Claims 1-10 are pending in the application. Claim 10 has been withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claim 1-9 are rejected.
The 112 rejection has been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response.
The rejections over Furuta alone and further in view of Meersserman have been overcome in view of the present amendment and response. None of the cited references disclose or suggest the foamed resin insulation material being molded in a shape surrounding a peripheral surface of a fluid transfer pipe.
New ground of rejection is made in view of newly discovered reference to Batallas et al. (US 2010/0154917).
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.
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 1-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0154917 to Batallas et al. (hereinafter “Batallas”) in view of US 2018/0251376 to Fukazawa et al. (hereinafter “Fukazawa”).
As to claims 1 and 6, Batallas discloses an insulated pipe 10 comprising a pipe 12 and a composite insulation system arranged around the pipe as shown in figure 3.
PNG
media_image1.png
466
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The 2nd insulation layer 20 is disposed between the first and second reinforcement layers 18 and 22 (paragraph 120). The 2nd insulation layer is made of a thermoplastic foam comprising polyurethane foam, polyethylene foam, polypropylene foam or phenolic foam (paragraphs 120-122). The reinforcement layers are made of woven fabrics of heat-resistant materials such as glass fibers (paragraph 143). The 2nd insulation layer is integrated with the reinforcement layers.
Batallas does not explicitly disclose the 2nd insulation layer comprising a negative thermal expansion material having a volume that is contracted when a temperature rises and that is expanded when a temperature falls.
Fukazawa, however, discloses a negative thermal expansion material having excellent dispersibility and packing properties used in combination with a positive thermal expansion material wherein the negative thermal expansion material comprises manganese nitride, zirconium tungsten phosphate, bismuth-nickel-iron oxide, zirconium phosphate (paragraph 99). The negative thermal expansion material is blended in paste comprising a solvent, a binder, a flux material and a dispersant, in a volume of 5% to 65% (paragraph 93).
Fukazawa also teaches that that the negative thermal expansion material comprises spherical zirconium tungsten phosphate having a BET specific surface area of 2 m2/g or smaller (abstract). The positive thermal expansion material includes a polyethylene, polypropylene, polystyrene, phenol resin, and rubber (paragraph 101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate zirconium tungsten phosphate in a volume of 5% to 65% disclosed in Fukawawa in the foam layer of Batallas, motivated by the desire to provide suppress changes in the thermal expansion of the foam caused by fluctuations in temperature, thereby reducing the risk of structural failure due to thermal stress and providing greater dimensional stability of the insulated pipe.
As to claims 2-4, Batallas discloses that the reinforcement layers are made of woven fabrics of heat-resistant materials such as glass fibers (paragraph 143). The 2nd insulation layer is integrated with the reinforcement layers wherein each reinforcement layer reads on the claimed fiber sheet composed of intersecting warp yarns and weft yarns.
Claims 5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batallas in view of Fukazawa as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of US 2021/0246273 to Tsuzuki (hereinafter “Tzuzuki”).
Neither Batallas nor Fukazawa discloses or suggests the foam layer of the insulated pipe comprising cellulose nanofiber powder and its content of 1 wt% or more with respect to an amountt of filled unformed resin.
Tsuzuki, however, discloses a resin molded article obtained from a resin composition comprising a polyurethane resin and cellulose nanofibers to provide sufficient mechanical properties and thermal properties and excellent wear resistance (abstract). The resin composition comprises 3 to 50 parts by weight of cellulose nanofibers with respect to 100 parts by mass of the polyurethane resin (paragraph 115). The resin composition can be molded into a member using foam injection molding (paragraph 338). The member is useful as an insulating tube (paragraph 341).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add cellulose nanofiber powder and its content disclosed in Tsuzuki in the foam layer disclosed in Batallas/Fukazawa, motivated by the desire to provide sufficient mechanical properties and thermal properties and excellent wear resistance.
Response to Arguments
The rejection over Furuta alone and in combination of several references have been withdrawn in view of the present amendment and response. None of the cited references disclose or suggest the foamed resin insulation material being molded in a shape surrounding a peripheral surface of a pipe.
New ground of rejection in view of new combination of Batallas and Fukazawa.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Day (US 5,834,082) discloses a billet is formed by stacking foam boards and porous fibrous sheets in an alternative fashion. The billet is cut along parallel spaced planes to form flexible composite foam panels. A pipe is wrapped with the foam panels for thermally insulating the pipe (figure 15).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hai Vo whose telephone number is (571)272-1485. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 am - 6:00 pm with every other Friday off.
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, Alicia Chevalier can be reached at 571-272-1490. 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.
/Hai Vo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1788
Prosecution Insights