-20210138417-A; hereafter Sung).
Note: references to the written description of Sung refer to the corresponding translation provide with this action.
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses a method of joining pipes (e.g., see figs. 1, 5, 6, etc.) made of dissimilar material (see introduction section; see also pg. 2087: “Compared with the welding procedure, the joining method by rotary swaging process is independent of the materials and the interface characteristics”), comprising:
press-inserting an end portion (having a length of a + b in figs. 5-6) of a first pipe (“inner tube”) into a second pipe (“outer tube”); and
plastic deforming and joining a plastic deformation portion where the first pipe and the second pipe overlap (see figs. 1, 9, etc.; last para. of introduction: “In this paper, joining by rotary swaging is utilized as a joining by plastic deformation method for connecting tube/tube parts”).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the method to further comprise: inserting an end portion of a first pipe into a heat shrink tube; and performing heat treatment on the first pipe joined to the heat shrink tube to shrink the heat shrink tube; wherein, in the step of press-inserting, the end portion of the first pipe inserted into the second pipe is the end portion to which the heat shrink tube is joined, and wherein, in the step of plastic deforming and joining, the plastic deformation portion is a portion where the first pipe, the second pipe and the heat shrink tube overlap.
Sung teaches (figs. 1-6) a method of joining pipes (1, 2) made of dissimilar material (pg. 3: “The outer pipe 1 may be made of any one of Fe material, Cu material, and Al material, for example, AL material”, “The inner pipe 2 may be made of any one of Fe material, Cu material, and Al material, for example, may be Cu material”, “The heat-shrinkable tube 3 can prevent potential difference corrosion between the outer pipe 1 and the inner pipe 2 made of different materials”), comprising:
inserting an end portion (21) of a first pipe (2) into a heat shrink tube (3)(see fig. 1; “positioning step S1” in fig. 5 [see pg. 4]);
performing heat treatment (via heating mechanism H) on the first pipe joined to the heat shrink tube to shrink the heat shrink tube (see fig. 1 vs fig. 2; “heating step S2” in fig. 5 [see pg. 4]; see also pg. 3: “The heat-shrinkable tube 3 is fixed in close contact with the outer periphery of the interpolation part 21 of the inner pipe 2, as shown in FIG. 2 by a heating process by a heating mechanism H, as shown in [FIG. 1]…and the heat-shrinkable tube 3 may have different inner diameters before and after the heating process”);
press-inserting the end portion (21) of the first pipe (2) to which the heat shrink tube (3) is joined into a second pipe (1)(see fig. 3; “insertion step S4” in fig. 5 [see pg. 4]); and
radially compressing (via a fitting 4) and joining a portion where the first pipe (2), the second pipe (1), and the heat shrink tube (3) overlap (see fig. 4; see also alt. embodiment in fig. 6 where both pipes and the heat shrink tube have a radial deformation at the joint).
Sung explains that the heat shrink tube serves to seal between the first and second pipes (see abstract) and can “prevent potential difference corrosion” (i.e. galvanic corrosion) between the first and second pipes when they are made of different materials (pg. 3).
Finally, Sung suggests that, while non-heat shrinkable tubes might also be used, the use of a heat-shrinkable tube reliably provides a close fit with the outside of the first tube, without requiring the tube to be precisely dimensioned in advance (pg. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhang to further comprise the steps of: inserting the end portion of the first pipe into a heat shrink tube and performing heat treatment on the first pipe joined to the heat shrink tube to shrink the heat shrink tube; whereby the end portion of the first pipe inserted into the second pipe is the end portion to which the heat shrink tube is joined, and whereby, in the step of plastic deforming and joining, the plastic deformation portion is a portion where the first pipe, the second pipe and the heat shrink tube overlap, in view of the teachings of Sung, to prevent galvanic corrosion which may otherwise occur between two dissimilar joined materials (as suggested by Sung), or otherwise obvious as the use of a known technique (i.e., providing a heat shrink tube between inner and outer pipes of a dissimilar material pipe joint by positioning and shrinking the tube around an end of the inner pipe prior to insertion into the outer pipe, as in Sung) to improve a similar method (i.e., the method of Zhang wherein an inner pipe is inserted into an outer pipe and secured therein, wherein the inner and outer pipe may also be dissimilar materials) in the same way (e.g., as above, preventing galvanic corrosion between the different materials; and/or providing for a metal-plastic-metal seal interface, rather than a direct metal-metal seal interface, which may be desirable in certain applications, etc.).
Regarding claim 2, the method of Zhang, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are made of dissimilar materials.
See Zhang, Introduction section (e.g., “traditional welding technology can no longer be used for certain joining situations such as the joining of aluminum with titanium alloy, copper with superalloy and metal with composite. Therefore, some researchers have carried out the study on material joining by utilizing plastic deformation method. It is a competitive joining technology in industries, including all processes where parts being joined or involved, due to its advantages such as well joinability of different materials and high strength of the joint”) and section 2.1 (“The principle of joining by rotary swaging”, e.g., on pg. 2087: “Compared with the welding procedure, the joining method by rotary swaging process is independent of the materials and the interface characteristics”).
Moreover, as described for claim 1, Sung also teaches that inner and outer pipes may be made of dissimilar materials (pg. 3: “The outer pipe 1 may be made of any one of Fe material, Cu material, and Al material, for example, Al material”, “The inner pipe 2 may be made of any one of Fe material, Cu material, and Al material, for example, may be Cu material”; “The heat-shrinkable tube 3 can prevent potential difference corrosion between the outer pipe 1 and the inner pipe 2 made of different materials”).
Regarding claim 3, the method of Zhang, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are not in direct contact with each other.
As shown in figs. 4 & 6 of Sung, the heat shrink tube (3) serves to prevent direct contact between the first pipe (2) and the second pipe (1) at the joint. As would have been understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art, the heat shrink tube of Sung would prevent galvanic corrosion between the first and second pipes by physically and electrically isolating them from one another. By contrast, if the first and second pipes were in direct contact with each other, despite the heat shrink tube, the heat shrink tube would not reasonably be expected to prevent galvanic corrosion as described.
Regarding claim 6, the method of Zhang, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the joining operation includes:
arranging an assembly of the first pipe, the second pipe, and the heat shrink tube (i.e., assembled but not yet radially compressed/joined; corresponding to figs. 5-6 of Zhang and, generally, to the arrangement in fig. 3 of Sung, prior to compression by fitting 4) between a plurality of jigs (“dies” in Zhang; e.g., four such dies shown in fig. 1) of a rotary swaging device (“swaging device” in fig. 2 of Zhang; see also figs. 1 & 5-7 of Zhang) (see section 2.1: “Rotary swaging… utilizes three, four or in special case up to eight dies”); and
operating the rotary swaging device and pressing, by the jigs, the assembly in a radial direction (see figs. 1 & 5; radially pressed from “initial position” to “forming position”, corresponding to a radial distance “h”, as shown in figs. 5 & 6).
Regarding claim 7, the method of Zhang reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein:
a side surface of a pressing portion of the jig (“die”) has a tapered shape (see figs. 1, 5 & 7); and
a curvature of a bent portion between a bottom surface and the side surface of the jig is 60 ϕ mm or less (see fig. 7: the die geometry schematic reasonably indicates a curvature of 10mm [“R10”] between a 2.69 mm [“2,69”] bottom surface and adjacent side surfaces).
Furthermore, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device [Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)].
See also MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent"); In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.")].
Finally, it is noted that the claims do not require any specific dimensions for the pipes and applicant’s specification does not appear to set forth any evidence of criticality of the claimed dimensional range, suggesting only that the curvature R is “preferably 60 ϕmm or less” (para. 50).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang discloses a dissimilar material pipe (e.g., see figs. 1, 5, 6, etc.; re: dissimilar materials, see introduction section & pg. 2087: “the joining method by rotary swaging process is independent of the materials and the interface characteristics”; see also related discussion for claim 2 above), comprising:
a first pipe (“inner tube”) having an end portion (i.e., having a length of a + b in figs. 5-6); and
a second pipe (“outer tube”) into which the end portion of the first pipe is press-inserted (i.e., as in figs. 5-6);
wherein a plastic deformation portion where the first pipe and the second pipe overlap is plastic-deformed and joined (see figs. 1, 9, etc.; last para. of introduction: “In this paper, joining by rotary swaging is utilized as a joining by plastic deformation method for connecting tube/tube parts”).
Zhang does not explicitly disclose the pipe to further comprise a heat shrink tube into which the end portion of the first pipe is inserted; wherein the plastic deformation portion is a portion where the first pipe, the second pipe, and the heat shrink tube overlap.
Sung teaches (figs. 1-6) a dissimilar material pipe (see below), comprising:
a first pipe (2);
a heat shrink tube (3; “heat-shrinkable tube 3”) into which an end portion (21) of the first pipe is inserted (see figs. 1 & 2; “positioning step S1” as described on pg. 4); and
a second pipe (1) into which the end portion (21) of the first pipe coupled to the heat shrink tube (3) is press-inserted (see fig. 3; “insertion step S4” as described on pg. 4);
wherein a deformation portion where the first pipe (2), the second pipe (1), and the heat shrink tube (3) overlap is deformed (via fitting 4) and joined (see fig. 4; see also alt. embodiment in fig. 6 where both pipes and the heat shrink tube have a radial deformation at the joint).
Regarding the limitation wherein the pipe is a “dissimilar material pipe”, Sung teaches that the first pipe and the second pipe can be made from dissimilar materials (pg. 3: “The outer pipe 1 may be made of any one of Fe material, Cu material, and Al material, for example, AL material”, “The inner pipe 2 may be made of any one of Fe material, Cu material, and Al material, for example, may be Cu material”, “The heat-shrinkable tube 3 can prevent potential difference corrosion between the outer pipe 1 and the inner pipe 2 made of different materials”).
Sung explains that the heat shrink tube serves to seal between the first and second pipes (see abstract) and can “prevent potential difference corrosion” (i.e. galvanic corrosion) between the first and second pipes when they are made of different materials (pg. 3).
Finally, Sung suggests that, while non-heat shrinkable tubes might also be used, the use of a heat-shrinkable tube reliably provides a close fit with the outside of the first tube, without requiring the tube to be precisely dimensioned in advance (pg. 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dissimilar material pipe of Zhang to further comprise a heat shrink tube into which the end portion of the first pipe is inserted (said end portion of the first pipe coupled to the heat shrink tube being the end portion which is press-inserted into the second pipe), whereby the plastic deformation portion which is plastic-deformed and joined is a portion where the first pipe, the second pipe, and the heat shrink tube overlap, in view of the teachings of Sung, to prevent galvanic corrosion which may otherwise occur between two pipes of dissimilar materials when joined (as suggested by Sung), or otherwise obvious as the use of a known technique (i.e., providing a heat shrink tube between inner and outer pipes of a dissimilar material pipe joint by positioning and shrinking the tube around an end of the inner pipe prior to insertion into the outer pipe, as in Sung) to improve a similar device (i.e., the pipe of Zhang wherein an inner pipe is inserted into an outer pipe and secured therein, wherein the inner and outer pipe may also be dissimilar materials) in the same way (e.g., as above, preventing galvanic corrosion between the different pipe materials; and/or providing for a metal-plastic-metal seal interface, rather than a direct metal-metal seal interface, which may be desirable in certain applications, etc.).
Regarding claim 10, the dissimilar material pipe of Zhang, as modified in view of Sung above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the heat shrink tube is shrunk by heat treatment and joined to the first pipe.
As previously explained for claim 1, Sung teaches that the heat shrink tube may be shrunk by heat treatment, via a heating mechanism H, to join the heat shrink tube to the first pipe (see figs. 1 & 2 of Sung; “heating step S2” as described in pg. 4).
Sung further explains that, while non-heat shrinkable tubes might also be used, the use of a heat-shrinkable tube reliably provides a close fit with the outside of the first tube, without requiring the tube to be precisely dimensioned in advance (pg. 4).
Regarding claim 11, the dissimilar material pipe of Zhang, as modified in view of Sung above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are made of dissimilar materials.
See Zhang, Introduction section (e.g., “traditional welding technology can no longer be used for certain joining situations such as the joining of aluminum with titanium alloy, copper with superalloy and metal with composite. Therefore, some researchers have carried out the study on material joining by utilizing plastic deformation method. It is a competitive joining technology in industries, including all processes where parts being joined or involved, due to its advantages such as well joinability of different materials and high strength of the joint”) and section 2.1 (“The principle of joining by rotary swaging”, e.g., on pg. 2087: “Compared with the welding procedure, the joining method by rotary swaging process is independent of the materials and the interface characteristics”).
Moreover, as described for claims 1 & 9 above, Sung also teaches that inner and outer pipes may be made of dissimilar materials (pg. 3: “The outer pipe 1 may be made of any one of Fe material, Cu material, and Al material, for example, Al material”, “The inner pipe 2 may be made of any one of Fe material, Cu material, and Al material, for example, may be Cu material”; “The heat-shrinkable tube 3 can prevent potential difference corrosion between the outer pipe 1 and the inner pipe 2 made of different materials”).
Regarding claim 12, the dissimilar material pipe of Zhang, as modified in view of Sung above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the first pipe and the second pipe are not in direct contact with each other.
As shown in figs. 4 & 6 of Sung, the heat shrink tube (3) serves to prevent direct contact between the first pipe (2) and the second pipe (1) at the joint. As would have been understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art, the heat shrink tube of Sung would prevent galvanic corrosion between the first and second pipes by physically and electrically isolating them from one another. By contrast, if the first and second pipes were in direct contact with each other, despite the heat shrink tube, the heat shrink tube would not reasonably be expected to prevent galvanic corrosion as described.
Regarding claim 14, the dissimilar material pipe of Zhang, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the plastic deformation portion is deformed by pressing in a radial direction (i.e., by the dies of the rotary swaging device moving radially from the initial position to the forming position by a distance “h”; see figs. 1 & 5 of Zhang; see undeformed assembly in figs. 5 & 6 vs the deformed arrangement in figs. 1 & 9).
Claims 4, 5 & 13 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Sung as applied to claims 1 & 9, respectively, above, and further in view of Trapp (US 2010/0193106 A1).
Regarding claims 4 & 13, Zhang and Sung do not explicitly disclose the additional limitation wherein the heat shrink tube is made of one of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE), ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMW PE), or PolyMide.
Trapp teaches that heat shrink tubes may be made from various polymers, including fluoropolymers such as polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)(paras. 21, 23, 24).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the dissimilar material pipe of Zhang (as modified above), and the associated method of joining pipes to make the same, such that the heat shrink tube is made of one of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE), ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMW PE), or PolyMide (e.g., PTFE), in view of the teachings of Trapp, especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that PCTFE and UHMWPE are also known to be usable for making heat shrink tubes; see, e.g., US 3,225,129 to Taylor et al. and US 2002/0098961 A1 to Chapman et al.
Regarding claim 5, with respect to the limitation wherein, in the shrinking of the heat shrink tube, the heat treatment is performed in a temperature condition ranging from 100°C to 400°C, Trapp further teaches that the shrink tube “will shrink when heated to an appropriate temperature” and lists an example temperature range for PTFE as “from about 325 to about 340°C” (para. 24).
If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the heat treatment for shrinking the heat shrink tube in a temperature condition ranging from 100°C to 400°C (e.g., between 325 and 340°C for a PTFE heat shrink tube), in view of the teachings of Trapp, especially since Trapp explicitly teaches the temperature range from about 325 to 340°C to be appropriate for shrinking PTFE heat shrink tubes.
Claims 8 & 15 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Sung as applied to claims 1 & 9, respectively, above, and further in view of Matsuda (JP 2021-021433 A), Kakimoto et al. (JP 3431358 B2; hereafter Kakimoto), and Nakayama et al. (JP 2007-009276 A; hereafter Nakayama).
Note: references to the written descriptions of Matsuda, Kakimoto, and Nakayama refer to the corresponding translations provide with this action.
Regarding claims 8 & 15, Zhang suggests that various industries (e.g., “automobile, aviation and aerospace industries”) face challenges with joining dissimilar materials by traditional welding techniques (“such as the joining of aluminum with titanium alloy, copper with superalloy and metal with composite”) and that plastic deformation methods, such as the rotary swaging method described, would be useful (“competitive”) in such applications due to the ability to join different materials with high strength (see “Introduction”).
As previously stated, Sung teaches that the first and second pipe may each be made of Fe material, Cu material, and Al material, wherein the first and second pipe may comprise different materials.
Applicant’s “Description of Related Art” section appears to suggest that it is known to join an aluminum pipe of a heat exchanger to a steel pipe of a hydrogen storage container in a liquified hydrogen storage system by rotational friction welding (RFW)(paras. 3-7).
Note: while the specification refers broadly to “the related art”, no specific references are cited, and applicant does not explicitly identify the above scenario as being solely related to the work of the same inventive entity as the instant application. As set forth in MPEP § 2129(I), in the absence of another credible explanation, examiners should treat such subject matter as the work of another.
To the extent that the “related art” in applicant’s specification is seen as an admission of prior art (e.g., as to methods of joining an aluminum pipe of a heat exchanger to a steel pipe of a hydrogen storage container in a liquified hydrogen storage system by rotational friction welding), it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the method of Zhang (as modified above) in such an application, wherein the first pipe is made of Al and is a pipe on a heat exchanger of a liquefied hydrogen system, and the second pipe is made of a steel and is a pipe on a liquefied hydrogen storage container of the liquefied hydrogen system, in order to provide a high-strength joint between the dissimilar material pipes, especially considering that Zhang suggests that plastic deformation joining techniques such as the rotary swaging joining method are usable to replace traditional welding or brazing joining methods, overcoming the challenges faced when forming joints between dissimilar materials by the previous methods.
However, to promote compact prosecution in the event that the relevant portions of applicant’s specification are not seen as an admission of prior art, the following alternative teachings are provided.
Matsuda teaches (fig. 1) a liquified hydrogen system comprising a liquified hydrogen storage container (12), a heat exchanger (18), and a supply pipe (22) connecting the storage container to the heat exchanger (i.e., to vaporize the liquid hydrogen for use downstream as hydrogen gas).
Kakimoto teaches (background section; pg. 1) that heat exchangers used in applications which require corrosion resistance or are used at low temperatures, such as liquid fuel vaporizers, are often formed from aluminum alloys, and that most ordinary pipes in such systems are stainless steel. As such, it is often necessary to form a dissimilar material joint between the aluminum alloy pipe from the heat exchanger and a stainless steel pipe (i.e., leading to / from some other component of the system).
Nakayama teaches (background art, pgs. 1-2) that stainless steels, such as SUS316 and SUS316L, are widely used for hydrogen storage and transportation applications (see also pg. 3: “SUS316L is excellent in intergranular corrosion resistance and is widely used for hydrogen storage tanks and hydrogen gas piping materials.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the liquified hydrogen system of Matsuda such that the heat exchanger, and a first pipe portion of the supply pipe extending therefrom, is made from aluminum (e.g., an aluminum alloy, as taught by Kakimoto), and such that the hydrogen supply container and a second pipe portion of the supply pipe extending therefrom is made from stainless steel (e.g., 316L, as taught by Nakayama), in view of the combined teachings of Kakimoto and Nakayama, as a combination of known prior art elements (i.e., a stainless steel hydrogen storage container and supply piping, as in Nakayama, with an aluminum heat exchanger and piping, as in Kakimoto) according to known methods (i.e., as in the system layout of Matsuda and/or as taught by Kakimoto that aluminum heat exchanger piping is often joined to stainless steel system piping, etc.) to obtain predictable results (e.g. the system of Matsuda, having a storage container and supply piping made from a stainless steel material known to be suitable for such applications, and a heat exchanger and associated piping made from aluminum alloy material also known to be suitable for such applications), especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
It would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the rotary swaging method of Zhang (as modified in view of Sung) to join the aluminum and steel pipes of the system above, in order to provide a strong mechanical joint between the dissimilar materials which may otherwise be challenging to weld (i.e., as suggested by Zhang) while also preventing galvanic corrosion therebetween (i.e., when using the heat shrink tube as taught by Sung).
The resulting method and corresponding dissimilar material pipe produced thereby would reasonably read on or otherwise render obvious the additional limitations wherein the first pipe is made of Al and is a pipe on a heat exchanger of a liquefied hydrogen system (i.e., an aluminum alloy heat exchanger pipe), and the second pipe is made of a steel and is a pipe on a liquefied hydrogen storage container of the liquefied hydrogen system (i.e., a 316L stainless steel supply pipe from a liquid hydrogen storage container).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights