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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on October 09, 2024, and March 14, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 15 – 20 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.
Regarding claim 15, the phrase " a clamshell-type" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the phrase is being interpreted as “a clamp field joint mold”.
The term “conducting heat from a heating system to majority of a surface area of a form” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “to majority of a surface area of a form” 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. Therefore, without more, what could be considered a “majority” “of a form” is a subjective limitation, and one of ordinary skill would have not been able to ascertain the scope of protections envisioned by the Applicant(s) for what amount of surface area of the mold would be the “majority”.
Claims 16 – 19 are rejected as being indefinite based their direct or indirect dependent status from rejected claim 15.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, and 14 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronquist (US 2007/0063510 A1) in view of Hoffmann (IUS 2015/0375435 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gronquist teaches a field joint mold assembly comprising:
a mold body (clamp band “B” or strap/band 52, with sleeve “C”, FIG. 6, [0042]-[0043]) configured to be disposed on a field joint section (weld joint 18, FIG. 1) of a pipe assembly (pipeline “P”) such that the mold body defines a mold cavity (gap “G”, FIG. 1) around the field joint section (gap “G” with weld joint 18, FIG. 1, [0020]-[0026] e.g., “When the cylindrical sleeve C is in place, an annulus or cylindrical space is formed within the interior of the sleeve C about the exposed pipe sections 10 and 12 adjacent the weld joint 18.” [0025], “The material of the strap or band 52 distributes heat from the flame spraying over the full outer surface of the cladding or cover sleeve C to reduce localization of heated areas or hot spots.” [0043]); and
a heating system (electrically conductive element “E”) mounted on the mold body and capable of uniformly heating the mold body to an elevated temperature to promote even elevated temperature distribution inside the mold cavity [0027]-[0037].
Gronquist does not specifically disclose, an injection port opening through the mold body such that curable insulation material can be imparted through the injection port into the mold cavity.
Gronquist, however, discloses that “The annulus is preferably filled such as by pouring, injection or the like with a chemical composition such as a suitable synthetic resin, in the form of a polyurethane or epoxy which sets or hardens in the annulus to form a HDPE or other hard synthetic resin infill” [0026], and that “a suitably located injection port is drilled or otherwise formed in the sleeve C. A solid polyurethane-forming material is then pumped or poured into the annulus until the volume of the annulus is full.” [0038].
Hoffmann, in the same field of endeavor of apparatus and techniques for coating pipeline field joints and to pipelines having field joints coated by those techniques [0001], teaches a mould tool 32 capable of being “fixed around the field joint, extending from one coating 38 to the other and overlapping those coatings 38 to define a mould cavity 40 including the annular gap between the coatings 38, into which molten thermoplastics material such as PP is injected as a field joint coating” [0084]-[0086].
Hoffmann discloses that the tubular wall of the mould tool 32 is pierced by an array of gates 56 [analogous to the claimed “injection port opening”], “for injection into the mould cavity 40 of molten PP 58 supplied through feed lines 60 under pressure from a supplying reservoir or machine 62.”
each gate 56 (controlled by a central control unit 66, which may operate them independently of each other) has a respective valve 64 that controls the injection of molten PP 58 through that gate 56 (FIG. 3, [0088]), and a vent 67 at an upstream end of the tubular wall of the mould tool 32 that allows air to escape as the mould cavity 40 fills with molten PP 58. [0089], [0095].
Hoffmann discloses that this arrangement and sequential injection moulding operation “enables lower moulding pressure and hence lower clamping force as the viscous melt need only travel the short distance between the gates 56 rather than traversing the mould cavity 40 as a whole.” [0102].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the mold body (e.g., Gronquist clamp band “B” with sleeve “C”) in the field joint mold assembly of Gronquist, with an injection port opening (e.g., Hoffmann array of gates 56) through the mold body such that curable insulation material can be imparted through the injection port into the mold cavity, as suggested by the prior art of Hoffmann, and recognize the modification does no more than yield predictable results and resulted in an improved field joint mold assembly, e.g., a field joint mold assembly capable of injecting molten curable insulating materials into the mold cavity, as taught by Hoffmann (see MPEP 2143 (I) (D)), since Hoffmann teaches that by providing said array of gates “enables lower moulding pressure and hence lower clamping force as the viscous melt need only travel the short distance between the gates 56 rather than traversing the mould cavity 40 as a whole.” Hoffmann [0102]. See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 14, Gronquist/Hoffmann teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 1, wherein the mold body comprises a steel mold form sheet (Gronquist [0043] “clamp band B is a strap or band 52 of steel or other suitable heat conductive metal”), except for specifically disclosing, stainless steel.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected stainless steel for the material of the steel mold form sheet in the field joint mold assembly of Gronquist/Hoffmann, for the purpose of e.g., make the steel mold form corrosion resistant, since it have held to be within the ordinary skill of worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07:
Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination.
Regarding claim 15. Gronquist/Hoffmann teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 1, wherein the mold body has a first end portion and a second end portion, and a length extending along a longitudinal axis (see Gronquist FIG. 6), the mold body comprising a mold form sheet (e.g., Gronquist 52) having a first longitudinal edge margin (52a), an opposite second longitudinal edge margin (52b), and a width extending from the first longitudinal edge margin to the second longitudinal edge margin (gap or space 50, Gronquist [0042]-[0043]), the mold form sheet worked into a clamshell field joint mold shape (see Gronquist FIG. 6) such that the width extends circumferentially about the longitudinal axis and the first longitudinal edge margin opposes the second longitudinal edge margin in adjacent, spaced apart relation therewith (see Gronquist FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 16. Gronquist/Hoffmann teaches the field joint mold assembly as set forth in claim 15, wherein the mold body further comprises a plurality of retention bar mounting studs (e.g., Gronquist 58) arranged in individual stud rows spaced apart circumferentially about the longitudinal axis (see Gronquist FIG. 6 and [0044]).
Regarding claim 17. Gronquist/Hoffmann teaches the field joint mold assembly as set forth in claim 16, wherein each of the individual stud rows comprises three of the retention bar mounting studs 58 (see Gronquist FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 18. Gronquist/Hoffmann teaches the field joint mold assembly as set forth in claim 15, wherein the mold body further comprises a first longitudinal flange (Gronquist 54) on the first longitudinal edge margin (52a) and a second longitudinal flange (56) on the second longitudinal edge margin (52b), the first and second longitudinal flanges (54, 56) configured to define an elongate waste receptacle therebetween for receiving discardable waste of the curable insulation material (e.g., gap or space 50, Gronquist FIG. 6 and [0043]-[0044], similarly, Hoffmann [0111] teaches “a vent 67 at the top of the tubular wall of the mould tool 32 diametrically opposed to the first gate 56 allows air to escape as the mould cavity 40 fills with molten PP 58.”).
Regarding claim 19. Gronquist/Hoffmann teaches the field joint mold assembly as set forth in claim 18, wherein the first longitudinal flange and the second longitudinal flange are at an upper end portion of the mold body, except for specifically disclosing, the injection port is diametrically opposite the elongate waste receptacle at a lower end portion of the mold body.
Hoffmann, however, discloses at [0111] a vent 67 [analogous to the claimed waste receptacle] at the top of the tubular wall of the mould tool 32 diametrically opposed to the first gate 56 allows air to escape as the mould cavity 40 fills with molten PP 58.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the injection port in the field joint mold assembly of Gronquist/Hoffmann to be diametrically opposite the elongate waste receptacle (Gronquist’s gap 50, Hoffmann’s vent 67) at a lower end portion of the mold body, as suggested by the prior art of Hoffmann, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C).
Regarding claim 20. Gronquist/Hoffmann teaches a method of insulating a field joint (see Gronquist [0006], [0008]-[0009], [0021], [0026], [0056], Hoffmann [0003]-[0005], [0055]-[0057], [0125]), the method comprising: injecting curable insulation material into a mold cavity defined by a field joint mold assembly disposed on a field joint section of a pipe assembly (Gronquist [0026], [0038]-[0040], Hoffmann [0026], [0029]-[0034], [0038]-[0049]); curing the curable insulation material in the mold cavity to form cured insulation for insulating the field joint section of the pipe assembly (Gronquist [0026] “sets or hardens”, Hoffmann [0032], [0052]-[0053], [0101]); and while performing at least one of said injecting and said curing, conducting heat from a heating system to majority of a surface area of a form of the field joint mold assembly to uniformly heat the mold cavity to an elevated temperature (e.g., see Gronquist [0043]-[0050], Hoffmann [0033], [0122]).
Claim(s) 2 – 7, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronquist (US 2007/0063510 A1) in view of Hoffmann (IUS 2015/0375435 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tailor et al. (US 2015/0219264 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Gronquist/Hoffmann teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 1, except for, wherein the heating system comprises a temperature controller for controlling the electrical heater.
Tailor et al., in the same field of endeavor of improvements to an apparatus for heating a heat shrinkable sleeve applied around a welded pipe joint during pipeline construction, or for pre-heating a welded pipe joint before treating or coating [0002], teaches an apparatus comprising a frame member [analogous to the claimed “mold body”], adapted to be disposed around said article and/or sleeve, and having a heater device (having two or more longitudinally disposed heating zones and two or more radially disposed heating sectors) adapted to heat the elongate tubular article, and a controller for operating the heater device [0054], [0064].
Taylor et al. discloses that the controller 33 may be separate from support structure 35 or which may be integrated within it, controls the level and/or intensity of heat output from heating element layer 32. The controller 33 may be thermostatically controlled, may be controlled through the measurement of resistance in heating element layer 32, may be a timer, or may simply be an operator--selected switch. [0099].
Taylor et al. discloses the apparatus could comprise several separate heating areas (which may have specified number of these [heating] strips, more densely packed strips would emit more infrared waves and more heat output), which can be independently set for different heat intensities and temperatures, or different times of heating by the controller [0109]-[0113], and that the controller provides further improvement to the apparatus in the way of allowing for a pre-warming program that minimizes heating time delays at the time of operating the apparatus, providing financial value by speeding up the process [0131].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the electrical heater in the heating system of Gronquist/Hoffmann’s field joint mold assembly, with a temperature controller for controlling the electrical heater, as suggested by the prior art, for the purpose of e.g., providing the field joint mold assembly with the capability of controlling the level and/or intensity of heat output from heating element layer, as taught by Taylor et al., since "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). One of ordinary skill would have been financially incentivized to pursue the modification, since Taylor et al. teaches the controller provides further improvement to the apparatus in the way of allowing for a pre-warming program that minimizes heating time delays at the time of operating the apparatus, providing financial value by speeding up the process [0131]. See MPEP 2143 (I) (G).
Regarding claim 3, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 2, wherein the temperature controller is one of a temperature switch, a thermostat, and a rheostat (e.g., Taylor et al. discloses “The controller 33 may be thermostatically controlled, may be controlled through the measurement of resistance in heating element layer 32, may be a timer, or may simply be an operator--selected switch.” [0099]).
Regarding claim 4. Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 2, wherein the electrical heater is a heating pad (e.g., Gronquist welding element/mesh 40 [0039], Taylor et al. heating element 32 [0098], “Heating element layer 32 spans the entire length and breadth of the inner surface 39, though it may be divided into segments such as segments 32a-e as shown for half 37a. In certain embodiments, the heating element layer 32 is a thin film or otherwise flexible heating element” Taylor et al. [0107]).
Regarding claim 5. Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 4, wherein the heating pad is a first heating pad and the heating system further comprising a second heating pad (e.g., Gronquist discloses heating band elements 40a, 40b, 40c [0034]-[0035], Taylor et al. discloses the apparatus could comprise several separate heating areas [0109]-[0113]).
Regarding claim 6. Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 5, wherein the mold body has a longitudinal axis and a first longitudinal section and a second longitudinal section spaced apart along the longitudinal axis (e.g., see Gronquist FIGs. 3, see Taylor et al. FIGs.13), the first heating pad covering the first longitudinal section (e.g., Gronquist 42a, e.g., Taylor FIGs. 8, 13) and the second heating pad covering the second longitudinal section (e.g., Gronquist 42b, Taylor et al. [0107] discloses the heating elements may be divided into segments such as segments 32a-e, FIG. 8).
Regarding claim 7. Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 6, wherein the first heating pad and the second heating pad are separated by a gap (e.g., see Gronquist FIG. 5, e.g., Taylor FIG. 13 shows several heating pads 92 separated by gaps), except for explicitly disclosing, wherein the injection port is located in the gap.
Hoffmann, however, teaches injection ports (gates 56 connected to valves 64) located in gaps formed on the mold between the mold water jacket (see Hoffmann FIG. 6a [0110]-[0112]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the injection port in the field joint mold assembly of Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor to be located in a gap between the heating pads, for the purpose of e.g., avoiding the heat from the heating pads from directly influencing the temperature of the injection port, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C):
It has generally been recognized that to shift location of parts when the operation of the device is not otherwise changed is within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70; In re Gazda, 104 USPQ 400.
Regarding claim 12, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 5, wherein the temperature controller is a first temperature controller for the first heating pad and the heating system further comprises a second temperature controller for the second heating pad (e.g., Taylor et al. discloses controlling several heating pads independently from each other [0109]-[0110] “zones 42a, 42b, 44a, 44b, 44c, 44d, 46a, 46b, 46c, and 46d comprises a separate stamped foil element strips, which can be controlled separately by controller 33”, as well as the use of separate controllers e.g., controller 33 could comprise a separate primary controller [0112]).
Claim(s) 8 – 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronquist (US 2007/0063510 A1) in view of Hoffmann (IUS 2015/0375435 A1), and Tailor et al. (US 2015/0219264 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Bennett (US Pat. No. 8,113,242 B1).
Regarding claim 8. Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 6, further comprising at least one retention bar (e.g., Gronquist attachment flanges 54 and 56 [0044], Hoffmann clamps 50) mounted on the mold body whereby the retention bar holds the first heating pad and the second heating pad on the mold body (e.g., see Gronquist FIG. 6), except for specifically disclosing, such that the first heating pad and the second heating pad are sandwiched between the mold body and the retention bar.
However, the rearrangement of the first and second heating pads to be sandwiched between the mold body and the retention bar would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C).
For example, Bennett, in the same field of endeavor of composite repair methods and apparatus for pipes, teaches a composite repair assembly 10 (Col. 4 lines 48 – 67), an overpress 30 [analogous to the claimed “mold body”] (which may be manufactured from a light gauge aluminum or other metal that is designed primarily to provide compression to the thermoplastic layer of material 20), and as with the layer of thermoplastic material 20, overpress 30 also includes outwardly extending flanges 32a and 32b (including holes 34 for receipt of fasteners) along respective longitudinally extending side edges of halves 30a and 30b, and reinforcement members 40a and 40b [analogous to the claimed retention bar”], having holes 44, as well as bolts or fasteners 46 and nuts 48 (Col. 5 lines 12 – 33);
one or more heating elements for providing heat to allow the thermoplastic material to flow and seal area 18 of pipe 12. The heating element may be provided in single strand wire form, a mesh or any suitable configuration for providing heat to the thermoplastic material, the heating element does not have to be embedded in the thermoplastic material, but may also be provided externally to the layer of thermoplastic material, or alternately, heating bags, blankets, or tooling with integral heating, such as hot oil, may be used. Alternately, a torch or other heating source, such as infrared, may also be employed. (Col. 5 lines 41 – 58).
Bennett discloses a composite repair assembly 410 is assembled, wherein a heating element 464 is placed between layer of thermoplastic material 20 and pipe 12, and heating element 465 is placed between thermoplastic layer 20 and layer of high CTE material 160. Accordingly, heating element 464 may be used to preheat pipe 12. As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, the in ground installation of pipe 12 may result in pipe 12 and area 18 being at a low temperature, especially in the winter months of cold climates. As such, in order for thermoplastic layer 20 to be heated and properly flow around pipe 12, it may be necessary to preheat the pipe. Accordingly, heating element 464 may be activated before activating heating element 465. The placement of heating element 465 allows it to provide heat to both thermoplastic layer 20 and layer 160 of high CTE material, thereby providing expansion of layer 160 and compression of layer 20 as discussed above. It should be appreciated that heating element 465 may be placed to the exterior of layer 160 or even to the exterior of overpress 30 as shown with heating elements 264 and 364 in FIGS. 8 and 9, respectively. (Col. 7 lines 49-67, cont. Col. 8 lines 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the first and second heating pads such that the first heating pad and the second heating pad are sandwiched between the mold body and the retention bar in the field joint mold assembly of Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor, as suggested by the prior art, since it have been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (C).
In the alternative, it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify the field joint mold of Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor by duplicating the first and second heating pads on the exterior of the mold body, as suggested by the prior art of Bennett, such that the first heating pad and the second heating pad are sandwiched between the mold body and the retention bar, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04 (VI) (B):
In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Regarding claim 9, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor/Bennett teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 8, wherein the at least one retention bar comprises a plurality of retention bars mounted on the mold body at circumferentially spaced apart locations about the longitudinal axis (e.g., Gronquist attachment flanges 54 and 56 FIG. 6, Hoffmann clamps 50 FIG. 3, Bennett reinforcement members 40a and 40b FIG. 10).
Regarding claim 10. Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor/Bennett teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 9, wherein each retention bar has a first end portion and a second end portion spaced apart along the longitudinal axis (e.g., see Bennett reinforcement members 40a and 40b FIG. 10), the first end portion of each retention bar being fastened to the mold body at a first fastening point, the second end portion of each retention bar being fastened to the mold body at a second fastening point, the first heating pad and second heating pad being located between the first fastening point and the second fastening point along the longitudinal axis (e.g., see Bennett Col. 5 lines 59 – 67, cont. Col. 6 lines 1 – 11 and FIG. 10, wherein retention bars 40a, 40b, are fasten from one end to the other opposite end in the longitudinal direction by fasteners 46 and nuts 48 – hence, the first heating pad and second heating pad in the modified field joint mold of Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor/Bennett would be located between a first fastening point and a second fastening point along the longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 11, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor/Bennett teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 10, wherein each retention bar is further fastened to the mold body at a third fastening point between the first heating pad and the second heating pad (e.g., see Bennett Col. 5 lines 59 – 67, cont. Col. 6 lines 1 – 11 and FIG. 10).
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gronquist (US 2007/0063510 A1) in view of Hoffmann (IUS 2015/0375435 A1), and Tailor et al. (US 2015/0219264 A1), as applied to claim 4 above, and as evidenced by the non-patent literature of BriskHeat “HEATING BLANKETS”, 2010 (NPL_1).
Regarding claim 13, Gronquist/Hoffmann/Taylor teaches the field joint mold assembly of claim 4, wherein the heating pad comprises a resistive heating element encased in silicone rubber (e.g., Bennett teaches the heating element may be manufactured from any suitable material capable for use in establishing a resistive current, such as heating blankets Col. 5 lines 53 – 58, “resistive heating elements” Col. 7 lines 10 – 15, and lines 30 – 48).
As evidenced by NPL_1, heating blankets made from silicone rubber are well-known in the art, “blankets are made from silicone rubber, making them resistant to chemicals and moisture. They also feature rapid heat-up capabilities.”1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Pat. No. 3,587,137: Col. 3 lines 12 – 24 “Mention has been made of the initial, curing and stabilizing heats applied to the mold. Advantageously, the time of application thereof may be regulated by program control 21. Any available control unit may be employed for this purpose, it merely being necessary to specify the heat parameters, i.e., the number of burner valves in manifold 22 to be operated, the degree to which each valve shall be opened (in accordance with the dictates of its respective one of thermostats 16-20) and when each is to be adjusted. Of course, it is to be understood that electrical heating apparatus may be substituted for the burner bank 15 in which case appropriate rheostat devices would be employed instead of burner valve manifold 22.”
Gronquist (US 2007/0063509 A1): Joint infill cladding and applicator clamp, “A cladding or seal against entry of water is formed between the sleeve and the pipe covering. A fill/vent port is formed in the sleeve and allows introduction of the joint infill. The closure is later hermetically sealed to the sleeve over the injection port by electrical heating of conductive elements mounted on a surface of the closure.” (Abstract).
Brown (US Pat. No. 11,339,910 B1): An apparatus for shrouding the coated field joint area of connected line pipe segments, the shroud having first and second housing halves which have end walls which cooperate to form registering openings matching the diameter of the pipe to be shrouded, the housing halves forming a chamber. The housing can be of a clamshell design, being hinged on one side and having hasps, latches or the like on the other side to keep the shroud positioned once it is placed around the coated field joint area of a pipeline. An environment monitor is disposed in the chamber to measure conditions such as relative humidity and temperature. (Abstract).
Wyke (US Pat. No. 6,059,319): an apparatus for applying and/or repairing field joints on plastic-coated pipelines and, more specifically, to a device and system for thermally fusing a layer of plastic to the plastic pipe coating so as to cover and cathodically and mechanically protect the area of the weld joint of a pipeline in the field. Col. 1 lines 16 – 26.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9766. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:30.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EDGAREDMANUEL TROCHE/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
1 NPL_1 retrieved from https://www.briskheat.com/products/heaters/silicone-rubber.html?srsltid=AfmBOoqPh5EnGEh8ZtHVVas8dHqBhche6PEX37Xs32HqfwN1Ugf9YqG6