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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Note
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim(s) 1-6 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). For apparatuses, the claim limitations will define structural limitations (See MPEP 2114-2115) or functional limitations properly recited (See MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, “the a temperature of the high-temperature gas source is reduced” should be changed to --the temperature of the high-temperature gas source is reduced--.
Claim 1, “if a gas pressure detection value is less than 0.9 times of a preset temperature value” should be changed to --if the gas pressure detection value is less than 0.9 times of the preset gas pressure value--.
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.
Claims 1-6 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.
Claim 1 recites the language “Equipment for preparing a polyethylene coating with a three-layer structure wound on a steel elbow” which is indefinite. First of all, all the recited structure in claim 1 is insufficient structure for preparing a polyethylene coating with a three-layer structure wound on a steel elbow in view of Applicant’s disclosure. Thus, the language and scope of claim 1 is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP § 2173.03. Furthermore, the recited language can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which the language does not limit the structure of the equipment and an interpretation in which the language limits the structure of the equipment. See MPEP §§ 2114-2115. The different interpretations will yield different interpretations, search, and prior art results. Thus, the language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. Examiner recommends applicant to add structure such as structure in claim 5 to clarify the intended scope of claim 1.
The term “high-temperature gas” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-temperature gas” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to apprise the scope of the invention. Applicant’s specification fails to describe/specify the temperature range which is considered high-temperature.
The term “wear-resistant materials” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wear-resistant material” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to apprise the scope of the invention. Applicant’s specification fails to describe/specify the materials that are considered wear-resistant materials.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “the second sealing structure is sealed by high-temperature gas” and “the first gas containment cavity and the second gas containment cavity are arranged relative to each other to form a high-temperature gas sealing cavity, which is connected to a high-temperature gas source” which make the scope of claim 1 infinite. As currently written, the second sealing structure and the high-temperature gas sealing cavity are two different elements. However, the second sealing structure and the high-temperature gas sealing cavity is the same element in Applicant’s disclosure (See Fig. 5). Thus, the scope of claim 1 is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP § 2173.03.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a temperature sensor is provided inside the high-temperature gas sealing cavity; if a temperature detection value is greater than a preset temperature value, the a temperature of the high-temperature gas source is reduced; if a temperature detection value is less than a preset temperature value and the temperature detection valve is greater than 0.8 times of the preset temperature value, heating wires in the first gas containment cavity and the second gas containment cavity are started; if a temperature detection value is less than 0.8 times of a preset temperature value, an input temperature of the high-temperature gas source is increased” which is indefinite. The term “preset temperature value” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The “high-temperature gas source” and “heating wires” are not positively recited. The structure(s) configured for comparing temperature detection value to the preset temperature value and for controlling the heating wires or the gas source based on the comparison is/are unrecited/unknown. Thus, the claimed language merely states a result obtained, does not provide a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the language what structure is encompassed by the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05 (g). Furthermore, the recited language can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which the conditional language does not limit the structure of the equipment and an interpretation in which the language limits the structure of the equipment. See MPEP §§ 2114-2115.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a gas pressure sensor is provided inside the high-temperature gas sealing cavity; if a gas pressure detection value is greater than a preset gas pressure value, an input amount of the high-temperature gas source is reduced; if a gas pressure detection value is less than a preset gas pressure value and the gas pressure detection value is greater than 0.9 times of the preset gas pressure value, heating wires in the first gas containment cavity and the second gas containment cavity are started; if a gas pressure detection value is less than 0.9 times of a preset temperature value, an input amount of the high-temperature gas source is increased” which is indefinite. The term “preset gas pressure value” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The “high-temperature gas source” and “heating wires” are not positively recited. It is unclear if the heating wires of this limitation are same or different from the heating wires of the previous limitation. The language “if a gas pressure detection value is less than 0.9 times of a preset temperature value” is unclear. The structure(s) configured for comparing the gas pressure detection value to the preset gas pressure value and for controlling the heating wires or the gas source based on the comparison is/are unrecited/unknown. Thus, the claimed language merely states a result obtained, does not provide a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the language what structure is encompassed by the claim. See MPEP § 2173.05 (g). Furthermore, the recited language can have multiple plausible interpretations including an interpretation in which the conditional language does not limit the structure of the equipment and an interpretation in which the language limits the structure of the equipment. See MPEP §§ 2114-2115.
Claim(s) 2-6 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Note
Claims 1-6 cannot be evaluated with respect to prior art at this time as the examiner cannot reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and cannot make a proper comparison between the claims and the prior art due to the 112 (b) issues explained above.
Prior Art made of record
Yu (CN 115230111A with English machine translation – attached) is regarded as the closest prior art of record. Yu discloses equipment for preparing a polyethylene coating with a three-layer structure wound on a steel elbow (Abstract, pg. 2, Fig. 1 and accompanying text), comprising:
a material conveying mold (Fig. 2) for conveying molten polyethylene (01), the material conveying mold comprises a static mold (7) and a rotary mold (42 + 41) which are rotationally connected, and a first material conveying channel is formed in the static mold (internal channel of 7), a second material conveying channel is formed in the rotary mold (internal channel 4 of 42 + 41), a material outlet port of the first material conveying channel is … communicated with a material inlet port of the second material conveying channel (pages 3-4 and Figs. 1-3 of Yu).
Zoppas (US 20150367548) discloses a relevant equipment (Fig. 2) comprising a static mold/structure (3’) and a rotary mold/structure (3’’) which are rotationally and coaxially connected, sealed, and capable of conveying melted plastic (Abstract, Figs. 3-3a).
Angus (US 4453721) discloses a relevant radial dual seal (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights