FINAL 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6 of the response, Applicant alleges that McNab fails to disclose the features of claims 1, 9 and 14 that require, “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” and “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”. However, on page 7 of the response, Applicant then concedes that McNab teaches “an insulated wire as a return member, connected to the first armour wire at the distal end of the pipe. Thus, the detection circuit includes a starting point at the first end of the first armour wire, or from the end of the return member proximate to that first end of the first armour wire”. As previously stated, McNab, in Figure 4 and [0054-55], requires a first wire 302 that is electrically connected to a second wire 310 via a distal electrical connection 312. Thus Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Continuing on page 7, Applicant argues that McNab “does not suggest that corrosion or cracking can be detected”. However, this is an unclaimed feature. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., corrosion or cracking wires) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Lastly, with respect to McNab, Applicant argues that “the return member is completely isolated from the environment in the annulus of the pipe”. The Examiner is unsure how this relates to any claimed feature. Furthermore, however, as it relates to the claimed features of 1, 9 and 14, which require electrical connection of a first armour wire to at least one other armour wire at a part distal from the first end of the pipe body, it is again overwhelming clear from Figure 4 and [0054-55] of McNab that a circuit is formed from wire 302, 312 and 310. Applicant’s arguments are completely unpersuasive and are unrelated to the actual language of the claim.
On pages 7-8, Applicant argues that Upasani is non-analogous art because it is either not in the same field of endeavor as the Applicant or is not reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the inventor.
With respect to the same field of endeavor, Applicant argues that Upasani is related to electrically based hose degradation circuits. Applicant then asserts that their field of endeavor is strictly limited to “claimed technology, which provides a single armour wire, isolated from other wires in a layer comprising plurality of armour wires, i.e. not using the whole conductive layer”.
However, [0001] of the originally filed specification on 6/15/2021, renders it quite clear that the field of endeavor is “pipeline defect monitoring”. Furthermore, the instant application is directly related to condition or degradation monitoring of flexible pipes for transporting fluids with armour reinforcement, while the Upasani reference is related to condition or degradation monitoring of flexible hoses for transporting fluid with metal wire reinforcements. The different technologies used to provide the defect monitoring do not separate the fields of endeavor. The Examiner fails to be persuaded by Applicant’s argument that the invention and the Upasani reference are not within the same field of endeavor.
With respect to the reasonably pertinent, Applicant argues that Upasani does not address the same problem nor serve the same purpose as the invention. Applicant then states that the inventive “technology was developed in part to solve the problem of pipeline defect monitoring in flexible pipe utilized to transport production fluids such as oil and/or gas and/or water from one location to another, particularly in connecting a subsea location to a sea level location”, while “the Upasani technology was developed to help with failure prediction of hydraulic hoses in heavy earth-bound equipment”.
However, it is clear from Upasani and the instant application, that the problem being solved is flexible pipeline degradation monitoring, including by monitoring a rate of change of impedance. Both Upasani and the Applicant are concerned with monitoring degradation of flexible pipe/hoses, which both transport fluids. It is plainly clear that the problem addressed in both cases in condition monitoring of flexibly reinforced pipes/hoses by monitoring an electrical impedance of portions of the hose/pipe reinforcements. The Examiner fails to be persuaded by Applicant’s argument that the Upasani reference is not reasonably pertinent enough to the instant invention so that it would NOT have logically commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem.
Accordingly, the Examiner is unpersuaded by any of Applicant’s arguments. Additionally, finding no amendment to the claims, this action is being made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 9-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McNab et al. (US 2016/0273994 A1).
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]).
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]).
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]).
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]).
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.
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 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 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 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. 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 Upasani et al. (U.S. Patent 9,952,170).
Considering claim 12, McNab 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. The motivation for doing so is to monitor the degradation of the pipeline.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
/JONATHAN M DUNLAP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 March 19, 2026