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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in paragraph [0004], the invention is disclosed by referring to claims 1 and 11. This is an improper way to disclose the invention since claim numbering and scope are subject to change throughout prosecution, and to that point, claims 1-14 have been canceled.
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.
Claim 27 is 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 27 recites the limitation "the other sections" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 15-17, 20, 23-25 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bennett (US Patent 4,439,954).
With regards to claim 15, Bennett discloses an outlet pipe comprising a discharge pipe 20 having an inlet end (end connected to connector 26 and conduit 102) for receiving fluid (air or any type of other fluid can be received in the inlet end) and an outlet end (end connected to nozzle 30) for passing fluid, a connector 26 attached to the discharge pipe to cover the inlet end (see the figure), the connector having an interface surface for attachment to an outlet face of a valve providing the fluid (connector is threadedly connected to conduit 102 that receives pressurized air, see column 4, lines 37-41. Such conduits are known to include a control valve), and a wear module 60 arranged in a cavity limited by the discharge pipe and the connector (column 3, lines 19-24 and the figure), the wear module having a conduit (opening through the wear module 60)t, wherein the discharge pipe and the conduit mutually define a flow channel passing fluid from the interface surface to the outlet end (see the figure).
Regarding claim 16, see the figure.
Regarding claim 17, see col. 3, lines 19-24 and the figure.
Regarding claim 20, see the figure.
Regarding claim 23, see the figure showing the cavity and the wear module being mutually shaped. The recitation “to allow the wear module to be arranged in the cavity only in a few predetermined angle orientations around the center axis of the flow channel” does not lend any patentable weight because it a direct result of having the wear module and the cavity being mutually shaped.
Regarding claim 24, Applicant should note that the claim is a product-by-process claim and as such has not been given any patentable weight because as it has been held, “[E}ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of the product is based on the product itself. The patentability of the product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior art product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 25, Bennett disclose a wear module 60 for an outlet pipe 20, wherein the wear module has a conduit (passage inside the wear module) and an outer shape that allows the wear module to be arranged to the outlet pipe only in one or more predetermined angle orientations since the wear module and the inner surface of the outlet pipe are complementarily shaped.
Regarding claim 28, because Bennett anticipates the outlet pipe, the recited method steps are inherent to assembling the outlet pipe.
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.
Claim(s) 18, 19, 21, 22 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett.
Regarding claim 18, Bennett discloses an outlet pipe as shown above. Although Bennett does not disclose the outlet pipe comprising the valve and an outlet face of the valve attaching to the interface surface of the connector to connect the vale as an integral part of the flow channel, however, it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to appropriately position a valve in a hydraulic or pneumatic assembly.
Regarding claim 19, Official Notice is taken in that pipes or valves with inner lining as claimed are old and well-known in the art.
Regarding claims 21 and 26, Official notice is taken in that it is old and well-known in the art to provide throttle passages in a conduit wherein the conduit has a minimum inner diameter at an intermediate location where the diameter is smaller than at an inlet and an outlet parts of the conduit in order to achieve a desired flow pattern through the conduit. Also, partial constriction of flows formed by discontinuing inner sections of conduits are also old and well-known in the art.
Regarding claim 22, Applicant should note that the shape of the inner surface of the pipe is an obvious matter of design choice that will depend on the intended use of the pipe and forming a step as claimed is also known as can be seen in the figure.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett in view of Jiang et al. CN2476666).
Bennett discloses a wear module as shown above. Although Bennett does not disclose the conduit comprising at least one section comprising a different material providing higher wear resistance properties to the conduit compared to other sections of the conduit, however, Jiang et al. teaches forming a wear module having sections made of different materials to provide higher wear resistance to some sections of the wear module as compared to other sections of the wear module, see paragraph 4 of the machine English translation. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have made the conduit of Bennett comprising at least one section comprising a different material providing higher wear resistance properties to the conduit compared to other sections of the conduit, in light of the teaching of Jiang et al., in order to provide higher wear resistance to some sections of the wear module as compared to other sections of the wear module.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record 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 ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (469)295-9278. The examiner can normally be Monday to Thursday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights