DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Currently claims 1-8 are pending for examination.
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 1-8 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the other direction” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claims 2-3, the phrase "nonwoven textiles (felt)" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase (i.e., “(felt)”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency from claim 1, rejected above.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaud (GB 2113608) in view of Ueda (US 2015/0328857).
With respect to claims 1-2, Renaud teaches flexible integral composite materials which can be used for making internal lining sheaths for conduits or ducts which have suffered damage (page 1, lines 7-11). The material 10 may comprise a plurality of assemblies of a layer of a nonwoven fabric – reinforcement layer (page 3, lines 41-49). The example shown in Figure 1 comprises two assemblies: layer 1 of a nonwoven fabric and layer 2 of a glass fiber cloth, mesh, or netting (secondary layer); and layers 3, 4 (primary layer), with a last layer 5 being a non-woven fabric fixedly connected to the lower part of the last layer which comprises at least one reinforcement (Fig. 1; page 3, lines 13-49).
Renaud is silent as to the composite lining sheath being seamless and jointless.
Ueda teaches a lining material for a conduit and a method for lining the conduit (paragraph [0001]). The lining material is arranged such that the tubular woven fabric has no seam in an axial direction (paragraph [0020]). Since the tubular member has no seam/joint in its axial direction, the elongation in the circumferential direction is uniform (paragraph [0021]). This facilitates smooth inside-out inversion of the lining material (paragraph [0021]).
Since both Renaud and Ueda teach linings for conduits comprising woven material, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the composite lining sheath of Renaud to be seamless and jointless in order to allow for uniform elongation in the circumferential direction, thus facilitating smooth inversion for the installation of the lining.
The recitation "for use in the trenchless repair of underground pipelines such as drinking water and wastewater pipelines" in claim 1 has not been given patentable weight because it is a recitation of intended use that occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02. In the instant case the body of the claim is able to stand alone and does not depend upon the preamble for completeness. Additionally, as described above, Renaud teaches a similar use of the liner for lining conduits or ducts that have suffered damage (page 1, lines 7-11).
The limitation “folded in the form of a pipe by an envelope folding technique”, “a primary glass fiber fabric layer, which is folded in a U-shape so that its two open ends meet in one direction”, and “a secondary glass fiber fabric layer folded in a U-shape on said primary glass fiber fabric so that the two open ends meet in the other direction” are method limitations and do not determine the patentability of the product, unless the method produces a structural feature of the product. The method of forming the product is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself, unless Applicant presents evidence from which the Examiner could reasonably conclude that the claimed product differs in kind from those of the prior art. See MPEP § 2113. Furthermore, there does not appear to be a difference between the prior art structure and the structure resulting from the claimed method because Renaud discloses a seamless composite liner comprising a nonwoven layer and two glass layers as described above.
With respect to claim 3, Renaud in view of Ueda teaches all the limitations of claim 2 above. Renaud further teaches the nonwoven is made of polyester fibers (page 3, lines 13-17).
With respect to claim 4, Renaud in view of Ueda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Renaud further teaches the reinforcements may be in the form of a woven fabric (page 1, lines 76-81).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renaud (GB 2113608) in view of Ueda (US 2015/0328857) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Duttenhofer (US 2018/0306372).
With respect to claims 5-6, Renaud in view of Ueda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Renaud in view of Ueda is silent as to the composite lining further comprising a UV-permeable inner film layer positioned within the primary glass fiber fabric layer and a UV curable resin being impregnated in the layers.
Duttenhofer teaches a liner tube for sewer rehabilitation (paragraph [0001]). The liner comprises nonwoven and glass fiber layers (paragraph [0014]). Duttenhofer further teaches the use of a reaction resin that can be cured with light, especially UV light (paragraph [0022]). This permits curing lining tubes in a significantly shorter time and with substantially lower expense (paragraph [0022]). The glass strips and the nonwoven fabric are impregnated with the reaction resin (paragraph [0019]). Since the resin is UV curable it is expected to be transparent to be UV-permeable.
Since both Renaud in view of Ueda and Duttenhofer teach fibrous linings for conduits, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lining of Renaud in view of Ueda to be impregnated with a UV-curable resin in order to lower cure time of the lining and reduce expense.
With respect to claims 7-8, Renaud in view of Ueda teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Renaud further teaches a first layer formed by a flexible sealing sheet having a substantially smooth external face (page 2, lines 50-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose the location of the sealing film, either the outer surface, the inner surface, or both, in order to determine which provides the desired level of sealing. See MPEP 2143.
Renaud in view of Ueda is silent as to the composite liner comprising UV outer protective film layer.
As discussed in the rejection of claims 5-6 above, it would be obvious based on the teachings of Duttenhofer for one of ordinary skill in the art to use UV-curable resin from the standpoint of lower cure time and reduced expense. Duttenhofer further teaches that to protect the liner tube against radiation of UV light and thereby prevent premature curing of the reaction resin, an outer film of stretchable material nontransparent to light is arranged around the second layer (paragraph [0026]).
It therefore would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an outer layer nontransparent to light on the liner in order to prevent premature curing of the UV resin.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights