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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 05/04/2026.
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, 6-8 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102009017571 A (Christoph Heimerdinger) (hereinafter Christoph) further in view of EP 0 422 281 A1 (Enno Muller) (hereinafter Muller).
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 102009017571 A (Christoph Heimerdinger) (hereinafter Christoph).
Regarding claim 1, Christoph discloses a method of manufacturing a pipe, comprising the following steps:
inserting at least one sheet (1) inside a shaping mould (2 and 3)) provided with lips that are configured to engage with one another, the shaping mould being preinstalled in or on a tool that is capable of closing and opening said lips (¶0036), said at least one sheet having two side edges that connect a first end edge to a second end edge (1, 1a, 1b; Fig. 3a-3f);
closing the lips of the shaping mould by means of the tool, so as to preform said at least one sheet into the shape of a pipe in which the side edges thereof are joined together (Fig. 3a-3f; ¶0034-¶0036);
Christoph further discloses the pipe section is then conventionally welded at the seam between the end area 1a, 1b of the flat material 1 after forming, so that it is closed over its entire circumference (¶0037). Thus, Christoph naturally discloses heating the sheet with its shaping mould to a temperature suitable for welding the side edge. Christoph alludes to sheet comprised of plastic (¶0044). However, Christoph is silent about sheet being comprised of thermoformable foam material.
Muller also discloses a method for manufacturing a pipe made of polyimide foam (corresponding to thermoformable foam) the method comprising placing the sheet within mold (84 and 86) and subjecting the mold to heat via oven to cure/bond (Fig. 4; Col 9, Ln 14-30). Muller further discloses the sheet can be metal or polymide foam (Col 6, Ln 34-51).
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize heating oven as taught by Muller within the method of manufacturing a pipe as taught by Christoph. The benefit of doing so would have been to weld the seams to obtain a cylindrical pipe.
Regarding claim 2 and 18, Christoph discloses the shaping mould is removable (Fig. 3a-f). Notice the mould (3 and 2) are naturally removed from the final product 1.
Regarding claim 3, Muller discloses the use of oven (Col 9, Ln 14-30).
Regarding claim 4, 19 and 20, Muller discloses a tape, clamps or adhesive have be used to hold the split half as they are placed around a pipe (Col 3, Ln 30-40). Thus, Muller discloses tape can be used to as hold of reinforcing means to hold the product together. A person of ordinary skill can readily apply additional tape as need on at least one external weld line formed by welding the side edges and at a level of the end edges so as to reinforce the pipe.
Regarding claim 6 and 7, Christoph discloses the press tool (8) applies pressing force on mold parts (2 and 3). The press tool (8) naturally closes the lips of mold parts (2 and 3) in fastening means to assure the mold parts do not open during forming process. Upon completion of the forming process one of ordinary skill in the art can release the pressing force to dismantle the mold parts. (Fig. 3 and 5; ¶0042-¶0043).
Regarding claim 8, Muller discloses the shaping mould is made of metal (68) (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christoph and Muller as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Zerafati (US Pub. No.: 2013/0108816 A1) (hereinafter Zerafati).
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by the combined teaching of Christoph and Muller. They are both silent about limitations of claim 5.
Zerafati also discloses a method for manufacturing a pipe from thermoformable foam. Zerafati discloses polyvinylidene fluoride can be use to make a pipe (Abstract). The PVDF has unique properties such as excellent weathering, chemical resistance, permeation resistance and flammability, which make them an excellent choice for many applications (¶003).
Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art can readily utilize PVDF as taught by Zerafati within the process of manufacturing a pipe as taught by the combined teaching of Christoph and Muller. The benefit of doing so would have been to utilize material with excellent weathering, chemical resistance, permeation resistance and flammability.
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Christoph and Muller as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8 and 18-20 above, and further in view of Wert Nikola (DE 102019005742 A1) (hereinafter Nikola).
Regatding claims 9 and 10, the limitations of claim 1 are taught by the combined teaching of Christoph and Muller as cited above. They are both silent about limitations of claim 9 and 10.
Nikola also discloses a metho of manufacturing a pipe. The method discloses the use of wedge (12) placed near the ends of the pipe of the preformed pipe, the wedge having a section of predefined shape, so that the pipe adopts to section of the predefined shape of said wedge (Abstract; Fig. 1-3). Nikola further discloses the cross-section of the wedge is oblong or ellipsoidal shape (Fig. 1 -notice the parts of wedge 12 corresponds to periphery of oblong or ellipsoidal). The benefit of doing so would have been to shape the pipe in oblong or ellipsoidal shape.
Given the wealth of knowledge, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize wedge as taught by Nikola within the method of manufacturing a pipe as taught by the combined teaching of Christoph and Muller. The benefit of doing so would have been to shape the pipe in oblong or ellipsoidal shape.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VISHAL I PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-7660. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-5038. 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.
/VISHAL I PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights