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 with traverse of claim 1-12, 14-21, 23 in the reply filed on 7/21/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because restriction of method and apparatus claims are typical and often examined by separate art units and involve different standards for evaluating patentability (active method steps vs. structural characteristics). Inclusion of the method claims would likely prolong prosecution as well as the examiner's search. The species requirement between 21 and 22 require searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries; and the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention.
With respect to the election of species requirement of species C-G, the examiner is convinced in light of applicant’s argument and withdrawn the election of species requirement of species C-G and examined claim 13.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 22, 24, 25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 7/21/26.
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) 1, 2, 12-14, 18-20, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (US 2010/0247704) and Lupke (US 5456589).
As to claim 1, Neubauer teaches a pipe manufacturing cell [Abstract], an extrusion system [0012, 0013], a corrugator comprising a plurality of pipe mold blocks [0017, 0024, Fig 1], with die head coupled to the cavity [0012, 0013]. Neubauer does not explicitly state the multiple cavities.
Lupke teaches a pipe manufacturing cell, comprising: an extrusion system (the provider of the extrudate) [col 3 line 9-12]; a corrugator comprising a plurality of multi-pipe mold blocks [col 2 line 50-68, Fig 1], each multi-pipe mold block comprising a first cavity (18) having a first corrugated molding surface and a second cavity (18) having a second corrugated molding surface wherein the extrusion machine is configured to provide extrudate to both cavities simultaneously [col 2 line 51-col 3 line 13, Fig 1-4C]. As these could be operated simultaneously to increase production output without leakage between mold cavities [col 4 line 1-27] or produce product with different dimensions simultaneously [col 4 line 27-35]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Neaubauer and utilized multiple cavities connected to respective extrusion dies/extrusion systems and operated simultaneously, as suggested by Lupke, in order to increase production output or produce product with different dimensions.
As to claim 2, the combination of Neubauer and Lupke teach pairing each cavity with a respective extruder and die as explained above and thus teaches the extrusion system comprises: a first extruder configured to provide the first flow of pipe material to the first pipe die head; and a second extruder configured to provide the second flow of pipe material to the second pipe die head.
As to claim 12, the combination of Neubauer and Lupke as incorporated above teaches each multi-pipe mold block, the first cavity comprises a same diameter as the second cavity [Fig 1, Lupke].
As to claim 13, the combination of Neubauer and Lupke teaches each multi-pipe mold block, within each multi-pipe mold block, the first cavity comprises a larger diameter than the second cavity [Fig 1, col 4 line 28-35 Lupke].
As to claim 14, the combination of Neubauer and Lupke teaches multi-pipe mold block comprises a third cavity having a third corrugated molding surface [Fig 1, col 4 line 28-35 Lupke].
As to claim 18, Neubauer in combination with Lupke teaches using an extrusion device with each cavity as explained above, Neubauer teaches a die stand (1o-1s) configured to: align the first pipe die head with the first cavities of the plurality of multi-pipe mold blocks; align the second pipe die head with the second cavities of the plurality of multi-pipe mold blocks [0013-0016, Fig 1, 2]; as the simplest combination of Neubauer and Lupke would duplicate the extruder and frame for each cavity, the combination of Neubauer and Lupke would be able to perform relative movement between the first pipe die head and the second pipe die head.
As to claim 19, Neubauer in combination with Lupke teaches using an extrusion device/stand with each cavity as explained above. Neubauer teaches the die stand further comprises: a first sub-stand configured to support the first pipe die head, the first sub-stand comprising a first stage configured to move the first pipe die head in a first degree of freedom either of 1u or 1p for movement in x or y direction [0013-0016, Fig 1, 2]; and a second sub-stand configured to support the second pipe die head, the second sub-stand comprising a second stage configured to move the second pipe die head in a second degree of freedom either of 1u or 1p for movement in x or y direction [0013-0016, Fig 1, 2].
As to claim 20, Neubauer in combination with Lupke teaches using an extrusion device/stand with each cavity as explained above. Neaubauer teaches the first sub-stand comprises a third stage configured to move the first pipe die head in a third degree of freedom different from the first degree of freedom the other of 1u or 1p for movement in x or y direction [0013-0016, Fig 1, 2]; and the second sub-stand comprises a fourth stage configured to move the second pipe die head in a fourth degree of freedom different from the second degree of freedom the other of 1u or 1p for movement in x or y direction [0013-0016, Fig 1, 2].
As to claim 23, Neubauer teaches the die stand further comprises: a frame (1p) configured to support at least one of the first sub-stand or the second sub-stand [0014, 0016, Fig 1, 2].
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (US 2010/0247704) and Lupke (US 5456589), as applied to claims 1, 2, 12-14, 18-20, 23 above, and in further view of Wissmann (US 5616350).
As to claims 3, and 7, Neubauer teaches the first extruder is configured to provide a third flow of pipe material to the second pipe die head; and the second extruder is configured to provide a fourth flow of pipe material to the first pipe die head.
Wissman teaches a method of extrusion to produce an extrusion product wherein the core and skin are formed from different material streams and an additional core and skin product with a different profile can be produced simultaneously wherein a first extruder and 2nd extruder are each equipped with flow dividers such both extruders deliver to 2 dies [Abstract, claim 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Neubauer and had teaches the first extruder is configured to provide a third flow of pipe material to the second pipe die head; and the second extruder is configured to provide a fourth flow of pipe material to the first pipe die head with both extruders being equipped with first and second flow dividers respectively, as suggested by Wissman, in order to produce core and skin products with different profiles simultaneously.
As to claim 4, Neubauer does not explicitly state that each flow to the die has a flow regulator.
Wissman teaches a method of extrusion to produce an extrusion product wherein the core and skin are formed from different material streams and an additional core and skin product with a different profile can be produced simultaneously wherein a first extruder and 2nd extruder are each equipped with flow dividers such both extruders deliver to 2 dies [Abstract, claim 1]. Wherein each flow path has a restrictor valve (ie a flow regulator) such that the flow to the die can be controlled independently for each stream [col 7 line 37-col 8 line 15]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Neubauer and had all 4 streams be equipped with a flow regulator, as suggested by Wissman, in order to produce core and skin products with different profiles simultaneously and control the flow of each stream independently.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (US 2010/0247704), Lupke (US 5456589) and Wissmann (US 5616350), as applied to claims 3, 4, and 7 above, and in further view of DeLaney (Technology Notebook: Optimizing the Extrusion process and melt stream).
As to claim 5 and 6, Neubauer does not explicitly state one or each of the first, second, third and fourth flow regulating mechanisms comprises a melt pump.
DeLaney teaches methods of improving stability of the melt stream before it is delivered to the die [Page 2] and notes use of a melt pump on the stream to control rate pressure and stability of flow [Page 2] as melt pumps allows flow rate to controlled independent of discharge pressure from the extruder [Page 4] as well as decreases thermal degradation and increases output rate per rpm [Page 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Neubauer and included melt pumps for each stream, as suggested by Delaney, in order to control flow rate of the discharge pressure, decrease thermal degradation, and increase output rate per rpm.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (US 2010/0247704) and Lupke (US 5456589), as applied to claims 1, 2, 12-14, 18-20, 23 above, and in further view of Hegler (US 3677676).
As to claim 8, Neubauer does not explicitly state the first extruder is configured to provide a third flow of pipe material to the first pipe die head; and the second extruder is configured to provide a fourth flow of pipe material to the second pipe die head.
Hegler teaches producing double walled corrugated pipe [Abstract, Fig 1] and the extruder provides 2 streams to the die to create the double wall pipe that is both strong and flexible [col 3 line 9-42, col 4 line 28-45, Fig 1, claim 1]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of and had each extruder deliver 2 streams to their respective die, as suggested by Hegler, as this had proven successful at creating a strong and flexible 2x walled corrugated pipe. Moreover, this was just combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 9, the combination of Neubauer and Lupke teaches the use of multiple cavities each connected to an extruder as explained above and does not explicitly state the extrusion system further comprises: a third extruder configured to provide a third flow of pipe material to the first pipe die head; and a fourth extruder configured to provide a fourth flow of pipe material to the second pipe die head.
Hegler teaches producing double walled corrugated pipe [Abstract, Fig 1] and the extruder provides 2 streams to the die to create the double wall pipe that is both strong and flexible [col 3 line 9-42, col 4 line 28-45, Fig 1, claim 1] and notes that the skin and core layer can either be produced from the same extruder or a different extruder if it is desired to make different materials [col 3 line 15-26]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of and provided 2 extruders to each die which each provided an additional stream, as suggested by Hegler, as this had proven successful at creating a strong and flexible 2x walled corrugated pipe of different materials. Moreover, this was just combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (US 2010/0247704) and Lupke (US 5456589), as applied to claims 1, 2, 12-14, 18-20, 23 above, and in further view of DeLaney (Technology Notebook: Optimizing the Extrusion process and melt stream).
As to claim 10 and 11, Neubauer does not explicitly state: a first flow regulating mechanism arranged between the extrusion system and the first pipe die head; and a second flow regulating mechanism arranged between the extrusion system and the second pipe die head and the first flow regulating mechanism or the second flow regulating mechanism comprises a melt pump.
DeLaney teaches methods of improving stability of the melt stream before it is delivered to the die [Page 2] and notes use of a melt pump on the stream to control rate pressure and stability of flow [Page 2] as melt pumps allows flow rate to controlled independent of discharge pressure from the extruder [Page 4] as well as decreases thermal degradation and increases output rate per rpm [Page 5]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Neubauer and included melt pumps for each stream, as suggested by Delaney, in order to control flow rate of the discharge pressure, decrease thermal degradation, and increase output rate per rpm.
Claim(s) 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (US 2010/0247704) and Lupke (US 5456589), as applied to claims 1, 2, 12-14, 18-20, 23 above, and in further view of Li (CN 115352082).
As to claim 15 and 16, Neubauer does not explicitly state a plurality of common block carriers, wherein each multi-pipe mold block is configured to be installed in one of the plurality of common block carriers and the each of the plurality of mold block is removable.
Li teaches system for making corrugated pipe [Abstract] wherein the forming mold part (101) [0053-0055, Fig 2, 3] is held in carried in end block (105) and held in place by screws [0056]. The end blocks are configured to conveyed (1012, 1014) [0059, 0060, Fig 1- 3] which reduces difficulty of installing mold cavity blocks [0060]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Neubauer and utilized common carrier blocks (end block) with the mold blocks installed therein that is removable by screws, as suggested by Li, as this had proven effective at making corrugated pipe and provided easy installation.
As to claim 17, Neubauer does not explicitly state a conveyance system configured to revolve the multi-pipe mold blocks in a loop.
Li teaches system for making corrugated pipe [Abstract] wherein the forming mold part (101) [0053-0055, Fig 2, 3] is held in carried in end block (105) and held in place by screws [0056]. The end blocks are configured to conveyed in a loop(1012, 1014) [0059, 0060, Fig 1- 3] which reduces difficulty of installing mold cavity blocks [0060]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Neubauer and utilized a conveyance system for the mold blocks for conveying the blocks in a loop, as suggested by Li, as this had proven effective at making corrugated pipe and provided easy installation.
Claim(s) 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neubauer (US 2010/0247704) and Lupke (US 5456589), as applied to claims 1, 2, 12-14, 18-20, 23 above, and in further view of Voll-Marjanovic (CA 2391815).
As to claim 21, Neubauer in combination with Lupke teaches using an extrusion device/stand with each cavity as explained above. Neubauer does not explicitly state the first degree of freedom comprises a rotation about a first axis that is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the first pipe die head; and the second degree of freedom comprises a rotation about a second axis that is perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the second pipe die head.
Voll-Marjanovic teaches a method of making corrugated pipes [Abstract] wherein extrusion system is rotatable about an axis that allow the system to be pivoted in order to allow the extrusion device to move between a start up position and operation position [page 13 line 21-32, Fig 6]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have altered the invention of Neubauer and provided the stand with the capability of rotation above an axis perpendicular to a longitudinal position, as suggested by Voll-Marjanovic, in order to allow the extrusion device to move between a start up position and an operation position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARMAND MELENDEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0342. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM- 6 PM 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached at 571-272-1234. 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.
/ARMAND MELENDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Prosecution Insights