PIPELINE DEFECT MONITORING

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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/24/2026 has been entered. 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) 1-4, 9-11 and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNab et al. (US 2016/0273994 A1) in view of Serwatzky (US 5036287 A). Considering claim 1, McNab discloses a pipeline apparatus comprising: - a pipe body including: - an annular cavity between annular innermost 101 and outermost 108 fluid impermeable barrier layers (Figure 1; [0036-41]); and - a plurality of armour wires 105,106 (302,310) extending along at least part of the length of the pipe body in the annular cavity, the plurality of armour wires including a first armour wire electrically isolated from the other armour wires along at least part of the length of the armour wires (Figures 1 and 3; [0047-48]); and - a measurement device 306 arranged to electrically couple to the first armour 302 wire at a first end of the pipe body, and to measure the electrical impedance of the first armour wire ([0048]; [0052-55]); - wherein the first armour wire is electrically connected to at least one other armour wire at a part of the pipe body distal to the first end of the pipe body ([0048]); - wherein the measurement device is further arranged to electrically couple to the at least one other armour wire at the first end of the pipe body, such that impedance is measured through a circuit comprising the first armour wire and the at least one other armour wire connected in series ([0052-55]); and - wherein variation of the electrical impedance of the first armour wire is indicative of a defect of the first armour wire ([0054-55]). The invention by McNab fails to explicitly disclose that the variation of electrical impedance is indicative of corrosion or cracking of the wire. However, Serwatzky teaches the technique of monitoring the impedance of a wire, potentially susceptible to corrosion or cracking, continuously or at specific time intervals (Column 1, lines 65-66), whereby changes in the impedance over time are indicative of corrosion reducing the cross-sectional area of the wire (Column 3, lines 43-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interpret an electrical impedance variation as an indication of corrosion or cracking of the wire, as taught by Serwatzky, in the invention by McNab. The motivation for doing so is to provide the additional measure of corrosion effects, thus improving the system of McNab. It is noted that McNab acknowledges corrosion effects on armour wires ([0007], [0044]) and appears ripe for improvement using the same technique taught by Serwatzky to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of catching corrosion effects before failure of the armour wires. Considering claim 2, McNab discloses at least one insulation member 104 arranged to insulate the first armour wire from the remainder of the plurality of armour wires along at least part of its length ([0047]). Considering claim 3, McNab discloses that the measurement device is configured to supply direct current or variable frequency alternating current to the first armour wire ([0069]). Considering claim 4, McNab discloses an end fitting 308 coupled to the first end of the pipe body, wherein the measurement device couples to the first armour wire through the end fitting ([0048]). Considering claim 9, McNab discloses a method of monitoring a condition of an armour wire provided in a pipeline apparatus, the method comprising: - coupling a measurement device to a first armour wire among a plurality of armour wires extending along at least part of the length of a pipe body in an annular cavity of the pipe body of the pipeline apparatus and electrically isolated from the other armour wires along at least part of the length of the armour wires, the annular cavity being defined between annular innermost and outermost fluid impermeable barrier layers, the measurement device being coupled to the first armour wire at a first end of the pipe body ([0048]; [0052-55]); - electrically connecting the first armour wire to at least one other armour wire at a part of the pipe body distal to the first end of the pipe body ([0048]); - electrically coupling the measurement device to the at least one other armour wire at the first end of the pipe body, such that impedance is measured through a circuit comprising the first armour wire and the at least one other armour wire connected in series ([0052-55]); and - measuring the impedance of the first armour wire ([0054-55]); - wherein variation of the electrical impedance of the first armour wire electrically is indicative of a defect of the first armour wire ([0054-55]). The invention by McNab fails to explicitly disclose that the variation of electrical impedance is indicative of corrosion or cracking of the wire. However, Serwatzky teaches the technique of monitoring the impedance of a wire, potentially susceptible to corrosion or cracking, continuously or at specific time intervals (Column 1, lines 65-66), whereby changes in the impedance over time are indicative of corrosion reducing the cross-sectional area of the wire (Column 3, lines 43-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interpret an electrical impedance variation as an indication of corrosion or cracking of the wire, as taught by Serwatzky, in the invention by McNab. The motivation for doing so is to provide the additional measure of corrosion effects, thus improving the system of McNab. It is noted that McNab acknowledges corrosion effects on armour wires ([0007], [0044]) and appears ripe for improvement using the same technique taught by Serwatzky to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of catching corrosion effects before failure of the armour wires. Considering claim 10, McNab discloses that the current supplied to the first armour wire is direct current or alternating current ([0069]). Considering claim 11, given the alternative use of either direct or alternating current in claim 10, these claim limitations are satisfied given the disclosure of direct current in McNab. Considering claim 13, given the alternative use of either direct or alternating current in claim 10, these claim limitations are satisfied given the disclosure of direct current in McNab. Considering claim 14, McNab discloses a method of forming a pipeline apparatus, the method comprising: - providing a pipe body including: - an annular cavity between annular innermost and outermost fluid impermeable barrier layers (Figure 1; [0036-41]); and - a plurality of armour wires extending along at least part of the length of the pipe body in the annular cavity, the plurality of armour wires including a first armour wire electrically isolated from the other armour wires along at least part of the length of the armour wires (Figures 1 and 3; [0047-48]); and - coupling a measurement device to the first armour wire at a first end of the pipe body, the measurement device being arranged to measure the electrical impedance of the first armour wire ([0048]; [0052-55]); - electrically connecting the first armour wire to at least one other armour wire at a part of the pipe body distal to the first end of the pipe body ([0048]); and - electrically coupling the measurement device to the at least one other armour wire at the first end of the pipe body, such that impedance is measured through a circuit comprising the first armour wire and the at least one other armour wire connected in series ([0052-55]); - wherein variation of the electrical impedance of the first armour wire electrically is indicative of a defect of the first armour wire ([0054-55]). The invention by McNab fails to explicitly disclose that the variation of electrical impedance is indicative of corrosion or cracking of the wire. However, Serwatzky teaches the technique of monitoring the impedance of a wire, potentially susceptible to corrosion or cracking, continuously or at specific time intervals (Column 1, lines 65-66), whereby changes in the impedance over time are indicative of corrosion reducing the cross-sectional area of the wire (Column 3, lines 43-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to interpret an electrical impedance variation as an indication of corrosion or cracking of the wire, as taught by Serwatzky, in the invention by McNab. The motivation for doing so is to provide the additional measure of corrosion effects, thus improving the system of McNab. It is noted that McNab acknowledges corrosion effects on armour wires ([0007], [0044]) and appears ripe for improvement using the same technique taught by Serwatzky to arrive at the claimed invention for the purpose of catching corrosion effects before failure of the armour wires. Considering claim 15, McNab discloses further comprising adapting the pipeline apparatus comprising: - a pipe body including:an annular cavity between annular innermost and outermost fluid impermeable barrier layers (Figures 1; [0036-41]); and - a plurality of armour wires extending along at least part of the length of the pipe body in the annular cavity, the plurality of armour wires including a first armour wire electrically isolated from the other armour wires along at least part of the length of the armour wires (Figures 1 and 3; [0047-48]); and - a measurement device arranged to electrically couple to the first armour wire at a first end of the pipe body, and to measure the electrical impedance of the first armour wire ([0048]; [0052-55]); - at least one insulation member arranged to insulate the first armour wire from the remainder of the plurality of armour wires along at least part of its length ([0047]); - wherein variation of the electrical impedance of the first armour wire is indicative of a defect of the first armour wire ([0054-55]). Considering claim 16, McNab discloses that the armour wires are composed of steel ([0044]). Considering claim 17, McNab discloses that the first armour wire is composed of steel ([0044]). Considering claim 18, McNab discloses that the plurality of armour wires are composed of steel ([0044]). Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNab et al. (US 2016/0273994 A1) in view of Serwatzky (US 5036287 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bianchetti (NPL – Survey Methods and Evaluation Techniques). Considering claim 6, McNab discloses sensing wires, wherein the sensing wires are electrically connected to the first armour wire at the first end of the pipe body and a part of the pipe body distal to the first end of the pipe body, for measuring the impedance of the first armour wire (Figure 3), but McNab, as modified by Serwatzky, fails to disclose that the sensing wires are arranged in a four-terminal sensing configuration. However, Bianchetti teaches a four-terminal sensing wire configuration (Figure 5.10; Pages 79-81). One of ordinary skill in the art could have simply substituted the known equivalent four-wire system of Bailey for the two-wire system of McNab, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable and repeatable. The invention by Bianchetti teaches both two-wire (Figure 5.9; Pages 77-79) and four-wire systems. Thus, the interchangeability of two-wire and four-wire systems gives rise to the functional equivalence of the two types of systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize sensing wires arranged in a four-terminal sensing configuration that are electrically connected to the first armour wire at the first end of the pipe body and a part of the pipe body distal to the first end of the pipe body, for measuring the impedance of the first armour wire. Considering claim 7, McNab discloses sensing wires that are provided adjacent to and parallel with the first armour wire in the annular cavity (Figure 3; [0046-49], 310 is armoured wire; 302 runs back adjacent and parallel to the armoured wire). Considering claim 8, McNab, as modified by Serwatzky, fails to disclose the four-wire system having a current sensor and a voltage sensor for measuring a current and a voltage across the first armour wire. However, Bianchetti teaches a current sensor and voltage sensor for measuring a current and a voltage across the first armour wire (Figure 5.10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a current and voltage sensor, respectively, for measuring a current and a voltage across the first armour wire, as taught by Bianchetti, in the invention by McNab, as modified by Serwatzky. The motivation for doing so is that four-wire system for measuring impedance, including a current and voltage sensor, provides a more accurate measure of impedance than a two-wire configuration. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNab et al. (US 2016/0273994 A1) in view of Serwatzky (US 5036287 A), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Upasani et al. (U.S. Patent 9,952,170). Considering claim 12, McNab, as modified by Serwatzky, discloses fails to disclose determining a rate of change of the impedance of the first armour wire. However, Upasani teaches determining a rate of change of admittance of a conductive layer of a hose (Figures 1-2 and 7-13; Column 10, line 18 – Column 11, line 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine a rate of change of impedance/admittance as taught by Upasani, in the invention by McNab, as modified by Serwatzky. The motivation for doing so is to monitor the degradation of the pipeline. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4 and 6-18 are have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. While McNab remains in the rejection, McNab is not relied upon for the amendmend limitations, to which the arguments are referencing. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan M Dunlap whose telephone number is (571)270-1335. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10AM - 7PM. 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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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. /JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 September 30, 2026