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 Objections
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 14. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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, 4, 10, 14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Vick, JR (20160265309).
Vick discloses a device, comprising:
Re claim 1:
a base magnetic tube 150 (i.e., fig. 2A);
an external magnetic tube 140; and
a pressure drop channel C (i.e., attached figure) for receiving a fluid via an inlet A comprising a first diameter and discharging the fluid via an outlet B comprising a second diameter (i.e., fluid pressure drops when it exits out of the channel to a bigger chamber in fig. 3).
wherein: the base magnetic tube 150 is fitted inside the external magnetic tube 140; the base magnetic tube (N-S) and the external magnetic tube (S-N) have different respective magnetic orientations (i.e., fig. 2A) and
PNG
media_image1.png
569
577
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the pressure drop channel C is formed in a fitting region between the base magnetic tube 150 and the external magnetic tube 140.
Re claim 4, the pressure drop channel has a circular geometric shape (i.e., wellbore is generally circular, thus tubes positioned in the wellbore 20 is generally circular).
Re claim 10, the base magnetic tube 150 and the external magnetic tube 140 are manufactured from metal alloys permeable to a magnetic field and contain a predefined percentage of at least one element capable of generating a magnetic field (i.e., the base magnetic tube 11 and the external magnetic tube 19 are metallic as shown by the cross-hatching: MPEP 608.02, subsection IX).
Re claims 14, 16, the base magnetic tube 150 comprises a south magnetic orientation S and the external magnetic tube 140 comprises a north magnetic orientation N (i.e., fig. 2A).
Re claim 17, the base magnetic tube 150 comprises a north magnetic orientation N and the external magnetic tube 140 comprises a south magnetic orientation S.
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.
Claim(s) 5-9, 11, 12, 15, 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vick, JR.
Re claim 5, Vick, JR. is silent pressure drop channel has a spiral arrangement. However, a spiral flow path is well known thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the channel of Vick, JR. with a spiral arrangement to protect pipe because the spiral flow path can withstand pipe deformation and corrugation. (https://www.bing.com/search?q=benefit+of+helical+fluid+path&cvid=4645f0e7b5d24ed6abe90f2e26e38250&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQ6QcY_FXSAQkxNDMyNmowajeoAgiwAgE&FORM=ANAB01&PC=U531)
And this also applies to claim 18 for a laminar flow.
Re claim 6. Vick, JR. is silent on the pressure drop channel comprises a spacing between spirals of 100 mm. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the channel of Vick, JR. with a spacing between spirals of 100 mm for a predictable performance of the spiral fluid path, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. This also applies to claims 7-9, 15, and 19-21 since they are directed to the range.
Re claims 11 and 12, Vick, JR. is silent on the permeable metal alloys are inconel (claim 11) and the at least one element capable of generating a magnetic field is one or more of neodymium, iron, boron, or a combination thereof (claim 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the metal of Vick, JR. with inconel and one or more of neodymium, iron, boron, or a combination thereof for a predictable performance of magnetic tubes, since it has been held to be within general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 are 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO whose telephone number is (571)270-5466. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30.
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, Tara Schimpf can be reached at 571-270-7741. 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.
/YONG-SUK (PHILIP) RO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3676
