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 § 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.
Claim 18 is 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.
It is unclear as to what “room temperature” is. Room temperature can be ranging from 68 to 74 degrees Fahrenheit or could be a room that does not have access to heat or one without air conditioning. It therefore is unclear as to what limitations are being imparted to the claim per the “room temperature” limitation.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 17, 18, and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Miller, Jr. (5,193,587)(Hereinafter Miller).
Miller discloses a portable pipe-thawing device comprising: a water reservoir (30); a water pumping parting part (24); and a hose (56) connected to receive water from the water pumping part and spray the water out of an end of the hose (col. 3, lines 6-27).
Regarding claim 9, the end of the hose comprises a nozzle (60); and the nozzle is configured to form a jet stream of water, in use.
Regarding claim 10, the water pumping part is configured to, in use, pump water out of the end of the hose in a pulsing action (abstract).
Regarding claim 17, the method as disclosed is met per the apparatus as indicated above (see Title).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood, Miller would meet the claim limitations since Miller discloses utilizing a burner to heat the water and also since it is unclear what the limitation “room temperature” really intends.
Regarding claim 20, Miller would meet the claim limitation of the water is pumped into the frozen pipe to form an axial liquid water conduit bounded radially by ice within the interior of the frozen pipe since this limitation would be created as the jet of hot water start to erode the impingement spot of the frozen pipe.
Regarding claim 21, the apparatus of Miller would meet the claim language of advancing the hose through the axial liquid water conduit until the axial liquid water conduit surpasses an ice blockage within the frozen water pipe.
Regarding claim 22, wherein the water is pumped using a pulsing action (abstract).
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) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Mikkelson (4,986,311).
Miller fails to disclose that the water pumping part is mounted below a base of the water reservoir. Mikkelson discloses that the pump (32) is mounted below the water reservoir (12) as seen in Figure 4 (col. 3, lines 46-50). Mikkelson further discloses that the reservoir is part of a mobile system.
It would have been obvious to utilized a pump in the position as indicated per Mikkelson with the system of Miller, in order to utilize the gravity feed of a reservoir to the pump inlet which further would be useful in a mobile system for supplying the thawing system to a remote location per the mobile device that would need a tank feed for the system.
Regarding claim 3, Miller in combination with Mikkelson discloses the water pumping part is mounted within a pump compartment defined below the water reservoir.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Gilpatrick (2012/0006431).
Miller discloses all the features of the claimed invention except that the water pumping part comprises a positive displacement pump. While Miller fails to disclose a positive displacement pump the use of a positive displacement pump is common practice in industry. Gilpatrick discloses a water sprayer with a pump (230) and the pump is disclosed as being multiple styles of pumps and one of the options is a positive displacement pump (para.48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilized a positive displacement pump as disclosed by Gilpatrick in place of the pump of Miller, since the use of a positive displacement pump is a known option for use with spraying and will work equally as well as the pump of Miller.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller in view of Baker (3,633,826).
Miller discloses all the features of the claimed invention except that the hose is structured to be adjustable in length and further that the hose is formed of plural hose section that can be added or removed end-to-end via hose connectors to increase or decrease, respectively, a length of the hose. Baker discloses the use of hose section to accommodate a particular desired length as can be seen in Figure 3 (col. 4, line 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to utilized sections of hosing as disclosed by Baker with the hosing of Miller, in order to have a delivery system that can reach different frozen sections of the pipe that are different lengths from the access point.
Regarding claim 8, the hose is formed of plural hose sections as can be seen in Figure 3 of Baker that can be added or removed end to end via hose connectors to increase of decrease, respectively, a length of the hose.
Claim(s) 19 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller.
Miller discloses all the features of the claimed invention except that the water reservoir with externally-heated hot water that is at or above thirty degrees Celsius. The source (30) of water for Miller could be a number of things including a residential water supply. Further if one is using a residential water supply system then starting with hot water from a hot water heater to thaw something would be a preferred water source.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing of the invention to utilize water from a hot water heater which the average water temperature is above 48 degrees Celsius, since the intent is to thaw a frozen pipe.
Regarding claim 23, Miller fails to disclose that the water comprises a saline solution.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to incorporate a saline solution with the water supply of Miller, since a water saline solution is know to lower the freezing temperature of water and therefore would aid in the thawing of frozen water.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 5, 11-16 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. St. Laurent (4,124,039), Mast (4,250,925), and Patterson (5,715,869) disclose pipe thawing systems similar to applicant’s claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG M SCHNEIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-3607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Alford Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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.
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights