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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over DE 10202186 herein referred to as Mieck et al.
As to claim 1, Mieck et al discloses (see paragraphs [0012]-[0015], [0028] and [0034]-[0036]; figure 1), a pipeline section (paragraph 34) of a pipe system in a heat network (paragraph 6), which is provided for the purpose of transferring a heat transfer fluid between a heat provider and at least one heat consumer (implicitly disclosed, see supply and disposal lines in paragraph 6), wherein a pipeline extending over the pipeline section for the purpose of transferring the heat transfer fluid is arranged together with a bedding material (material
of the support 3 and excavation material at the remaining locations) in a lower region of a trench (see figure 1) which is filled in an upper region with a filling material (also excavation material), wherein the pipeline section is subdivided into a plurality of segments (segment in which the support 3 is formed and an additional segment between the supports), wherein a segment characteristic variable, determined for each segment on the basis of at least one physical soil characteristic variable, of two adjacent segments differ by more than a predefined segment characteristic variable difference value (since this is not specified and the segments are back-filled with different materials, these necessarily must differ), and a first segment embedding of a pipeline segment, introduced in the trench in a first segment (excavation material), in a water-permeable segment bedding material (Weimarer construction mortar, paragraph 13) differs from a second segment embedding of a second pipeline segment introduced in the trench in a second segment, in a second water-permeable segment bedding material (filling material).
Since neither the characteristic variable nor the difference value are more precisely defined, a person skilled in the art cannot consider or infer from the claimed section the criteria according to which the bedding material was selected. Mieck et al thus discloses having two different bedding materials (Weimarer construction mortar in the region of the supports and the excavation material in the intermediate regions).
As to claim 2, Mieck et al discloses wherein at least one segment bedding material comprises a portion of trench segment material which was excavated within the segment concerned during the excavation of the trench (wee paragraph 42, in the additional segment, the bedding material and the filling material is identical).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10202186 herein referred to as Mieck et al. alone.
As to claim 3, Mieck et al is silent to wherein the pipeline segment has, in at least one segment, at least one pipeline element with a length of more than 100 meters. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a length of 100 meters because it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 10202186 herein referred to as Mieck et al in view of EP 3165831 herein referred to as Rosen.
As to claim 4, Mieck et al is silent to wherein the pipeline segment comprises a plastics pipe segment with a length-unit-related pipeline heat loss higher than a specified heat loss limit value. Rosen discloses (see para. [0042-0045]) pipeline segment formed from plastic with a length-unit-related pipeline heat loss higher than a specified heat loss limit value. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a plastic pipe with a length-unit-related pipeline heat loss higher than a specified heat loss limit value as disclosed by Rosen, since doing so provides the expected benefit of providing a corrosion resistant pipe
As to claim 5, Mieck et al is silent to wherein the pipeline segment comprises a single-walled plastics pipeline element made of polyethylene. Rosen discloses (see para [0042]) pipe segment made from polyethylene. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a pipeline made from polyethylene, since doing so provides the expected benefit of providing a corrosion resistant pipe.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. 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.
/CARIB A OQUENDO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Prosecution Insights