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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant's arguments filed 12/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are considered moot since it was discovered that the Examiner misidentified the manifold. The reference number has been updated and a new 112(b) rejection has been made. As such this Office action is a Non-Final office action in order to allow Applicants time to properly review the action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-9, 13 and 17 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.
Claims 1 and 16 are unclear in that they recite “near”, which is a relative term and renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It’s unclear how close is close enough to be considered “near”.
Claims 2-9, 13 and 17 are unclear for their dependence from claims 1 or 16.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Browne US 1497652.
Regarding claim 1, Browne discloses a jacketed pipe comprising:
an internal pipe (7), an external pipe (9), a flange (1) and at least one manifold device (13) manufactured as separate parts (see note at end of claim),
the internal pipe having a wall with an outer surface (Fig. 1);
the external pipe coaxially arranged around the internal pipe to form an annular space (10) between an inner surface of a wall of the external pipe and the outer surface of the internal pipe (Fig. 1);
the flange (1) having a first surface (facing away from joint) and an opposing second surface (facing towards joint), the flange being connected to an end of the external pipe and the internal pipe (Fig. 1), the flange having at least one aperture (14) extending through the thickness of the flange from the first surface to the opposing second surface and being radially spaced from the point of connection of the flange to the outer surface of the external pipe (Fig. 1);
an opening (Fig. 1, connecting 12 with 10) formed through the wall of the external pipe near a point of connection of the flange to the external pipe, the opening being in fluid communication with the annular space between the internal pipe and the external pipe and being located in radial proximity to the at least one aperture (14) formed through the flange (Fig. 1); and
the at least one manifold device (13) connected to the outer surface of the external pipe and connected to the first surface of the flange (Figs. 1 and 4, note how 13 protrudes from the flange’s first surface), the at least one manifold device being positioned to enclose the opening formed in the external pipe and to enclose the aperture extending through the flange (Fig. 1), the at least one manifold device (13) being formed with a channel (12) providing a fluid pathway between the opening in the external pipe (Fig. 1) and the aperture (14) in the flange allowing the annular space (10) and the aperture in the flange to be in fluid communication (Fig. 1).
Note: Applicant’s Fig. 1 shows that the separate components are ultimately welded together and made into a single component. In the same sense that Applicant has depicted in their figures that the components are separate so too are the corresponding components in Browne “separate”. Should Applicant still insist that the separate nature of the components when manufactured is critical then as a separate component the claimed apparatus is directed to an intermediate product and according to MPEP 2107.01 the “specific, substantial and credible utility” would have to be reconsidered.
PNG
media_image1.png
575
1013
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Browne further discloses that the at least one manifold device (13) has a first face that is positioned against the first surface of the flange (Fig. 1), the channel (12) being formed in the first face of the at least one manifold device (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Browne further discloses that the at least one manifold device has an opposing face that is positioned in opposing orientation to the first face of the at least one manifold device (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Browne further discloses that the at least one manifold device is further provided with a third face (threaded face) that is positioned against the wall of the external pipe and is connected to the wall of the external pipe (Fig. 1).
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) 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Browne US 1497652.
Regarding claim 4, Browne further discloses an access port (15) is formed in the adjacent face (radially outermost surface perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the pipes) of the at least one manifold device, the access port being in fluid communication with the channel (12) of the at least one manifold device (Fig. 1). However, it does not teach that the access port is formed in the opposing face.
Schulz teaches a jacketed pipe comprising an access port (10) on an opposing face (angled face of 5, Fig. 5) in order to eliminate any sharp deflection of the medium fed in (col. 2 ln. 54-58). Thus, it would have been an obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the manifold, channel and access port as taught by Browne by utilizing the oblique angle of the channel and location of the access port on the opposite face in order to reduce or eliminate any sharp deflection of the medium fed therethrough.
Regarding claim 5, the combination further teaches that the access port is oriented at an angle to a longitudinal axis formed along the channel (Schulz, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 6, the combination further teaches that the angle of orientation of the access port is perpendicular to the channel and the opposing face is a second face that is positioned parallel to the first face of the manifold device, the access port being formed through the second face (Schulz, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 7, the combination further teaches that the angle of orientation of the access port relative to the longitudinal axis of the channel is an acute angle (Schulz, Fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Bronwe further discloses that the access port (15) has an inner wall that is threaded (Fig.1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13, 16 and 17 are allowable provided the 112b rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN O PETERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2662. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Sat, 12:00pm-10pm 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, Eugene Kim can be reached at (571) 272-4463. 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.
/BRIAN O PETERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745