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 .
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 heat recovery system to enhance thermal energy transmission between non-potable water and potable water comprising: the device according to claim 1 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 6, 15, and 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
“PVC” in claims 3, 6, 15, and 17, should be recited as “Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Regarding claim 18, the recitation of “A heat recovery system to enhance thermal energy transmission between non-potable water and potable water comprising: the device according to claim 1” is unclear since the device according to claim 1 appears to be the heat recovery system of claim 18. Further clarification is needed. Examiner has attempted to interprets the above, however, no clear claim interpretation can be made by Examiner. Examiner notes that Applicant’s correction of the deficiencies under 35 U.S.C. 112 may necessitate new grounds of rejection, see drawing objection above.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Milkin (RU178987U1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 1, Milkin teaches a heat recovery device to enhance thermal energy transmission between non-potable water and potable water (see Figure 1), the device comprising:
a conduit for non-potable water drainage (1) having a first end and a second end (ends of 1 adjacent 11 and 12), the conduit (1) comprising a first layer (inner surface of 1) configured to contact the non-potable water and a second layer (outer surface of 1) deposited on an outer surface of the first layer (see Figure 1),
wherein the first layer (inner surface of 1) and second layer (outer surface of 1) are comprised of one or more thermally conductive materials (see ¶ [19]), the second layer having a thickness less than a thickness of the first layer (Examiner notes that the layer of tape on the outer surface of conduit 1 and the spiral structure would inherently have a thickness less than the first layer, i.e. the thickness of the pipe wall, and spiral structure; see Figure 1 and ¶ [19]); and
an insulating jacket housing (7: ¶ [21]) surrounding the conduit and having an inlet housing end (8) and an outlet housing end (9: see ¶ [26]), the jacket housing (7) comprising a helical cut pathway (channels between rips 2) into an interior surface of the jacket housing ( interior surface of 7) and configured to transport potable water from the inlet housing end to the outlet housing end (see ¶¶ [26-30]);
wherein an innermost diameter of the jacket housing, formed by inner facing channel edges of the helical cut pathway, is disposed flush against and matches an exterior circumferential surface of the second layer (see Figure 1 where the innermost end of each rib 2 is abutting the outer surface of 1), such that the potable water flowing through the helical cut pathway is exposed to contact the exterior circumferential surface of the second layer (see ¶ [26]).
Regarding claim 2, Milkin further teaches further comprising:
a first coupling (4) configured to receive the inlet housing end (8) and the second end of the conduit (see Figure 1), the first coupling comprising an inlet portal (portal of 8) in fluid communication with the helical cut pathway at the inlet housing end (see ¶ [26]); and
a second coupling (5) configured to receive the outlet housing end (9) and the first end of the conduit (see Figure 1), the second coupling comprising an outlet portal (portal of 9) in fluid communication with the helical cut pathway at the outlet housing end (see ¶ [26]);
wherein a length of the conduit is longer than a length of the jacket housing, the conduit disposed within the jacket housing such that the first end and the second end each extend beyond the outlet housing end and inlet housing end respectively (see Figure 1 where the length of the channel defined by ribs 2 of Spiral Structure 3, being spirally disposed on the outer surface of conduit 1, is inherently longer than the length of conduit 1 from inlet 8 to outlet 9 as the length is a function of the height and diameter of conduit 1).
Regarding claim 7, Milkin further teaches wherein the thermally conductive materials comprise a metal composite mixture including at least one selected from the group consisting of aluminum, brass, cadmium, copper, graphene, nickel, steel, stainless steel, zinc, and mixtures thereof (conduit 1 and ribs 2 are made of copper: see ¶ [19]).
Regarding claim 8, Milkin further teaches wherein the first layer and the second layer each comprise copper (conduit 1 and ribs 2 are made of copper: see ¶ [19]).
Regarding claim 10, Milkin further teaches wherein first layer and the second layer are mechanically bonded together (the outer surface of conduit 1, including ribs 2 of Spiral Structure 3, is coated with coper tape, the adhesive of the tape being a mechanical bond; see Figure 1 and ¶ [19]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Milkin (RU178987U1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 12, Milkin teaches a thermal recovery device to enhance thermal energy transmission between two fluids (see Figure 1), the device comprising a plurality of layers including: a first inner layer (inner surface of 1) configured to surround and transport a first fluid; a second outer layer (outer surface of 1) deposited on to an outer surface of the first inner layer (see Figure 1 and ¶ [26]);
wherein the first inner layer and the second outer layer are mechanically bonded and together form a thermal exchange surface layer enhancing thermal transmission (the outer surface of conduit 1, including ribs 2 of Spiral Structure 3, is coated with copper tape, the adhesive of the tape being a mechanical bond; see Figure 1 and ¶ [19]); and
a third insulating layer (7) surrounding and concealing the second outer layer (see Figure 1), the third insulating (7) comprising a helical channel cut (channels between rips 2) into an interior surface of the third insulating layer (interior surface of 7) and configured to transport a second fluid (see ¶¶ [26-30]);
wherein an innermost diameter of the third insulating layer contacts flush against an exterior surface of the second outer layer (see Figure 1 where the innermost end of each rib 2 is abutting the outer surface of 1);
such that the second fluid which flows within the helical channel is exposed to the second outer layer and receives thermal energy from the first fluid (see ¶ [26]).
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Milkin (RU178987U1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 19, Milkin teaches a method for heat recovery between non-potable water and potable water using a heat recovery device (see Figure 1) comprising a conduit (1) configured for non-potable flow in one direction (see Figure 1 and ¶¶ [26-30]) and a jacket housing (7: ¶ [21]) surrounding and positioned flush against an exterior surface of the conduit (see Figure 1), wherein the jacket housing (7) comprises a helical rectangular cut channel (channels between rips 2) in an interior surface along a length of the jacket housing configured for potable water flow in another direction (the helical pathway is defined by the channels between rips 2 on the interior surface of jacket housing 7 and forming spiral structure 3 through which cold water to be heated flows from inlet 8 to outlet 9), the method comprising:
guiding non-potable water through an inside of the conduit, the non-potable water received at a first end of the conduit and discharged through a second end of the conduit (non-potable wastewater enters through the top of conduit 1 and exits through the bottom of conduit 1 as indicated by the arrows at the top and bottom of conduit 1; see Figure 1 and ¶¶ [26-30]);
receiving potable water at an inlet end of the rectangular cut channel of the jacket housing, wherein the inlet end is at an opposite end from the first end of the conduit (potable water enters the channels defined by ribs 2 through inlet pipe 8 opposite the inlet end of conduit 1; see Figure 1 and ¶¶ [26-30]);
circulating the potable water through the rectangular cut channel, the circulating potable water having direct contact with the exterior surface of the conduit (water flows through the channels defined by ribs 2 and receives heat from the non-potable water flowing through conduit 1; see Figure 1 and ¶¶ [21-30]);
transferring thermal energy from the inside of the conduit to the exterior surface (water flows through the channels defined by ribs 2 and receives heat from the non-potable water flowing through conduit 1; see Figure 1 and ¶¶ [21-30];
heating the potable water from the contact with the exterior surface (heat is transferred from the non-potable water flowing through conduit 1 to the water flowing through the channels defined by ribs 2; see Figure 1 and ¶¶ [21-30]); and
emitting the potable water at an outlet end of the rectangular cut channel of the jacket housing (heated water is emitted through Outlet Pipe 9; see Figure 1 and ¶¶ [26-30]).
Regarding claim 20, Milkin further teaches wherein the step of receiving potable water is conducted through an inlet portal (portal of 8) disposed on a first coupling (4) engaged with the inlet end and the second end (potable water is introduced into the channel defined ribs 2 through the portal of 8 at the inlet end of 7 adjacent first coupling 4: see Figure 1 and ¶¶ [26-30]);
wherein the step of emitting the potable water is conducted through an outlet portal (portal of 9) disposed on a second coupling (5) engaged with the outlet end and the first end (potable water exits the channel defined ribs 2 through the portal of 9 at the outlet end of 7 adjacent second coupling 5: see Figure 1 and ¶¶ [26-30]); and
wherein the first coupling (4) and the second coupling (5) maintaining a connection of the jacket housing with the conduit (the first coupling (4) and the second coupling (5) centrally receive the ends of conduit 1 through openings 12 and maintain the connection between 7, ribs 2 and the outer surface of conduit 1: see Figure 1 and ¶¶ [26-30]).
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.
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.
Claims 3 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milkin (RU178987U1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 3, Milkin does not teach wherein the first coupling and the second coupling are comprised of a clear PVC, the jacket housing is comprised of a PVC, and the helical cut pathway has a rectangular cross section.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first coupling and the second coupling of Milkin to be a clear PVC and the jacket housing to be a PVC since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of having increased durability and transparency.
Moreover, there is no evidence of record that establishes that changing the cross section of the helical cut pathway would result in a difference in function of the Milkin device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the cross section of the helical cut pathway of Milkin device, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed shape. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed shape solves any stated problem, indicating that “the thermal recovery device includes concentric conduits, pipes or tubes with a circular cross section to ensure even efficient transfer of thermal energy between the two fluids, however it can be understood that any shape, (for example, oval, elliptical, rectangular, square) can be used according to preference” ( specification at para. [0039]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the shape as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cross section of the helical cut pathway of Milkin to have a rectangular cross section as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 9, Milkin does not teach wherein the first layer and the second layer each comprise at least a copper mixture or a copper-graphene composite mixture.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the first layer and the second layer of Milkin to comprise at least a copper mixture or a copper-graphene composite mixture since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of having desired material with the design required thermal properties.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milkin (RU178987U1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner) in view of RIBEIRO (US20220404036A1).
Regarding claim 4, Milkin further teaches further comprising a plurality of attachments at the inlet housing end and the outlet housing end (see in Figure 1 where each of the inlet and outlet housing ends includes pipe).
Milkin does not teach further comprising a plurality of attachments at the first end of the conduit, the second end of the conduit, wherein the plurality of attachments includes a pair of end couplings, a pair of “O” rings, and a pair of end caps.
RIBEIRO teaches a heat recovery device (see Figures 2a-2c and 3a) comprising a plurality of attachments at an end (upper end of 66) of a conduit (66), wherein the plurality of attachments includes a pair of end couplings (126), a pair of “O” rings (144), and a pair of end caps (56).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the first end of the conduit and the second end of the conduit with the plurality of attachments includes a pair of end couplings, a pair of “O” rings, and a pair of end caps, as taught by RIBEIRO, such would provide the benefit of aiding in clamping the inlet manifold flange against the inlet and/or outlet port.
Regarding claim 6, Milkin does not teach wherein the plurality of attachments further includes a pair of end connectors, each configured to engage with one of the pair of end caps; and wherein the pair of end caps and the pair of end couplings are comprised of a clear PVC.
RIBEIRO further teaches a pair of end connectors (146: see Figure 2c), each configured to engage with one of the pair of end caps (see Figure 2c where 146 engage with 56).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the first end of the conduit and the second end of the conduit with a pair of end connectors, each configured to engage with one of the pair of end caps, as taught by RIBEIRO, such would provide the benefit of aiding in clamping the inlet manifold flange against the inlet and/or outlet port.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pair of end caps and the pair of end couplings of Milkin in view of RIBEIRO to be a clear PVC since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of having increased durability and transparency.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milkin (RU178987U1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner) in view of GAO (CN212417464U: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 11, Milkin does not teach wherein an interior surface of the first layer further comprises at least one super hydrophilic/oleophobic coating.
GAO teaches a heat recovery device (see Figure 1) comprising separator 1, Oil/Water tanks 4 and 5, heat exchange box 14, that includes a hydrophilic oleophobic coated component 17 in a fluid flow path; see ¶ [23]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the interior surface of the first layer with at least one super hydrophilic/oleophobic coating, as taught by GAO, such would provide the benefit of preventing adhesion of greasy dirt and influence heat exchange efficiency on the heat exchanger tube.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milkin (RU178987U1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner) in view of GAO (CN212417464U: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 13, Milkin does not teach wherein an interior surface of the first inner layer further comprises at least one super hydrophilic/oleophobic coating selected from the group consisting of TiO2 (Titanium dioxide), SiO2 (Silica dioxide), GO (Graphene Dioxide), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), chitosan (CTS), glutaraldehyde (GA) with TiO2 (Titanium oxide) nanoparticles and plasma films using oxygen or ammonia.
GAO teaches a heat recovery device (see Figure 1) comprising separator 1, Oil/Water tanks 4 and 5, heat exchange box 14, that includes a hydrophilic oleophobic coated component 17 in a fluid flow path; see ¶ [23]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the interior surface of the first layer with at least one super hydrophilic/oleophobic coating, as taught by GAO, such would provide the benefit of preventing adhesion of greasy dirt and influence heat exchange efficiency on the heat exchanger tube.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select at least one super hydrophilic/oleophobic coating selected from the group consisting of TiO2 (Titanium dioxide), SiO2 (Silica dioxide), GO (Graphene Dioxide), polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), chitosan (CTS), glutaraldehyde (GA) with TiO2 (Titanium oxide) nanoparticles and plasma films using oxygen or ammonia since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of optimization for the purpose of providing an appropriate material for the environment in which the device is to be used.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milkin (RU178987U1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner) in view of TIAN (CN2906514Y: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 14, Milkin further teaches wherein the plurality of layers are arranged cylindrically and concentrically in a vertical direction (the device is installed in vertical sections of domestic and wastewater sewage systems: see Figure 1 and ¶ ¶ [14, 16, 30]).
Milkin does not teach a spirit level attached to an outside surface of the third insulating layer.
TIAN teaches a spirit level attached to an outside surface of the third insulating layer (Spirit Levels 21 and 22 are mounted on Enclosure 20 of Wastewater Heat Exchanger 1; see Figures 1, 2 and ¶ [6]).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the thermal recovery device of Milkin with a spirit level attached to an outside surface of the third insulating layer, as taught by TIAN, such would provide the benefit of ensuring the required level is reached for efficient flow.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milkin (RU178987U1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner).
Regarding claim 15, Milkin further teaches further comprising:
a first coupling (4) disposed at a first terminal end of the device (see Figure 1) and a second coupling (5) disposed at a second terminal end of the device (see Figure 1);
wherein each coupling (4 and 5) configured to centrally receive one of the first and second terminal ends, and maintain a connection of the third insulating layer on the second outer layer (the first coupling (4) and the second coupling (5) centrally receive the ends of conduit 1 through openings 12 and maintain the connection between 7, ribs 2 and the outer surface of conduit 1: see Figure 1 and ¶¶ [26-30]); and
wherein the first coupling (4) comprises an inlet (portal of 8) and the second coupling (5) comprises outlet (portal of 9), the inlet and outlet each fluidly connected to a corresponding end of the helical channel in the third insulating layer (see Figure 1).
Milkin does not teach each coupling (4 and 5) comprised of a clear PVC.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pair of end caps and the pair of end couplings of Milkin in view of RIBEIRO to be a clear PVC since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of having increased durability and transparency.
Regarding claim 17, Milkin does not teach wherein the first inner layer comprises a copper/graphene mixture, the second outer layer comprises a copper/graphene mixture and the third insulating layer comprises a PVC.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the first inner layer and the second outer layer of Milkin to comprise a copper/graphene mixture, and the third insulating layer to be a PVC since it has been held “[t]he selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (Claims to a printing ink comprising a solvent having the vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol so that the ink would not dry at room temperature but would dry quickly upon heating were held invalid over a reference teaching a printing ink made with a different solvent that was nonvolatile at room temperature but highly volatile when heated in view of an article which taught the desired boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of a solvent for printing inks and a catalog teaching the boiling point and vapor pressure characteristics of butyl carbitol. "Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-Saw puzzle." 325 U.S. at 335, 65 USPQ at 301.)”: such provision would provide the benefit of having increased durability and transparency.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milkin (RU178987U1: Machine Translation is provided by Examiner) in view of Fenner (US4154293A).
Regarding claim 16, Milkin further teaches wherein the second outer layer has a thickness less than a thickness of the first inner layer (Examiner notes that the layer of tape on the outer surface of conduit 1 and the spiral structure would inherently have a thickness less than the first layer, i.e. the thickness of the pipe wall, and spiral structure; see Figure 1 and ¶ [19]).
Milkin does not teach wherein the thermal exchange surface layer includes micro-dendritic structures resulting from deposition of the second outer layer on to the outer surface of the first inner layer such that a surface area of the second outer layer is increased.
Fenner teaches wherein the thermal exchange surface layer includes micro-dendritic structures resulting from deposition of the second outer layer on to the outer surface of the first inner layer such that a surface area of the second outer layer is increased (the micro-dendritic structure, i.e. channels formed by voids between randomly distributed metal bodies bonded to the inner surface of the first inner layer of a metal pipe; see Figures 1-3, 7 and Col. 2, Ln. 39-Col. 3, Ln. 18).
It would, therefore, have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide the thermal recovery device of Milkin with micro-dendritic structures, as taught by Fenner, such would provide the benefit of enhancing heat transfer for the fluids flowing over the surface of the pipe (Col. 2, Ln. 39-43).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 5 is containing allowable subject matter since Milkin in view of RIBEIRO, GAO, TIAN, or Fenner fails to teach wherein each of the inlet housing end and the outlet housing end is enclosed within a respective end coupling, and each of the first end of the conduit and the second end of the conduit extends through a respective end coupling and partly into a respective end cap.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHALED AL SAMIRI whose telephone number is (571)272-8685. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30AM~3:30PM, M-F (E.S.T.).
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached at (571) 270-7740. 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.
/KHALED AHMED ALI AL SAMIRI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights