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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “11” has been used to designate both first or “inner insulation foam layer” and second or “outer insulation foam layer.” Examiner suggests amending fig. 9 as shown in Applicant’s annotated fig. 9 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
392
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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. 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 title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The claims of the present invention appear to be directed to forming a channel in insulation on a pipe wherein the insulation is applied right before forming the channel as opposed to forming a channel in a pre-insulated pipe.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: • Para. 0035 of Applicant’s disclosure should be corrected as follows, “Figures 6 - 8 show the cutting device 7 in different views. The cutting device 7 is arranged on the ring gear 64 with a support 70. It also has one or two cutting wheels 65 that have several fins 71 with which the insulation layer [[11]] --11a-- is cut out. The cutting wheel 65 is driven by a drive unit 66, which preferably also has a gear unit 67. In order to adjust the pressure on the insulation foam [[11]] --11a--, the cutting device 7 also has a cylinder 68.” • Para. 0036 of Applicant’s disclosure should be corrected as follows, “Fig. 9 shows a cross-section of an insulated pipe 2 with [[a]] --an-- inserted channel 10. The medium pipe 4 as well as the two foam insulation layers [[11]] --11a, 11b-- and the layer of film 16 arranged in between are clearly visible. Under the layer of film 16 in the first insulation layer --11a--, the channel [[11]] --10-- runs parallel to the pipe axis. The outer layer 12 is formed by an extruded plastic layer.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 13 should be corrected as follows: A method of inserting a channel into an insulated pipe, comprising: [[Providing]] --providing-- a medium pipe on a transport line; [[Transporting]] --transporting-- the medium pipe on the transport line, whereby the medium pipe is transported in the longitudinal direction and simultaneously rotated around the longitudinal axis of the pipe; [[Applying]] --applying-- an insulating foam layer by spraying; and [[Inserting]] --inserting-- a slit-shaped longitudinal channel into the insulating foam layer, wherein the channel is inserted into the applied foamed insulating layer of the medium pipe by means of a cutting device rotating around the rotating pipe. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: In claim 17, lines 4-5, “a winding unit for wrapping the foam layer having a channel with a layer of film is arranged downstream of the cutting booth.” This limitation invokes 112(f) because: (A) the claim limitation uses a term (i.e., “unit”) used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function; (B) the generic placeholder is modified by functional language (i.e., “wrapping the foam layer having a channel with a layer of film”), typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for”; and (C) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function (i.e., “winding” does not provide sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function, and while the recitation of “is arranged downstream of the cutting booth” describes a location of “a winding unit,” the phrase does not provide sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 13-24 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 13, lines 3-5 recite, “[t]ransporting the medium pipe on the transport line, whereby the medium pipe is transported in the longitudinal direction and simultaneously rotated around the longitudinal axis of the pipe.” This limitation has the following issues: • There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation of “the longitudinal direction” in the claim. It is unclear what feature of the method claim defines “the longitudinal direction.” Does “in the longitudinal direction” correspond to a transporting direction on the transporting line, to a longitudinal axis of the medium pipe that extends along a length thereof, to some other feature of the system or apparatus used for performing the method of claim 13? It is unclear what defines “the longitudinal direction” with respect to the medium pipe. It is unclear what defines the scope of “the longitudinal axis” with respect to the claim. For purposes of examination, “the longitudinal direction” will be interpreted as corresponding to a longitudinal axis of the medium pipe which extends along a length thereof. • There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitations of “the longitudinal axis” in the claim. Likewise, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation of “the pipe” in the claim. It is unclear what defines “the longitudinal axis of the pipe.” It is unclear if “the pipe” is referring to the previous recitations of “a/the medium pipe,” to “an insulated pipe” (claim 13, line 1), or to another pipe feature. It is unclear if “the longitudinal axis of the pipe” is related in anyway to “the longitudinal direction” in which “the medium pipe is transported.” For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “… the medium pipe is simultaneously rotated around a longitudinal axis of the medium pipe.” Claim 13, lines 6-9 recite, “[a]pplying an insulating foam layer by spraying; and [i]nserting a slit-shaped longitudinal channel into the insulating foam layer, wherein the channel is inserted into the applied foamed insulating layer of the medium pipe by means of a cutting device rotating around the rotating pipe.” This limitation has the following issues: • There is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation of “the applied foamed insulating layer of the medium pipe” [emphasis added] because the pervious recitation of “[a]pplying an insulating foam layer by spraying” (claim 13, line 6) does not specifically designate the insulating foam layer is applied to the medium pipe. As such the recitation of “the applied foamed insulating layer of the medium pipe” refers to a feature which has not yet been introduced in the claim. • There is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the rotating pipe.” It is unclear if “the rotating pipe” is referring to “the medium pipe [being] transported in the longitudinal direction and simultaneously rotated around the longitudinal axis of the pipe” (claim 13, lines 3-5) or to another pipe. For purposes of examination, this limitation will be interpreted as “… the medium pipe is simultaneously rotated around a longitudinal axis of the medium pipe.” For purposes of examination, the following interpretation will be considered regarding claim 13, lines 6-9, “[a]pplying an insulating foam layer --to an exterior surface of the medium pipe-- by spraying; and [i]nserting a slit-shaped longitudinal channel into the insulating foam layer, wherein the channel is inserted into the applied foamed insulating layer of the medium pipe by means of a cutting device rotating around the rotating --medium-- pipe.”
Claim 17, lines 1-3 recite, “[a] system for inserting a channel into an insulated pipe, comprising a transport line for transporting the pipe through the system, at least one spray booth for applying the insulating foam layer…” This limitation has the following issues: • As currently written, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the pipe” in the claim. It is unclear if “the pipe” refers to the recitation of “an insulated pipe,” as set forth in the preamble or to an uninsulated pipe being transported into the system. For purposes of examination, “the pipe” will be interpreted as a portion of a pipe that has yet to be insulated within “at least one spray booth” (claim 17, lines 2-3). • As currently written, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for “the insulating foam layer” (line 3). It is unclear “the insulating foam layer” is referring to an insulating foam layer associated with the preamble recitation of “an insulated pipe” or to the application of another layer of insulating foam. The claim does not specifically state where the “at least one spray booth [is] applying the insulating foam layer.” As noted above with respect to the recitation of “the pipe,” there are no insulating foam layers on the pipe before reaching “at least one spray booth.” For purposes of examination, claim 17 will be interpreted as “at least one spray booth for applying [[the]] --an-- insulating foam layer --to the pipe--.” Claim 17, lines 3-5 recite, “… and a cutting booth with a cutting device, wherein a winding unit for wrapping the foam layer having a channel with a layer of film is arranged downstream of the cutting booth.” This limitation has the following issues: • As currently written, the claim does not specifically state the recitation of “a cutting booth with a cutting device” is associated with “a winding unit for wrapping the foam layer having a channel with a layer of film is arranged downstream of the cutting booth” [emphasis added]. Therefore, it appears as though there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claim for the recitation of “the foam layer having a channel.” Other than specifying the winding unit is positioned downstream of the cutting booth, the claim is silent with regards to “the foam layer having a channel,” i.e., whether the channel is formed by the cutting device in the cutting booth. It is unclear what function, if any, the cutting device is required to perform, according to the scope of claim 17. For the purposes of examination, claim 17 will be interpreted as “wherein a winding unit for wrapping the foam layer having a channel --inserted by the cutting device-- with a layer of film is arranged downstream of the cutting booth.” • In a similar manner to the previous recitation of “the insulating foam layer” (claim 17, line 3), the recitation of “the foam layer” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear if “the foam layer” is further defining “the insulating foam layer” (claim 17, line 3) and/or any insulation associated with “an insulated pipe” (preamble). • The recitation of “a channel” in the body of the claim introduces a new channel feature that appears to be separate and distinct from the recitation of “a channel” set forth in the preamble of the claim. It is unclear if the body of the claim is positively requiring “a channel,” and, if so, it is unclear if the channel is referring to the channel initially recited in the preamble of the claim or to a new, separate and distinct channel feature. Claim 18 recites, “wherein the cutting device is rotatable in the cutting booth about the foam-coated medium pipe.” As currently written, there is insufficient antecedent basis in the claims for “the foam-coated medium pipe.” Claim 20 recites, “A cutting booth in a system for inserting a channel into an insulated pipe preferably according to claim 17, comprising…” [emphasis added]. The recitation of “preferably according to claim 17” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the scope of claim 20 does or does not include the scope of claim 17. In other words, the word “preferably” suggests it is optional to include the features of the system set forth in claim 17 but might not be strictly necessary.
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.
As best understood, claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Keyes (US Patent 10,525,619). Regarding claim 17, Keyes discloses a system (e.g., figs. 7A, 7B) for inserting a channel (41) into an insulated pipe (fig. 3), comprising a transport line (e.g., 53) for transporting the pipe (51) through the system, at least one spray booth (55) for applying the insulating foam layer (as shown in fig. 2) and a cutting booth (65) with a cutting device (37, 39), wherein a winding unit (e.g., fig. 6 or application station 79, fig. 7B) for wrapping the foam layer (38) having a channel (41) with a layer of film (e.g., 45 polyolefin coating (HDPE), col. 7, lines 49-60 or vapor barrier wrapped with polyethylene outer jacket, col. 8, lines 37-40) is arranged downstream of the cutting booth (fig. 7B). Note: Winding unit (fig. 6) of Keyes applies layer of film (45) to outer surface of second foam layer (42) which was previously applied over first layer foam (38) which has channel (41) formed therein. Nevertheless, Examiner interprets the winding unit of Keyes as “wrapping the foam layer having a channel” because first layer foam (38) with channel (41) is present within and further confined by layer of film (45) as the winding unit wraps the insulated pipe (fig. 6).
As best understood, claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Imada (JP2008-233408). Regarding claim 20, Imada discloses a cutting booth (4) in a system (fig. 4) for inserting a channel (11c) into an insulated (11b) pipe (10), comprising a frame, a drive unit (54), a planetary gear (51), wherein the drive unit (54) driving the planetary gear and a cutting device (52, 53), wherein the cutting device (52, 53) is attached to the planetary gear (51) and rotates around the insulated pipe (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 21, Imada discloses the cutting device (52, 53) is attached to a ring gear (51) of the planetary gear (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 22, Imada discloses the cutting device comprises at least one rotating cutting wheel (53).
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.
As best understood, claims 13-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyes (US Patent 10,525,619) in view of Imada (JP2008-233408).
Regarding claim 13, Keyes discloses a method of inserting a channel into an insulated pipe, comprising: providing a medium pipe (25) on a transport line (31); transporting the medium pipe on the transport line, whereby the medium pipe is transported in the longitudinal direction and simultaneously rotated around the longitudinal axis of the pipe (col. 7, line 65 - col. 8 , line 2); applying an insulating foam layer by spraying (fig. 2; col. 8, lines 2-7); and inserting a slit-shaped longitudinal channel (41) into the insulating foam layer, wherein the channel is inserted (i.e., cut or otherwise formed) into the applied foamed insulating layer (38) of the medium pipe (fig. 3) by means of a cutting device (37, 39). Keyes fails to disclose the channel is inserted by means of a cutting device rotating around the rotating pipe. However, Imada teaches it is known in the art of forming grooves in elongated cylindrical workpieces to insert a channel (10c) by means of a cutting device (figs. 6 and7) rotating (indicated by clockwise pointing arrow on rotating frame 51; fig. 6) around the elongated cylindrical workpiece (10) during cutting (fig. 7), thereby forming an elongated product (11) with an inserted channel (10c). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the method of Keyes with the teaching of Imada such that the channel is inserted by means of a cutting device rotating around the rotating pipe because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results, e.g., allows for the possibility of uninterrupted pipe rotation as the channel can be inserted (i.e. cut) as the insulated pipe is rotating. At the very least, it would have been obvious to try incorporating a cutting device that rotates around the rotating insulated pipe that is transported on a helical conveyor, wherein such a modification would yield the additional benefit of shortening the overall length of the production line, potentially resulting in a configuration that requires less overall space to operate.
Regarding claim 14, the modified method of Keyes substantially disclosed above includes wherein after the inserted channel (Keyes, 31), a layer of film (Keyes, 45) is wrapped around the foamed layer (Keyes, 38) with the inserted channel (Keyes, figs. 4-6). Regarding claim 15, the modified method of Keyes substantially disclosed above includes wherein a further foam layer (Keyes, 42) is applied (Keyes, fig. 5).
Regarding claim 16, the modified method of Keyes substantially disclosed above includes wherein a moisture-sealing plastic outer layer (Keyes, col. 7, lines 49-54; col. 8, lines 37-41) is extruded (Keyes; via extruder head 47) over the foam layer as the outermost layer (Keyes, fig. 6). Regarding claim 18, Keyes fails to disclose wherein the cutting device is rotatable in the cutting booth about the foam-coated medium pipe.
Imada teaches it is known in the art of forming grooves in elongated cylindrical workpieces to provide a cutting device (figs. 6 and 7) that is rotatable (indicated by clockwise pointing arrow on rotating frame 51; fig. 6) in a cutting booth (fig. 4; housing 4) about an elongated workpiece (10) during cutting (fig. 7), thereby forming an elongated product (11) with an inserted channel (10c).
It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Keyes substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Imada such that the cutting device is rotatable in the cutting booth about the foam-coated medium pipe in order to allows for the possibility of uninterrupted pipe rotation as the channel can be inserted (i.e. cut) as the insulated pipe is rotating. At the very least, it would have been obvious to try incorporating a cutting device that rotates around the rotating insulated pipe that is transported on a helical conveyor, wherein such a modification would yield the additional benefit of shortening the overall length of the production line, potentially resulting in a configuration that requires less overall space to operate.
As best understood, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keyes (US Patent 10,525,619) and Imada (JP2008-233408) in view of Chakkalakal (US Publication 2013/0248013). Regarding claim 19, Keyes discloses wherein a further spray booth for applying a further foam layer is arranged downstream of the winding unit. Chakkalakal teaches it is known in the art of insulating pipes (102) with at least one encasement tube (112) adjacent to an outer surface (104) of the pipe (102) to be covered by a first layer of insulation (118, 120). The first layer of insulation (118, 120) is surrounded by an intermediate wrap (122) covering or encasing first insulation (118, 120). Chakkalakal teaches an additional, outer insulation layer (126) applied to an exterior of intermediate wrap (figs. 1 and 2; para. 0023). Finally, Chakkalakal teaches “[a] high-density polyethylene (HDPE) vapor barrier 128 may be wrapped or otherwise disposed around outer layer 126 of pipeline 102” (para. 0023, lines 12-14). The teaching of Chakkalakal suggests it is known in the art of insulating pipes to provided two distinct foam insulating layers to a medium pipe which are separated by an intermediate layer and covered by a HDPE layer. It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the system of Keyes substantially disclosed above with the teaching of Chakkalakal such that wherein a further spray booth for applying a further foam layer is arranged downstream of the winding unit in order to provide the necessary layers to develop the composite structure along the continuous processing system disclosed by Keyes. In other words, the teaching of Chakkalakal establishes other known variations in the layered structure of insulated pipes, which would necessitate additional spray booths along the processing line in which the desired foam layers could be applied.
As best understood, claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imada (JP2008-233408) in view of Schwandt (US Patent 2,546,277).
Regarding claim 23, Imada discloses the cutting device comprises a drive unit (52) driving the cutting wheel (53). Imada fails to specifically disclose the cutting unit also includes a gear unit for driving the cutting wheel (53) in conjunction with drive unit (52). However, Schwandt teaches it is known in the art of pipe cutting units to provide a gear unit (worm drive 43) connected to a drive unit (motor 37) for driving a cutting wheel (36) on spindle (44). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the cutting device of Imada with the teaching of Schwandt such that the cutting device comprises a drive unit and a gear unit for driving the cutting wheel [emphasis added] in order to vary the output rotational speed of the cutting wheel depending on an optimal rotational speed of the drive unit and also to optimize the orientation of the drive unit with respect to the overall rotating mass of the rotating cutting device.
As best understood, claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Imada (JP2008-233408) in view of Van Clief (US Patent 2,737,703). Regarding claim 24, Imada discloses wherein the cutting device comprises a cylinder for pressure adjustment. However, Van Clief teaches it is known in the art of actuating cutting devices to provide a cylinder (80) which includes a piston head (86) and piston rod (87) driven by air under compression (col. 4, lines 4-13) for bringing a saw blade (75) into working contact with a workpiece (thereby adjusting, i.e., increasing, the pressure of the saw blade on the workpiece). It would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify the cutting device of Imada with the teaching of Van Clief such that the cutting device comprises a cylinder for pressure adjustment in order to provide an actuating force to the bring the cutting device into contact with the pipe at an appropriate pressure sufficient for inserting a channel into the insulated pipe during operation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL ALLEN DAVIES whose telephone number is (571)270-1511. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9am-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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571)272-4502. 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.
/SAMUEL A DAVIES/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724 September 30, 2026
/BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights