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 .
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 6/2/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Hence, claims 1-14 remain in the application with claims 10-14 having been withdrawn from considerations as being directed toward a non-elected invention in paper filed 6/2/26. Claims 1-9 remain in the application for prosecution thereof.
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.
Claims 1-9 are 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 1, the terms “such as” renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The term “the pressure” is unclear and confusing as to which pressure is being referenced? The first pressure? The second pressure? Both? Clarification is requested.
Regarding claim 8, the term “one of the polymers” is unclear and confusing as only “a polymer” is recited and not more than one. Clarification is requested. The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 9, the term “the pressure” is unclear and confusing as to which pressure is being referenced? The first pressure? The second pressure? Both? Clarification is requested. The term “the access channel” lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being based upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0778088 (a) alone or (b) in combination with Projahn (2,246,063).
EP 0778088 teaches a method and apparatus for molding lining a pipe whereby a powdery hot-meltable fluorine resin material is sealed in a pipe (claimed inserting and applying lignin material), and thereafter the pie is heated and rotated about its axis and the melted resin is applied to the inner portion of the pipe by centrifugal force (claimed fixing and heating) and then the cooled to solidify (claimed fixing) (abstract and pg. 2, col. , lines 25-55).
(a)Regarding claim 1, EP 0778088 teaches a controller (3) for controlling the rotation unit which would in turn control the centrifugal force (claimed pressure). For the claimed pressure being added in the fixing step, EP 0778088 teaches continuing the bower fan (1&) even after the heater is stopped which would introduce air into the chamber and simultaneously cool and provide pressure int eh fixing step as this cooling solidifies the coating and fixes it to the inner surface of the pipe.
(b) EP 0778088 fails to teach introducing air into the container at a pressure.
Projahn (2,246,063) teaches a method of centrifugal castings molds whereby inner lining coatings are formed by heating a coating material and applying additional pressure onto the mold lining from the inner side along with heating of the coating material using gas pressure (pg. 1, lines 1-55). The coating material is also heated.
Therefore, it would have bene obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified EP 0778088 process to include addition gas pressure as evidenced by Projahn (2,246,063) with the expectation of improving the adherence of the coating as well as an improved coating by packing tightly the coating material.
Regarding claim 2, EP 0778088 teaches a heating furnace (2) (claimed cooking chamber), a rotating unit (claimed support unit) and a cooling unit (claimed cooling chamber- same as heating chamber or separate (col. 4, lines 8-15 and col. 5, lines 17-42).
Regarding claims 3-7, the claims recite melting temperature of powder, time for heating/cooling, cooling temperature and pressures. While the Examiner acknowledges the fact that the reference is silent with respect to these limitations, the Examiner takes the position these are all process parameters which could be optimized by one skilled in the art to produce the lining absent a showing of criticality thereof.
Regarding clam 9, a control system having a pressure regulator, and a safety valve would be within the skill of one practicing in the art to optimize the air supplied and therefore the pressure supplied in cooling/solidifying the coating.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 0778088 (a) alone or (b) in combination with Projahn (2,246,063) either (a) or (b) further in combination with Nishio et al. (6,287,632).
Features detailed above concerning the teachings of EP 0778088 (a) alone or (b) in combination with Projahn (2,246,063) are incorporated here.
EP 0778088 (a) alone or (b) in combination with Projahn (2,246,063) fails to teach the coating to be a polymer such as polyethylene.
Nishio et al. (6,287,632) teaches a roto-lining process whereby polyethylene can be utilized as the polymer powder form lining a cylindrical article (abstract, col. 1, lines 53-55 and col. 2, lines 8-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified EP 0778088 (a) alone or (b) in combination with Projahn (2,246,063) molding lining process to utilize a polyethylene as evidenced by Nishio et al. (6,287,632) with the expectation of producing similar success of lining a cylindrical article.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN K TALBOT whose telephone number is (571)272-1428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 7-4PM.
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, MICHAEL CLEVELAND can be reached at 571-272-1418. 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.
/BRIAN K TALBOT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712
Prosecution Insights