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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Russian Federation (RU) on 27 July 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the RU2022120616 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 & 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novikov (RU 189793 U1) in view of Condini et al. (WO 2017/212369 A1; hereafter Condini).
Note: references to the specification of Novikov refer to the corresponding English translation provided with this action.
Regarding claim 1, Novikov discloses a protective sleeve (fig. 1, 1A) for a weld seam of pipelines (see abstract, title, etc.), comprising:
a sleeve body (1; “sleeve”);
centering stops (3; “stops”); and
two rubber collars (5; “rubber cuffs”);
wherein the sleeve body is made of a metal (i.e., coated in a protective polymer; see pg. 3, lines 10-14) and configured as a ring having flared ends (2; “in the form of a sleeve with flared ends 2”);
wherein the centering stops (3) have a trapezoidal shape (as shown in fig. 1A; pg. 3, lines 20-21: “the stops 3 can be made of steel trapezoidal shape”) and are evenly distributed along a transverse axis of symmetry of the sleeve body (i.e., as shown in fig. 1A, five such stops are evenly distributed about the axis of the sleeve body, indicated by broken radial lines); and
wherein the rubber collars (5) are arranged symmetrically relative to the centering stops (3) along the perimeter of the ends of the sleeve body (as shown in fig. 1).
While Novikov discloses that the sleeve body is made of a metal (i.e., a coated metal), and that the centering stops can be made of steel, Novikov does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein the protective sleeve is a bimetallic protective sleeve, wherein the sleeve body is made of stainless steel.
Condini teaches (figs. 1a, 1b, 3 & 13) a protective sleeve (1), which may be a bimetallic protective sleeve (see below), for a weld seam (9) of pipelines (i.e., 300 in fig. 13), comprising a sleeve body (3), centering stops (6 / 7), and two rubber collars (5); wherein the sleeve body is made of stainless steel (pg. 5, line 34 – pg. 6, line 3; published claim 3, etc.) and configured as a ring having flared ends (see fig. 1b); wherein the centering stops are evenly distributed along a transverse axis of symmetry of the sleeve body (see fig. 3); and wherein the rubber collars (5) are arranged symmetrically relative to the centering stops along the perimeter of the ends of the sleeve body (see fig. 1b).
Condini explains that, in some applications, pipelines are internally coated with a corrosion-resistant coating, which may be removed or otherwise may be damaged at the weld joint between pipe segments. In prior art protective sleeve devices used at these weld joints, the sleeve bodies were known to be coated with the same type of corrosion-resistant coating as used for the pipeline itself (e.g., pg. 1, generally).
By contrast, when using stainless steel (or some other treated steel) to form the sleeve body, which is able to withstand the corrosive environment within the pipeline, no additional protective corrosion-resistant cover layer is needed, which can reduce production time and cost (e.g., pg. 2, line 26 – pg. 3, line 1; pg. 5, line 34 – pg. 6, line 7, etc.).
Finally, Condini explains that the centering stops (i.e., component 2, which includes the stops 6 and annular element 7) may be made of “a metallic material of the same type used for the pipe segments…” (pg. 5, lines 1-2). As can be readily understood, when the sleeve body is stainless steel and the centering stops / pipe segments are any other metal, the result of such a combination would be bimetallic protective sleeve.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective sleeve of Novikov such that the sleeve body is made of stainless steel, in view of the teachings of Condini, to enable the protective outer layer to be omitted, reducing production cost and complexity as suggested by Condini, especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The above modification would have otherwise been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effect filing date of the claimed invention as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming sleeve body of a protective sleeve from stainless steel, as in Condini) to improve a similar device (i.e., the protective sleeve of Novikov) in the same way (e.g., providing a sleeve body formed from a material which is itself sufficiently corrosion resistant, thus eliminating the need to provide an additional corrosion-resistant coating for the sleeve body).
Regarding the remaining limitation wherein the protective sleeve is a bimetallic protective sleeve, as previously noted, Novikov discloses that the stops may be “steel” (i.e., conventional, non-stainless steel), while Condini otherwise teaches that the stops may be “a metallic material of the same type used for the pipe segments…” and, as the sleeve body is stainless steel, the protective sleeve of Condini would be a bimetallic protective sleeve when the stops / pipe segments are any other metal.
If not otherwise seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the protective sleeve of Novikov such that the stops were formed of a metallic material of the same type used for the corresponding pipe segments for a particular application, in view of the teachings of Condini, especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
In view of the above, when the pipeline material is anything other than stainless steel (including, e.g., conventional pipeline-grade carbon steels, etc.), the resulting protective sleeve would be a bimetallic protective sleeve (i.e., having a stainless steel sleeve body and centering stops formed from another metallic material).
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that forming protective welding sleeves as bimetallic protective sleeves having a corrosion-resistant or stainless steel inner sleeve body and an outer component [which may include a centering stop feature] of a conventional steel material is otherwise well-known in the art. See, e.g., RU 127856 U1 (“Bimetallic lining bushing for protection of welded pipelines”), RU 2518992 C1 & RU 2521430 C1. See also US 2002/0038954 A1, teaching a stainless steel sleeve body.
Regarding claim 3, Novikov discloses the additional limitation wherein the rubber collars (5) are made of oil and petrol resistant rubber (pg. 3, line 5: “a specially developed profile made of oil-resistant rubber is used as rubber cuffs”; published claim 4: “the profile of oil and petrol resistant rubber is used as rubber cuffs”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Novikov in view of Condini as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Von Ahrens (US 4,611,830).
Regarding claim 2, as set forth for claim 1 above, Novikov discloses that the centering stops may be made from steel, and Condini otherwise teaches that such stops may be made from a metallic material of the same type used for the corresponding pipe segments, however, neither Novikov nor Condini explicitly disclose the centering stops to be made from carbon steel.
Von Ahrens teaches (figs. 1-8) a protective sleeve / ring (10) for a weld seam between two pipe segments (12, 14), the protective sleeve / ring comprising a sleeve / ring body (16) and an annular centering stop (18; “spacer ring”). Von Ahrens explains that the centering stop is consumed to provide filler metal during the welding operation (e.g., col. 3, lines 10-12), and that “[t]he consumable spacer filler metal ring is fabricated of metal which is also weldably compatible with the material of the pipe itself, whether carbon steel, chrome-molybdenum steels, stainless steels, or the like” (col. 3, lines 43-46).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effecting filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protective sleeve of Novikov such that the centering stops are made of carbon steel, in view of the teachings of Von Ahrens, to ensure that the centering stops are weldably compatible with the pipe material when such pipe material is carbon steel (i.e., as suggested by Von Ahrens), especially considering that Novikov already discloses that the centering stops may be steel and Condini also teaches that such centering stops may be formed of the same type of metal as the pipes with which they are to be used.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753