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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Invention I (claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 30 January 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 8-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 January 2026.
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 1-7 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 limitation "the inline inspection system" in element f. of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1, element d. appears to end in a period. It is not clear if the elements listed after e, f, g and h respectively are intended to be part of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1 and thus are rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 5 and 6 contain the trademark/trade name “Smartpipe Inline Inspection Strain Device”. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the permeation device and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USPN 2009/0236845 is considered the closest relevant prior art having a similarly situated cylindrical permeation chamber that collects gas leaks, but unlike the claimed invention the fluids are vented to atmosphere. USPN 2004/0089405 discloses a double wall pipe with an annular layer that is configured to receive escaped gas. USPN 2002/0185188 discloses a composite tubing having an annular chamber that accesses venting structures to vent fluid trapped within the wall of the tube. USPN 5829483 discloses a double wall pipe configured to contain fluid that permeates into an annular space between pipe walls. USPN 5865216 discloses a containment system to collect escaped fluids and to direct the materials to a collection point that can be monitored. USPN 6032699 discloses a containment chamber that receives the double wall pipe that collects and directs spilled fluids to an exit pipe outside the collection chamber. The prior art of record fails to teach or suggest a system having all of the elements recited in claim 1 including those following the initial period at the end of clause d., and specifically the multiple embedded discrete sensors with integrated reader/activator.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DEAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8-4 pm CST.
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 at: Craig M Schneider (571) 272-3607 and Ken Rinehart (571) 272-4881. 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.
/DAVID R DEAL/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753