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 .
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michaelis (US 2011/0142544).
As to claim 19, Michaelis discloses a buried-wire placement (BWP) system configured to operate on a vehicle (figure 1), the BWP system comprising: an excavation plow (26) at a front portion of the BWP system to remove regolith out of a surface to form a trench; a spool holder configured to hold a spool of non-insulated wire (see spool holder figure 1); a dispenser (28) at a middle portion of the BWP system configured to pull the non-insulated wire from the spool of the non-insulated wire and dispense the non-insulated wire into the trench; and a reverse plow (at 32) at a back portion of the BWP system configured to bury the non-insulated wire with the regolith by refilling a portion of the trench that includes the non-insulated wire (figures 1-5).
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.
Claim(s) 1-6,8-12, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (US 4,047,387).
With regards to claim 1 and 3, Tamura et al. discloses A method for placing barrier in the ground surface, the method comprising: melting asphalt in a chamber (col. 6. Line 8-25); using an excavation plow (10) to remove soil out of the surface to form a trench; behind the excavation plow and above the trench, extruding the molten asphalt through a nozzle (64) from the chamber and into the trench; after extruding the molten asphalt, allowing the molten asphalt to cool to an at least partially solid metal; placing the at least partially solid asphalt in the trench; and burying the at least partially solid asphalt by using a reverse plow (48; figure 11) to refill a portion of the trench that includes the at least partially solid asphalt (figures 1-11). Tamura et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Tamura et al. silent about melting a metal or aluminum in a chamber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the inventio was filed to use a melted metal as claimed, since it has been held to be within the level of one skilled in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case it is well known to buried wired underground and therefore it would have been obvious to substitute the melted asphalt for the melted metal since it would have provided a solid barrier.
As to claim 2 and 9-10, Tamura as modified above discloses wherein a bottom portion of the trench is formed to create a predetermined cross-section such rectangular of the at least partially solid metal in the trench (figure 1 and 8).
As to claim 4 and 12, Tamura et al. as modified above discloses wherein the nozzle (e.g. see 104 figure 11), the excavation plow, and the reverse plow (rear portion of plow 102; figure 11) are interconnected so as to be positioned substantially in a single line. (figure 1 and 11).
As to claim 5, Tamura et al. as modified above discloses further comprising at least partially sintering the trench before placing the at least partially solid metal in the trench (figure 1 and 8).
As to claim 6 and 14-16, Tamura et al. as modified above is silent about further comprising measuring at least one electrical property of the at least partially solid metal in the trench while extruding the molten metal whether manual testing or a sensor is conventional in the art. It would have been within the level of one skilled in the art to modify the method of Tamura et al. to test the material being injected underground for properties depending on its intended use.
As to claim 8 and 11, Tamura et al. discloses a buried-wire placement (BWP) system (figure 1) configured to operate on a moving vehicle (2), the BWP system comprising: an excavation plow (10) at a front portion of the BWP system to remove regolith out of the a surface to form a trench; a chamber configured to melt asphalt and hold the melted asphalt; a temperature control system (not shown, but conventional to heat the asphalt at desired temperature) to adjust the temperature of the melted asphalt; a nozzle (e.g. 64) at a middle portion of the BWP system configured to extrude the melted asphalt into the trench to form a wire, wherein the temperature of the extruded melted asphalt is adjusted by the temperature control system to adjust the temperature of the extruded melted asphalt to be in a liquid state or a plastic state between the nozzle and a bottom of the trench; and a reverse plow at a back portion of the BWP system configured to bury the wire with the regolith by refilling a portion of the trench that includes the wire (figures 1-11). Tamura et al. discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Tamura et al. silent about melting a metal or aluminum in a chamber. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the inventio was filed to use a melted metal as claimed, since it has been held to be within the level of one skilled in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use is a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this case it is well known to buried wired underground and therefore it would have been obvious to substitute the melted asphalt for the melted metal since it would have provided a solid barrier.
As to claim 17, Tamura et al. as modified above discloses wherein the nozzle is a first nozzle and the wire is a first wire, the BWP system further comprising a second nozzle adjacent to the first nozzle to extrude the melted metal into the trench to form a second wire substantially parallel to the first wire (figure 4).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura et al. (US 4,047,387) in view of Kaercher et al. (US 3,757,529).
As to claim 7, Tamura et al. as modified above is silent about further comprising placing markers on the refilled portion of the trench. Kaercher et al. teaches a similar system including installing a wire (128) and markers (142) on the refilled portions of the trench (figure 5 and 8). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Tamura to include the markers as taught by Kaercher et al. since it would protect the wire in case of future excavations.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Michaelis (US 2011/0142544).
As to claim 20, Michaelis discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Michaelis is silent about wherein the dispenser is a first dispenser and the non-insulated wire is a first non-insulated wire, the BWP system further comprising a second dispenser adjacent to the first dispenser to dispense a second non-insulated wire into the trench substantially parallel to the first non-insulated wire. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art a the time the invention was filed to have a second dispenser parallel to the first, since it has been held that a mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device only involves routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See for example US 3,339,369; US 2013/0209172 teaching multiple underground dispenser parallel to one another.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights