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
Claims 21-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 7, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “flowable coating material stored in the internal chamber”, “first position”, “second position” in claims 1 and 20, “ferromagnetic material” in claim 4, “ball” in claims 6-7, “self-sealing aperture” in claim 8, “aperture” in claim 9, “second position” and “coating material flows freely” in claim 11, and “plurality of cavities” in claims 18-19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
One information disclosure statement (IDS) has been received in this application with 1 US patent publication and 1 foreign patent publication. Applicant is reminded of the requirements under 37 CFR 1.56(a) for each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application having a duty of candor and good faith in dealing with the Office, which includes a duty to disclose to the Office all information known to that individual to be material to patentability as defined in 37 CFR 1.56(a) section.
Claim Interpretation
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “coating delivery member” in claims 1 and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 10-11, 14-16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20100295198 A1 to Larry W. Kiest, Jr. (hereinafter Kiest) in view of US Pat. Num. 7,032,783 B1 to Kamp et al (hereinafter Kamp).
Regarding claim 1, Kiest teaches a coating device for coating an internal wall (1, 12) of a hollow vessel, the coating device comprising:
a body ( 10, 25 ) defining an internal chamber (interior of 28) ; a flowable coating material (resin Part A and Part) stored in the internal chamber (interior of 28);
a cavity (interior of 24) defined in the body ;
a coating delivery member (nozzle) supported in the cavity, the coating delivery member movable between a first position and a second position(inside the manhole 62 and outside the manhole); and
a channel (22) defined in the body, wherein the channel extends between the cavity (interior of 24) and the internal chamber (interior of 28) , wherein the coating material flows out of the internal chamber through the channel, and wherein the coating delivery member (25) facilitates the coating material to flow out of the channel (22) when the coating delivery member is in the second position (inserted inside the downstream manhole 62). (See Kiest, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 2-3, 13-15, 20-21, 24-27, 29, 32-37, 40-41.)
Kiest teaches the coating delivery member movable between a first position (25 inserted outside of manhole 62). and a second position (25 inserted inside of manhole 62). (See Kiest, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 2-3, 13-15, 20-21, 24-27, 29, 32-37, 40-41.)
Kiest does not explicitly teach the coating delivery member prevents the coating material from flowing out of the channel when the coating delivery member is in the first position.
Kamp is directed to a pump dispenser for liquid products.
Kamp teaches the coating delivery member (56) prevents the coating material from flowing out of the channel when the coating delivery member is in the first position (inactive position). ( Kamp, Abstract, col. 4, lines 24-63; col. 5, lines 1-3; col. 7, lines 26-40; Fig. 1, 15, 18-20.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the coating delivery member prevents the coating material from flowing out of the channel when the coating delivery member is in the first position, because Kamp teaches this would prevent the liquid from being dispensed when the pump is in an inactive position. ( Kamp, Abstract, col. 4, lines 24-63; col. 5, lines 1-3; col. 7, lines 26-40; Fig. 1, 15, 18-20.)
Regarding claim 3, Kiest teaches the coating delivery member is displaced into the second position when the coating device is in contact with the internal wall of the hollow vessel. (See Kiest, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 2-3, 13-15, 20-21, 24-27, 29, 32-37, 40-41.)
Regarding claim 6, Kiest does not explicitly teach the coating delivery member comprises a ball.
Kamp teaches the coating delivery member comprises a ball (56). ( See Kamp, Abstract, col. 4, lines 24-63; col. 5, lines 1-3; col. 7, lines 26-40; Fig. 1, 15, 18-20.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the coating delivery member prevents the coating material from flowing out of the channel when the coating delivery member is in the first position, because Kamp teaches this structure would prevent the liquid from being dispensed when the pump is in an inactive position. ( See Kamp, Abstract, col. 4, lines 24-63; col. 5, lines 1-3; col. 7, lines 26-40; Fig. 1, 15, 18-20.)
Regarding claim 7, Kiest does not explicitly teach the ball is rotatably supported within the cavity.
Kamp teaches the ball (56) is rotatably supported within the cavity. ( See Kamp, Abstract, col. 4, lines 24-63; col. 5, lines 1-3; col. 7, lines 26-40; Fig. 1, 15, 18-20.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the ball is rotatably supported within the cavity, because Kamp teaches this structure would prevent the liquid from being dispensed when the pump is in an inactive position. (See Kamp, Abstract, col. 4, lines 24-63; col. 5, lines 1-3; col. 7, lines 26-40; Fig. 1, 15, 18-20.)
Regarding claim 10, Kiest teaches the body further comprises an interface having a geometry that is complementary to a geometry of the internal wall of the hollow vessel. (See Kiest, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 2-3, 13-15, 20-21, 24-27, 29, 32-37, 40-41.)
Regarding claim 11, Kiest teaches the coating material freely flows out of the cavity when the coating delivery member is in the second position, wherein a flow path of the coating material is defined as passing out of the internal chamber, through the channel, and out of the cavity when the coating delivery member is in the second position. (See Kiest, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 2-3, 13-15, 20-21, 24-27, 29, 32-37, 40-41.)
Regarding claim 14, Kiest teaches the body (10, 25) comprises an exterior surface, wherein a lip (external side of 25) extends from the exterior surface of the body to surround at least a portion of the cavity (24). (See Kiest, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 2-3, 13-15, 20-21, 24-27, 29, 32-37, 40-41.)
Regarding claim 15, Kiest teaches the body is hemispherical (outer perimeter of 24 upper portion and lower portion in Figs. 3-4). (See Kiest, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 2-3, 13-15, 20-21, 24-27, 29, 32-37, 40-41.)
Regarding claim 16, Kiest teaches the body comprises a first portion having a perimeter (inner perimeter of 35 in Figs. 3-4), wherein the cavity (interior of 24) is defined within the perimeter, and wherein a raised projection (ends of 26) extends from the body around the perimeter. (See Kiest, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 2-3, 13-15, 20-21, 24-27, 29, 32-37, 40-41.)
Regarding claim 18, Kiest teaches the cavity (interior of 24) comprises a plurality of cavities (interior of 24 upper portion and lower portion in Figs. 3-4) defined in the body, and wherein the plurality of cavities are equally spaced apart from one another. (See Kiest, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 2-3, 13-15, 20-21, 24-27, 29, 32-37, 40-41.)
Regarding claim 19, Kiest teaches the cavity comprises a plurality of cavities (interior of 24 upper portion and lower portion in Figs. 3-4) defined in the body within a perimeter. (See Kiest, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 2-3, 13-15, 20-21, 24-27, 29, 32-37, 40-41.)
Claims 2, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20100295198 A1 to Larry W. Kiest, Jr. (hereinafter Kiest) in view of US Pat. Num. 7,032,783 B1 to Kamp et al (hereinafter Kamp) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20180029864 A1 to Blackburn (hereinafter Blackburn).
Regarding claim 2, Kiest does not explicitly teach a pressurized bladder positioned within the internal chamber, wherein the flowable coating material surrounds at least a portion of the pressurized bladder, wherein the pressurized bladder maintains the coating delivery member in the first position when the coating device is positioned apart from the internal wall of the hollow vessel.
Blackburn is directed to a fluid dispenser with an isolation membrane.
Blackburn teaches a pressurized bladder (11, 21) positioned within the internal chamber (12), wherein the flowable coating material surrounds at least a portion of the pressurized bladder, wherein the pressurized bladder maintains the coating delivery member in the first position when the coating device is positioned apart from the internal wall of the hollow vessel. (See Blackburn, Abstract, Figs. 1-15, and paragraphs 3, 14, 17, 26, 140, 142, 145, 154, 168, 177, and 200.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a pressurized bladder positioned within the internal chamber, wherein the flowable coating material surrounds at least a portion of the pressurized bladder, wherein the pressurized bladder maintains the coating delivery member in the first position when the coating device is positioned apart from the internal wall of the hollow vessel; because Blackburn teaches this structure is compatible with self-closing ball valve and would enable sealing against leakage until installation and enabling it for intended use. (See Blackburn, Abstract, Figs. 1-15, and paragraphs 3, 14, 17, 26, 140, 142, 145, 154, 168, 177, and 200.)
Regarding claim 9, Kiest does not explicitly teach the body further comprises an aperture to permit a pressurized gas to be loaded into the bladder
Blackburn teaches the body further comprises an aperture (24 feed line into collar 15)to permit a pressurized gas to be loaded into the bladder. (See Blackburn, Abstract, Figs. 1-15, and paragraphs 10, 81, 154, 159, 171, 173 , 176, 177, 179-180, 182)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the body further comprises an aperture to permit a pressurized gas to be loaded into the bladder; because Blackburn teaches this structure enables the product to be dispensed. (See Blackburn, Abstract, Figs. 1-15, and paragraphs 10, 81, 154, 159, 171, 173 , 176, 177, 179-180, 182)
Regarding claim 13, Kiest does not explicitly teach the pressurized bladder is flexible and is generally spherical.
Blackburn teaches the pressurized bladder is flexible and is generally spherical. (See Blackburn, Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 10, 81, 154, 159, 171, 173 , 176, 177, 179-180, 182)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the pressurized bladder is flexible and is generally spherical; because Blackburn teaches this structure enables the product to be dispensed. (See Blackburn, Abstract, Fig. 1, and paragraphs 10, 81, 154, 159, 171, 173 , 176, 177, 179-180, 182)
Claims 4, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20100295198 A1 to Larry W. Kiest, Jr. (hereinafter Kiest) in view of US Pat. Num. 7,032,783 B1 to Kamp et al (hereinafter Kamp) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20190344233 A1 to Joseph Camillo Savino (hereinafter Savino).
Regarding claim 4, Kiest does not explicitly teach the body comprises a ferromagnetic material.
Savino is directed to a static mixer.
Savino teaches a static mixer can be made of any material. (See Savino, Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraph 42.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the body comprises a ferromagnetic material; because Savino teaches this is a suitable material for a static mixer. (See Savino, Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraph 42.)
Regarding claim 15, Kiest does not explicitly teach the body is generally hemispherical.
Savino is directed to a static mixer.
Savino teaches a static mixer can be any shape. (See Savino, Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraph 42.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the body is generally hemispherical.; because Savino teaches this is a suitable shape for a static mixer. (See Savino, Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraph 42.)
Regarding claim 17, Kiest does not explicitly teach the body is generally spherical.
Savino teaches a static mixer can be any shape. (See Savino, Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraph 42.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the body is generally spherical.; because Savino teaches this is a suitable shape for a static mixer. (See Savino, Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraph 42.)
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20100295198 A1 to Larry W. Kiest, Jr. (hereinafter Kiest) in view of US Pat. Num. 7,032,783 B1 to Kamp et al (hereinafter Kamp) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20130340793 A1 to Fredrik Lund (hereinafter Lund).
Regarding claim 5, Kiest does not explicitly teach the coating device is selectively moved through the hollow vessel by an externally placed magnet
Lund is directed to a method for operating a pipeline pig.
Lund teaches the coating device is selectively moved through the hollow vessel by an externally placed magnet. (See Lund, Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 17-20, 26-27, 31-32, 35, 43-45, 53, 55, 58, 70-73, 75-78, and 82-84.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the coating device is selectively moved through the hollow vessel by an externally placed magnet because Lund teaches this structure enables the pig to moved along the pipe. (See Lund, Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 17-20, 26-27, 31-32, 35, 43-45, 53, 55, 58, 70-73, 75-78, and 82-84.)
Regarding claim 20, Kiest teaches a coating system, the coating system comprising:
a body ( 10, 25 ) defining an internal chamber (interior of 28) ; a flowable coating material stored in the internal chamber (material flowing through the static mixer);
a cavity (interior of 24) defined in the body ;
a coating delivery member (nozzle) supported in the cavity, the coating delivery member movable between a first position and a second position (inside the manhole 62 and outside the manhole) ; and
a channel (22) defined in the body, wherein the channel extends between the cavity (interior of 24) and the internal chamber (interior of 28) , wherein the coating material flows out of the internal chamber through the channel, and wherein the coating delivery member (25) facilitates the coating material to flow out of the channel (22) when the coating delivery member is in the second position (inserted inside the downstream manhole 62) and a hollow vessel (62), comprising: an internal wall (interior of 64); and an external wall (exterior of 64) . (See Kiest, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 2-3, 13-15, 20-21, 24-27, 29, 32-37, 40-41.)
Kiest teaches the coating delivery member movable between a first position (25 inserted outside of manhole 62). and a second position (25 inserted inside of manhole 62). (See Kiest, Abstract, Figs. 1-5, paragraphs 2-3, 13-15, 20-21, 24-27, 29, 32-37, 40-41.)
Kiest does not explicitly teach the coating delivery member prevents the coating material from flowing out of the channel when the coating delivery member is in the first position.
Kamp is directed to a pump dispenser for liquid products.
Kamp teaches the coating delivery member (56) prevents the coating material from flowing out of the channel when the coating delivery member is in the first position (inactive position). ( Kamp, Abstract, col. 4, lines 24-63; col. 5, lines 1-3; col. 7, lines 26-40; Fig. 1, 15, 18-20.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the coating delivery member prevents the coating material from flowing out of the channel when the coating delivery member is in the first position, because Kamp teaches this would prevent the liquid from being dispensed when the pump is in an inactive position. ( Kamp, Abstract, col. 4, lines 24-63; col. 5, lines 1-3; col. 7, lines 26-40; Fig. 1, 15, 18-20.)
Kiest does not explicitly teach a magnet selectively positioned on the external wall of the hollow vessel, wherein the coating device is selectively positioned against the internal wall of the hollow vessel by the magnet.
Lund teaches a magnet selectively positioned on the external wall of the hollow vessel, wherein the coating device is selectively positioned against the internal wall of the hollow vessel by the magnet (See Lund, Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 17-20, 26-27, 31-32, 35, 43-45, 53, 55, 58, 70-73, 75-78, and 82-84.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include a magnet selectively positioned on the external wall of the hollow vessel, wherein the coating device is selectively positioned against the internal wall of the hollow vessel by the magnet, because Lund teaches this structure would enable the coating device to be moved within the pipeline. (See Lund, Abstract, Fig. 1 and paragraphs 17-20, 26-27, 31-32, 35, 43-45, 53, 55, 58, 70-73, 75-78, and 82-84.)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20100295198 A1 to Larry W. Kiest, Jr. (hereinafter Kiest) in view of US Pat. Num. 7,032,783 B1 to Kamp et al (hereinafter Kamp) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Num. 6,062,436 to Timothy J. Fuchs (hereinafter Fuchs).
Regarding claim 8, Kiest does not explicitly teach the body further comprises a self-sealing aperture for injecting coating material therethrough
Fuchs is directed to a structure for filling an discontinuity in a pipeline.
Fuchs teaches the body further comprises a self-sealing aperture for injecting coating material therethrough. ( See Fuchs, Abstract, col. 1, 4-7, 28-65; Figs. 1-13.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the body further comprises a self-sealing aperture for injecting coating material therethrough, because Fuchs teaches this structure would enable the dispenser to be closed automatically following venting. ( See Fuchs, Abstract, col. 1, 4-7, 28-65; col. 3, lines 25-35, Figs. 1-13.)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pat. Pub. No. 20100295198 A1 to Larry W. Kiest, Jr. (hereinafter Kiest) in view of US Pat. Num. 7,032,783 B1 to Kamp et al (hereinafter Kamp) as applied to claim 1 and further in view of US Pat. Pub. No. 20030039752 A1 to Winiewicz et al (hereinafter Winiewicz).
Regarding claim 12, Kiest does not explicitly teach the coating delivery member comprises a spray nozzle.
Winiewicz is directed to a structure for filling an discontinuity in a pipeline.
Winiewicz teaches the coating delivery member comprises a spray nozzle. ( See Winiewicz , Abstract, paragraphs 10-12, 26-27, 62, 80, and 99; Figs. 1, 8, 31.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the coating delivery member comprises a spray nozzle, because Winiewicz teaches this structure would enable the hollow structure to be sprayed with coating at the desired location. ( See Winiewicz , Abstract, paragraphs 10-12, 26-27, 62, 80, and 99; Figs. 1, 8, 31.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARL V KURPLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8 AM-5 PM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/KARL KURPLE/Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1717
Prosecution Insights