Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/034,054

FABRICATING PIPE-IN-PIPE (PIP) PIPELINES

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 26, 2023
Examiner
JENNISON, BRIAN W
Art Unit
3761
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Subsea 7 Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 8m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
1023 granted / 1426 resolved
+1.7% vs TC avg
Strong +22% interview lift
Without
With
+22.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 8m
Avg Prosecution
56 currently pending
Career history
1482
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§103
47.1%
+7.1% vs TC avg
§102
24.9%
-15.1% vs TC avg
§112
20.4%
-19.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1426 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . Claim Objections A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Claim 15 refers back to claim 14, while claim 16 refers back to claim 7. 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. Claim 5 is 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 5 recites “supporting the advancing pipe sections”. However, the claim does not specify which pipe section (inner or outer, or both) are being supported. Claim 18 recites “downstream workstation.” The claim does not give a reference point for what is considered downstream. Downstream from what? Claim 19 recites “intermediate workstation.” The claim does not give a reference point for what is considered intermediate. Intermediate from what? 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) 1-2, 4-5, 17-18, 20-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pillai et al (US 2011/0101676). Regarding claim 1, Pillai discloses, a method of assembling a pipe-in-pipe pipeline by adding a succession of inner and outer pipe sections to a trailing end of the partially-completed pipeline, the method comprising: welding a leading end of a first inner pipe section to a trailing end of an inner pipe of the partially-completed pipeline; (Fig 2 shows a first inner pipe section 6 being welded to a trailing end of an inner pipe section 6, See Paragraphs [0024], [0030]-[0031], [0055]) advancing a leading end of a second inner pipe section to a trailing end of the first inner pipe section; (as the steps are repeated, a second inner pipe would be advanced to a trailing end of the first inner pipe section. See Paragraph [0035]) advancing an outer pipe section downstream from the second inner pipe section along and around the first inner pipe section and into abutment with a trailing end of an outer pipe of the partially-completed pipeline; and (an outer pipe section is moved along, around the first inner pipe section and abuts a trailing end of an outer pipe section. See Fig 4 and Paragraphs [0018], [0032]) welding a leading end of the outer pipe section to the trailing end of the outer pipe. (The ends of the outer pipes are welded together. (See Paragraph [0032]) Regarding claim 2, the inner pipe is welded before the outer pipe is advanced. (See Paragraphs [0028]-[0032]) Regarding claim 4, the inner and outer pipes are concentric. (See Paragraph [0049]) Regarding claim 5, the inner pipe section is supported by clamps. (See Paragraph [0014]) Regarding claim 17, Fig 4 shows the outer pipe being advanced along the full length of the first pipe section. Regarding claim 20, at some point the pipe would not be supported by the outer pipe. Regarding claims 21-23, Figs 2-6 show spacers between the first inner pipe section and the outer pipe section. 12, 14, 16. (See Paragraph [0051]) One set of abutments are capable of moving into place when the outer pipe is advanced. 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. 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. Claim(s) 18, 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pillai et al (US 2011/0101676) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art. Regarding claim 18, The teachings of Pillai have been discussed above. Pillai fails to disclose, the outer pipe section is welded to the outer pipe at a downstream workstation; and the second inner pipe section is welded to the first inner pipe section at an upstream workstation. AAPA discloses welding the outer pipe section at a downstream location and the inner pipe at an upstream location. (See Paragraphs [0019]-[0025]) It would have been obvious to adapt Pillai to provide the downstream and upstream locations as this is an obvious variant for welding pipelines. Regarding claim 24, it would have been obvious to use Pillai during an S-lay or J-lay method as these are dependent on the depth of the water and the maximum diameter of the pipe. A person having ordinary skill in the art would choose the type appropriate for the application. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-12, 25-35 are allowed. Claims 3, 6-7, 13-16, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5. 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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 W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/12/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 26, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599176
AEROSOL DELIVERY DEVICE INCLUDING A WIRELESSLY-HEATED ATOMIZER AND RELATED METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590730
ELECTRIC HEATER SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583050
METHODS FOR OPERATING A PLASMA TORCH
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583049
ORIENTATION AND GUIDE MECHANISM FOR NON-CIRCULAR WELD WIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12569943
REPAIR WELDING DEVICE AND REPAIR WELDING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+22.4%)
3y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1426 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month