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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, comprising claims 1-11, in the reply filed on 7/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 2, line 5 delete “surface;” and insert therein - - surface. - - for form. 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 1-11 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 the limitation “the piping” in lines 3 and 5. Similarly, claims 3-5 recite the limitation “the piping” in lines 5, 2, and 2 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is suggested to delete “the piping” and insert therein - - the piping assembly - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the selected surfaces” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the selected surfaces” and insert therein - - the selected surface - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the inflatable bladder” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the inflatable bladder” and insert therein - - an inflatable bladder - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “closing supply valves of the piping” in line 2, and claim 9 similarly recites the limitation “closing supply valves of the piping” in line 16. The limitations are unclear and confusing in view of the instant specification wherein supply valves (111) of the inflatable bladder assembly (106) are closed and not of the piping (101) (see Paragraph 0049).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the inflatable bladder” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is suggested to delete “the inflatable bladder” and insert therein - - an inflatable bladder - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the inner surfaces” in line 21. Similarly, claim 11 recites the limitation “the inner surfaces” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. It is suggested to delete “the inner surfaces” and insert therein - - the internal surfaces - - to overcome this rejection. This is the interpretation given the limitation for purposes of examination.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks (U.S. Statutory Invention Registration H1088) in view of Farnsworth (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0089797) and Westwater (AU 2007214304).
Regarding claim 1, Marks discloses a method of lining a piping assembly (rocket motor case 85 or cylindrical segment 116) with rubber (40 or 120), the method comprising (it being noted comprising is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps see MPEP 2111.03): selecting an inner surface of the piping assembly for lining; inserting one or more containment devices (comprising mandrel body 81 or mandrel core 114 for containing inflation gas or clevis fasteners 140, 142, 144, 146 for containing ends of the piping assembly, etc.) in the piping assembly based on positioning the rubber relative to the selected surface; introducing an inflatable bladder (80 or 118) to an inner bore of the piping assembly; inflating the inflatable bladder to a predetermined pressure (between about 25 psig and 200 psig); heating an oven to a predetermined temperature (preferred temperatures are between about 250 oF and 350 oF); introducing the piping assembly to the oven and heating until a predetermined curing temperature (preferred temperatures are between about 250 oF and 350 oF); and cooling the piping assembly for a time and a rubber inner liner is formed on the selected surface (Figures 1, 2, and 6-8 and Column 4, lines 30-65 and Column 6, line 1 to Column 7, line 30 and Column 8, line 36 to Column 9, line 67 and Column 10, lines 32-35 and Column 11, lines 20-27).
As to the limitation in claim 1 of “pre-heating” the oven, Marks does not expressly teach the oven is pre-heated. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to pre-heat an oven as evidenced by Farnsworth (Paragraphs 0044 and 0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the oven taught by Marks is pre-heated to the predetermined temperature as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to predictably heat the oven as evidenced by Farnsworth and thereby reduce the time to heat the piping assembly introduced to the oven.
As to the limitation in claim 1 of cooling the piping assembly “for a predetermined cooling time”, Marks teaches after curing to remove the piping assembly when cool down is complete (Column 11, lines 26-27) without expressly teaching a predetermined cooling time. It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art cooling the liner is for a predetermined cooling time such as the liner is stiff enough for the bladder to be deflated as evidenced by Westwater (Page 4, lines 19-21 and Page 11, line 22 to Page 12, line 10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention cooling the piping assembly as taught by Marks is for a predetermined cooling time to predictably cool the piping assembly such as the liner is stiff enough for the bladder to be deflated as evidenced by Westwater.
Regarding claim 4, Marks teaches securing the inflatable bladder to the piping assembly prior to inflating the inflatable bladder (Figures 2 and 6).
Regarding claim 5, Marks does not expressly teach closing supply valves wherein Marks teaches ports (164) of the inflatable bladder through the containment device inserted in the piping assembly for selectively and in an appropriate sequence inflating the inflatable bladder (Figure 6 and Column 9, lines 6-16). It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art ports (22, 24) of an inflatable bladder (18) each comprise supply valves (40, 72 supplying air therethrough) for selectively opening and closing to selectively inflate and deflate the inflatable bladder as evidenced by Westwater (Figures 1-4 and Page 8, lines 4-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Marks as modified by Farnsworth and Westwater further comprise closing supply valves at ports of the inflatable bladder through the containment device inserted in the piping assembly (closed as shown in Figure 6) prior to inflating the inflatable bladder by selectively opening the supply valves to conventionally and predictably allow selected supply of air through the port and to the inflatable bladder as is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Westwater (the limitation of claim 5 rejected in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 6, Marks teaches selecting one or more additional inner surfaces (the rocket motor case 85 having a cylindrical shaped inner surface and a dome shaped inner surface as one or more additional inner surfaces or cylindrical segment 116 having a first half inner surface and a second half inner surface as one or more additional inner surfaces) for applying a rubber liner and applying the rubber liner to the selected one or more additional inner surfaces.
Regarding claim 7, Marks teaches checking/inspecting the rubber liner to assure conformance to requirements/acceptable for use (Examples). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Marks as modified by Farnsworth and Westwater comprise inspecting by checking the rubber liner for bonding and/or delamination as without adequately bonding/laminating the liner and piping assembly the lined piping assembly would not conform to requirements/be acceptable for use as is the directive in Marks to form a lined piping assembly wherein the liner is bonded/laminated to the piping assembly.
Regarding claim 8, Marks teaches removing the one or more containment devices (Column 3, lines 54-55).
Claims 2, 3, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marks, Farnsworth, and Westwater as applied to claims 1 and 4-8 above, and further in view of Choon (KR 20090052613 and see also the machine translation).
Regarding claim 2, Marks as modified by Farnsworth and Westwater above teach all of the limitations in claim 2 except for a specific teaching of roughening the selected surface; removing impurities from the selected surface; applying a primer bonding agent to the selected surface; and applying a secondary bonding agent to the selected surface. Marks teaches the piping assembly formed of metal and further an adhesive included between the rubber liner and piping assembly to provide for enhanced tack (Column 1, lines 19-26 and Column 9, lines 66-68). It is well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to prevent peeling between the rubber liner (200) and selected metal surface (A) by removing impurities from the selected surface by degreasing (S10); roughening the selected surface (S30); applying a primer bonding agent (101 and/or 102) to the selected surface (S40 and first primer treatment and/or second primer treatment); and applying a secondary bonding agent (103 and/or 300 to the selected surface (S40 and tertiary primer treatment of adhesive and/or adhesive on the rubber liner) as evidenced by Choon (Figures 2, 5a, and 5b and Pages 1 and 8 of the machine translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention the method taught by Marks as modified by Farnsworth and Westwater further comprise removing impurities from the selected surface by degreasing; roughening the selected surface; applying a primer bonding agent to the selected surface; and applying a secondary bonding agent to the selected surface to prevent peeling as taught by Choon.
Regarding claim 3, Marks as modified by Farnsworth and Westwater and further Choon above teach degreasing (during the removing impurities) an outer surface of the piping assembly facing an inflatable bladder assembly comprising the inflatable bladder and one or more containment devices (and considered to teach the limitation in claim 3 of “comprising: degreasing an outer surface of an inflatable bladder assembly” wherein comprising is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps or alternatively, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to degrease directly an outer surface of the inflatable bladder assembly (and including metal surfaces thereof) taught by Marks as modified by Farnsworth and Westwater as degreasing a surface to remove any contaminate of oil, grease, fat, etc. from the surface including prior to applying a material to the surface well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Choon, see pages 1 and 8 of the machine translation), applying a release agent to the outer surface of the inflatable bladder assembly (Column 6, lines 57-60 of Marks); selecting an amount by weight of rubber material (to achieve a selected thickness) based on design for the rocket motor case and covering the selected surface, the piping assembly and a geometry of the piping assembly (Column 6, lines 14-16 of Marks); and wrapping the selected rubber material over the inflatable bladder (Figure 1 of Marks).
Regarding claims 9-11, Marks as modified by Farnsworth and Westwater and further Choon above teach a method of lining a piping assembly with rubber, the method comprising: roughening internal surfaces of piping; previously removing impurities from the internal surfaces; applying a primer bonding agent to the internal surfaces; applying a secondary bonding agent to the internal surfaces; inserting one or more containment devices in the piping; degreasing, during the removing impurities, an outer surface of the piping assembly facing an inflatable bladder assembly comprising an inflatable bladder and the one or more containment devices (and considered to teach the limitation in claim 9 of “comprising:… …degreasing an outer surface of an inflatable bladder assembly” wherein comprising is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps or alternatively, wherein it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to degrease directly an outer surface of the inflatable bladder assembly (and including metal surfaces thereof) taught by Marks as modified by Farnsworth and Westwater and further Choon as degreasing a surface to remove any contaminate of oil, grease, fat, etc. from the surface including prior to applying a material to the surface well understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as evidenced by Choon, see pages 1 and 8 of the machine translation); applying a release agent to the outer surface of the inflatable bladder assembly; selecting an amount by weight of rubber material (to achieve a selected thickness) based on design for the rocket motor case and covering the piping and a geometry of the piping; wrapping the selected rubber material over an inflatable bladder of the inflatable bladder assembly; introducing the inflatable bladder to an inner bore of the piping; securing the inflatable bladder to the piping; inflating the inflatable bladder to a predetermined pressure; closing supply valves at ports of the inflatable bladder through the containment device inserted in the piping (the limitation rejected in as much as it is currently understood see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection above); pre-heating an oven to a predetermined temperature; introducing the piping to the oven and heating until a predetermined curing temperature; the piping is removed from the oven and cooled (necessarily either before or after removal) for a predetermined cooling time and an inner liner is formed on the inner/internal surfaces; removing the one or more containment devices; and inspecting a bonding of the rubber lining with the inner/internal surfaces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN L GOFF II whose telephone number is (571)272-1216. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM - 4:00 PM EST Monday - Friday.
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.
/JOHN L GOFF II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746
Prosecution Insights