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 .
Comment on Preliminary Amendment
A preliminary amendment was filed in this application on 08 June 2023. As directed by the amendment: claims 5-10, 12, 14, 15, 19 & 20 have been amended, claims 21-23 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following issues:
In FIG. 3, the lines indicating the variable end profiles (22) are shown as solid lines. While they are intended to illustrate an end profile of the junction coating (14), they instead appear to indicate “cuts” through the cross-sections of the coating (16) and liner pipe (18). Compare to FIG. 1, where the conventional end profiles are shown as broken / dashed lines when located “behind” the coating and liner pipe.
Similarly, in FIG. 4, the shading used for the shaping tools (40) is the same even where the cross-sectioned shaping tool would be “behind” the coating and liner pipe. As such, the shaping tools improperly appear to extend through the entire diameter of the pipeline, rather than around the pipe coating.
In FIG. 4A., the various elements lack appropriate hatching. Furthermore, as best understood, the liner pipe (18) should be located inward of the coating (16) but is not shown.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-16 & 18 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 “[a] pipeline junction coating between the joined ends of two coated metallic pipeline sections, the coating comprising an elongate body able to extend over the joined ends of the coated pipeline sections…”. The phrase “able to extend” raises doubt as to whether the elongate body must actually be configured to extend over the joined ends or whether it would be sufficient that the elongate body could do so, even when not configured as such. As a result, the scope of the claim takes on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claims 5 & 9 recite “[a] pipeline junction coating as claimed in claim 1 having a variable end profile at one or both ends comprising [a regular / an irregular] variation in geometry”. However, claim 1 already establishes “a variable end profile at one or both ends”. As best understood, claims 5 & 9 were likely intending to further define the variable end profile at one or both ends, but might instead be seen as requiring an additional variable end profile at one or both ends, causing the claims to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claim 6 recites “wherein a variable end profile comprises a castellation profile”; claim 8 recites “wherein a variable end profile is sinusoidal”. As best understood, claims 6 & 8 were likely intending to further define the variable end profile at one or both ends as recited in claim 1. However, because they refer generically to “a variable end profile” rather than the variable end profile(s) already established, these claims might be interpreted as merely stating that any variable end profile (whether the variable end profile of the coating, or some other unspecified end profile, perhaps of a different component) has such a castellation or sinusoidal profile.
Claim 7 recites “wherein both ends of the coating comprise regular castellation”. As best understood, this was likely intending to further define the variable end profile as in claim 1, but might instead be seen as requiring the regular castellation in addition to the variable end profile of claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “[a] pipeline junction coating as claimed in claim 10 comprising a field joint coating for use at a field joint between two conjoined metallic coated pipe sections” which raises several issues.
First, the “pipeline junction coating as claimed in claim 10” already comprises “a pipeline junction coating as claimed in claim 1” in the form of “a field joint coating”. As such, it is unclear if “a field joint coating for use at a field joint” in claim 11 is referring to the same coating as claim 11 (but merely adapted for use at a field joint), or if this is requiring an additional field joint coating in addition to the pipeline junction coating already recited in claim 10.
Additionally, if the “field joint coating for use at a field joint” is referring to the same coating as in claim 10 (as understood to be the intent), then it is unclear how claim 11 is intended to further limit the pipeline junction coating of claim 10 upon which it depends. Claim 1 already recites that the pipeline junction coating is between the joined ends of two coated metallic pipeline sections, and claim 10 further specifies that the coating is a field joint coating (i.e., a coating applied to a field joint, as understood). Thus, as understood, the coating of claim 11 would be a field joint coating for use at a field joint between two conjoined pipeline sections.
The recitation of “a field joint between two conjoined metallic coated pipes” is also problematic. It is unclear what relationship, if any, is intended to exist between the “two coated metallic pipeline sections” of claim 1 and the “two metallic coated pipe sections” of claim 11. Similarly, it is unclear how the “field joint between two conjoined metallic coated pipes” of claim 11 is related to the “joined ends of two coated metallic pipeline sections” in claim 1.
As best understood, they are likely intended to refer to the same joint between two coated metallic pipes, but this is not made clear.
Finally, it is noted that “metallic coated pipe sections” appears to suggest that the pipe sections (of unspecified material) are coated with a metallic coating. However, this was likely intended to read “coated metallic pipe sections” (i.e., metallic pipe sections coated with an unspecified material).
Claim 12 recites “A pipeline assembly comprising two metallic coated pipe sections joined at a pipe junction,… and a pipeline junction coating as defined in claim 1 applied between the ends of the two metallic pipeline sections”, which raises several issues.
As best understood, claim 12 was likely intending to claim a combination of two coated pipe sections forming a joint, and the junction coating of claim 1 (which is intended for coating a joint between two pipes, but does not itself comprise the pipes or the joint).
However, claim 12 as currently presented does not actually establish a relationship between the “two metallic coated pipe sections joined at a pipe junction” and the “pipeline junction coating as defined in claim 1 applied between the ends of the two metallic pipeline sections”. That is, the claim does not define the “two metallic coated pipe sections” as corresponding to the “two metallic pipeline sections” (i.e., the two coated metallic pipeline sections of claim 1), nor the “pipe junction” to be the junction having the “pipeline junction coating” (i.e., the joined ends of the two coated metallic pipeline sections of claim 1).
As such, the claim might be interpreted such that the “two metallic coated pipe sections joined at a pipe junction” are distinct from the “two metallic pipeline sections” having a “pipeline junction coating as defined in claim 1”.
Finally, as with claim 11, the term “metallic coated pipe sections” appears to suggest that the pipe sections (of unspecified material) are coated with a metallic coating. However, this was likely intended to read “coated metallic pipe sections” (i.e., metallic pipe sections coated with an unspecified material).
Claim 18 recites “fixing one or more shaping tools with a variable profile to one or both ends of the mold tool”. It is unclear if the “one or more shaping tools with a variable profile” in claim 18 are intended to be the same “one or more shaping tools with a variable profile” as in step a of claim 17, a subset of the one or more shaping tools, or if they may be distinct, additional shaping tools. Similarly, it is unclear if “a variable profile” in claim 18 is necessarily the same as that recited in claim 17.
Claims recited in the section heading above but not specifically discussed are rejected due to dependency upon at least one rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 11 recites “[a] pipeline junction coating as claimed in claim 10 comprising a field joint coating for use at a field joint between two conjoined metallic coated pipe sections”. However, claim 1 already recites that the pipeline junction coating is between the joined ends of two coated metallic pipeline sections, and claim 10 already specifies that the coating is a field joint coating (i.e., a coating applied to a field joint, as understood). Thus, as understood, the coating of claim 11 would already be a field joint coating for use at a field joint between two conjoined metallic coated pipe sections. As such, claim 11 appears to be an improper dependent claim as is fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 10 upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-17, 19 & 20 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. (US 2016/0279847 A1; hereafter Hoffmann) in view of Morel (US 2001/0026855 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hoffmann discloses (figs. 1-7) a pipeline junction coating (i.e., 58 in fig. 7) between the joined ends (via weld 36) of two coated metallic pipeline sections (34; having coatings 38 thereon), the junction coating comprising an elongate body (i.e., 58) able to extend over the joined ends of the coated pipeline sections (see fig. 7).
Hoffmann further discloses that the junction coating comprises extended end portions (formed by extensions 48 of the mould cavity 40) which partially overlap the original coatings 38 of the pipeline sections, whereby the “overlaps beneficially lengthen and hence increase the area of the interfaces between the pipe coatings 38 and the field joint coating” (para. 83).
Hoffmann does not explicitly disclose a variable end profile at one or both ends of the coating.
Morel teaches (i.e., figs. 1A & 1B) a lap joint (overlap) interface between two polymer materials (i.e., rubbers A & B) having a variable profile at an end.
In particular, Morel explains that junctions between different materials, “when subjected to stresses (whether tension, compression or shear), represent a particularly vulnerable area of the article considered, the life of the article being greatly limited by the destruction of the joint, whether this destruction being due to adhesion failure or to stress concentration at the location of the joint, or even to external aggression in the case of some junctions” (para. 3).
To overcome this, Morel teaches that “at least of the edges” of one of the materials being joined “has an end whose trace-line resembles an oscillating movement, namely an oscillating trace-line” (para. 5); “[a]ny trace-line may be suitable”, with given examples being sinusoidal (para. 7; FIG. 1B), semi-circular (para. 7; fig. 3B), “crenellated” or “serrated” (para. 8), and “periodic trapezoidal” (para. 18; FIG. 3C)
Morel explains that the use of a variable end profile improves the life of the article by reducing the effects of the above known causes of failure (para. 4); and that comparison tests between straight edged joints and the variable profiled joints demonstrate “the very clear superiority” of the variable profiles (para. 17).
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 pipeline junction coating of Hoffmann to have a variable end profile (e.g., sinusoidal, crenellated, periodic trapezoidal, etc.) at one or both ends (e.g., at the overlaps formed at both ends), in view of the teachings of Morel, to improve the service life of the pipeline by reducing vulnerability of the overlapping joint to adhesion failure, stress concentration and/or external “aggression” (i.e., physical wear) as suggested by Morel.
The above modification would have otherwise been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as the use of a known technique (i.e., forming an overlap joint between two polymeric materials to have a variable / oscillating end profile, as in Morel) to a known device ready for improvement (i.e., the pipeline junction coating of Hoffmann, having two such overlap joints between two polymeric materials, one at either end) to obtain predictable results (i.e., improved service life via reducing vulnerability to adhesion failure, stress concentration, external aggression, etc., as suggested by Morel).
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that forming joints, including tubular / pipe joints, with variable profiled ends, in general, is well-known across a variety of arts, for various reasons: e.g., to reduce fatigue / improve mechanical properties (US 2016/0318595 A1), to increase the surface area of a bond and/or to spread torsional shear stress over multiple bond planes (US 6,855,061), to increase the length of a weld joint (US 1,700,319; US 4,212,563; US 4,648,752), to provide a mechanical interlock (US 7,731,817), to facilitate concentric alignment and reduce shear stress in a bonded joint between dissimilar materials (US 4,279,275), etc.
Regarding claims 2-4, the pipeline junction coating of Hoffmann, as modified above, reads on the additional limitations wherein the coating comprises a mouldable material (claim 2), wherein the coating is wholly or substantially formed from a polymer material (claim 3), and wherein the polymer material is polypropylene or polyurethane (claim 4).
In particular, Hoffmann discloses the pipeline junction coating to be substantially or wholly formed from polypropylene (“PP 58”) which is molded via injection molding (see paras. 3, 10-12, 16, 69, 82, 93, etc.), but also explains that molded polyurethane (PU) coatings are otherwise known in the art (see para. 8, 9, 31, 32).
Regarding claim 5, the pipeline junction coating of Hoffmann, as modified in view of Morel above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation of having a variable end profile at one or both ends comprising a regular variation in geometry.
In particular, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Morel teaches that the variable profile used at the end of the overlapping joint may be “any-trace line” having “stationary [i.e., regular] and non-stationary [i.e., irregular] oscillations”, with a preferred embodiment being a “sinusoidal trace-line of a harmonic oscillation” [i.e. a regular sinusoidal variation, as understood](para. 7). Morel further explains that “an oscillatory trace-line can be characterized by an amplitude and a wavelength”, and suggests that the amplitude may or may not be variable (para. 9)[i.e., the variation amplitude may be regular or irregular, as understood]. Finally, it is noted that the example profiles shown in figures 1B, 2B, 3B, and 3C each appear to exhibit a “regular” variation in geometry.
Thus, when the pipeline junction coating of Hoffmann is modified in view of Morel (as otherwise set forth in the grounds of rejection for claim 1 above) to include variable end profiles with “stationary” oscillations, or otherwise ones which do not have a variable amplitude (i.e., as in the embodiments shown in the figures of Morel), each suggested by Morel to be among the suitable arrangements for a variable end profile, the resulting combination would read on the limitation wherein the coating has a variable end profile at one or both ends comprising a regular variation in geometry.
Regarding claims 6 & 7, the pipeline junction coating of Hoffmann, as modified in view of Morel above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations wherein a variable end profile comprises a castellation profile (claim 6), and wherein both ends of the coating comprise regular castellation (claim 7).
As a preliminary note, applicant’s own specification describes figure 5 as depicting “a regular castellation profile, i.e., of alternating protrusions and recesses, generally having smoothed edging or edges” (pg. 15, lines 33-35).
The term “castellation” otherwise has a common and accepted definition of “a castellated structure”; whereby “castellated”, in this context, has common and accepted definitions including: “having grooves or recesses on an upper face”; “Castle-like: built or shaped like a castle; usually, specifically, having castellations (crenellations)”.
The terms “castellation” and “crenellation” would be understood in this context as substantially synonymous.
As noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Morel teaches that the variable profile used at the end of the overlapping joint may be “any-trace line” having “stationary [i.e., regular] and non-stationary [i.e., irregular] oscillations”, and suggests that one suitable profile may be a “crenellated” edge (para. 8). In FIG. 3C, and corresponding para. 16, Morel teaches a “periodic trapezoidal” profile with a regular variation. As understood, this “periodic trapezoidal” profile, which may reasonably be inferred as corresponding to the “crenellated” example previously stated, comprises a series of alternating protrusions and recesses, generally having smooth edges, and is therefore reasonably seen as reading on a “castellation profile” (as defined by applicant’s specification) and, in particular, a “regular castellation”.
Thus, when the pipeline junction coating of Hoffmann is modified in view of Morel (as otherwise set forth in the grounds of rejection for claim 1 above) to include ends with a “crenellated” profile (as suggested in para. 8 of Morel), which has a stationary/non-variable amplitude, or otherwise a regular “periodic trapezoidal” profile (such as that in fig. 3C), each suggested by Morel to be among the suitable arrangements for a variable end profile, the resulting combination would read on the limitations wherein a variable end profile comprises a castellation profile (claim 6), and wherein both ends of the coating comprise regular castellation (claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, the pipeline junction coating of Hoffmann, as modified in view of Morel above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the variable end profile is sinusoidal.
In particular, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Morel teaches that the variable profile used at the end of the overlapping joint may be “any-trace line” having “stationary [i.e., regular] and non-stationary [i.e., irregular] oscillations”, with a preferred embodiment being a “sinusoidal trace-line of a harmonic oscillation” [i.e. a regular sinusoidal variation, as understood](para. 7). The variable profile shown in FIG. 1B is also described as “a sinusoidal trace-line” (para. 14, lines 13-16).
Thus, when the pipeline junction coating of Hoffmann is modified in view of Morel (as otherwise set forth in the grounds of rejection for claim 1 above) to include ends with a sinusoidal profile (as described in para. 7 & 14, and shown in fig. 1B), suggested by Morel to be among the preferred profiles, the resulting combination would read on the limitation wherein a variable end profile is sinusoidal.
Regarding claim 9, the pipeline junction coating of Hoffmann, as modified in view of Morel above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the variable end profile at one or both ends comprising an irregular variation in geometry.
In particular, as noted in the rejection of claim 1 above, Morel teaches that the variable profile used at the end of the overlapping joint may be “any-trace line” having “stationary [i.e., regular] and non-stationary [i.e., irregular] oscillations”. Morel further explains that “an oscillatory trace-line can be characterized by an amplitude and a wavelength”, and suggests that the amplitude is measured crest-to-crest, “whether variable or not” (para. 9)[i.e., the variation amplitude may be regular or irregular, as understood].
Thus, when the pipeline junction coating of Hoffmann is modified in view of Morel (as otherwise set forth in the grounds of rejection for claim 1 above) to include variable end profiles with “non-stationary” oscillations, or otherwise ones which have a variable amplitude (as suggested to be possible by Morel), the resulting combination would read on the limitation wherein the coating has a variable end profile at one or both ends comprising an irregular variation in geometry.
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that forming a variable end profile at a joint to have an irregular variation in geometry is otherwise known. For example, see US 5,714,290 to Yu et al., col. 17, lines 51-56: “If desired, the bent seam of this invention may have a wave, ripple or sawtooth pattern or the like that is irregular with variations in amplitude for different waves, ripples or sawtooths along the length the seam or can even comprise a mixture of smooth rounded curves and angular bends or curves.”.
Regarding claim 10, the pipeline junction coating of Hoffmann, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation of being a field joint coating (see abstract: “Thermoplastics material injected into the mould cavity forms a field joint coating…”; para. 1: “…apparatus and techniques for coating pipeline field joints and to pipelines having field joints coated by those techniques. The invention may be used with any pipe diameter, especially where a field joint coating is to be applied onto a parent coating system…”; see also para. 35, published claim 1, etc.).
Regarding claim 11, the pipeline junction coating of Hoffmann is further disclosed as being a field joint coating (see claim 10 above) for use at a field joint (see figs. 3-7; para. 57) between two conjoined metallic coated pipe sections (pipe sections 34, which may be steel [see paras. 2 & 3], each having a parent coating 38).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hoffmann and Morel, as set forth in the grounds of rejection for claim 1 above, further renders obvious a pipeline assembly (i.e., as otherwise disclosed in figs. 1-7 of Hoffmann) comprising two metallic coated pipe sections (pipe sections 34, which may be steel [see paras. 2 & 3], each having a parent coating 38) joined at a pipe junction (as shown, including weld 36), each pipe section pre-coated up to the pipe junction with a first outer polymeric thermal insulating coating (38; see para. 58; “Each pipe joint 34 is coated with a parent coating, for example a 5LPP [5 layer polypropylene] coating 38”; see related paragraphs 3 & 4), and a pipeline junction coating (i.e., 58) as defined in claim 1 (i.e., when modified in view of Morel as set forth for claim 1, etc.) applied between the ends of the two metallic pipeline sections (as in fig. 7 of Hoffmann).
Regarding claim 13, the pipeline assembly of Hoffmann, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation of being a rigid pipeline.
In particular, the pipeline shown by Hoffmann is “formed of lengths of steel pipe – ‘pipe joints’ – that are welded together end-to end before the pipeline is laid” (para. 2, lines 1-3).
Applicant’s own specification similarly recites “Rigid subsea pipelines are commonly formed of lengths of steel pipe – ‘pipe joints’ – that are welded together end-to end…” (pg. 1, lines 15-16).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would also recognize that the pipeline shown by Hoffmann (i.e., a subsea steel pipe coated in a polymer) is substantially the same basic type of pipeline construction disclosed in applicant’s own specification; and that each of these pipelines would be understood in the art as a “rigid pipeline” (e.g., as defined by the American Petroleum Institute [e.g., API 5L, etc.] or equivalent), in contrast to a “flexible pipe system” (e.g., API 17J).
Regarding claim 14, the pipeline assembly of Hoffmann, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the pipe junction is a field junction (i.e., a field joint; see abstract & paras. 1, 5, 6, etc.; see also published claim 1: “A method of coating a field joint of a pipeline…”).
Regarding claim 15, the pipeline assembly of Hoffmann, as modified above, reads on the additional limitation wherein the pipeline junction coating (58) is chemically bonded to the first outer polymeric thermal insulation coating (38) on each of the metallic pipeline sections at a bonding interface.
In particular, Hoffmann discloses that the first outer polymeric thermal insulation coating (38) may be, for example, a five-layer polypropylene coating (see para. 58; see also paras. 3 & 4); and that the pipeline junction coating may also be polypropylene (see, e.g., para. 69: “PP 58”). Hoffmann explains (e.g., para. 11) that when the PP pipe coating and PP field joint coating are compatible, the materials of these coatings “fuse together at their mutual interface, resisting cracking and hence giving longer service life” (para. 11).
Finally, Hoffman explicitly states that “the ends of the field joint coating overlap the pipe coatings 38 slightly…. to increase the area of the interfaces between the pipe coatings 38 and the field joint coating” (para. 83).
As a result, the pipeline junction coating is reasonably seen as being chemically bonded (i.e., by mutual fusion resulting from chemical compatibility during formation of the junction coating) to the first outer polymeric thermal insulation coating (38) on each of the metallic pipeline sections at a bonding interface (i.e., the overlapping portions described above).
Regarding claim 16, the pipeline assembly of Hoffmann, as modified in view of Morel above to have a variable end profile, reads on the additional limitation wherein the bonding interface comprises a variable profile. In particular, the variable end profile taught by Morel is located at the portion of the joint where the material A (corresponding to the junction coating of Hoffmann) overlaps the surface of material B (corresponding to the first outer polymeric thermal insulation coating of Hoffmann) and, as shown by Morel, results in a corresponding variable profile of a bonding interface between the two materials.
When the pipeline assembly of Hoffmann is modified in view of Morel as above such that the pipeline junction coating includes variable end profiles at the portions overlapping the first outer polymeric thermal insulation coating, the resulting bonding interface between the first outer polymeric thermal insulation coating and the pipeline junction coating would comprise a corresponding variable profile.
Regarding claim 17, Hoffmann discloses (figs. 1-7) a method of coating a pipeline junction between two coated metallic pipeline sections (34; having coatings 38 thereon) comprising at least the steps of:
(a) positioning a mould tool (32; “mould tool 32”) around a field joint to define a mould cavity (40; “mould cavity 40”; see fig 3), the mould tool having one or more shaping tools (i.e., end portions 44 defining the “extensions 48” of the mould cavity, and having seals 54 for sealing the ends of the mould cavity) with a profile at one or both ends of the mould tool (i.e., the end portions 44 define tapering profiles at both ends of the mould tool); and
(b) injecting a moulding material (e.g., polypropylene, “PP 58”) into the mould cavity (see figs. 3 & 4; paras. 69 & 70) to form a pipeline junction coating (i.e., 58 in fig. 7) having an end profile at one or both ends (i.e., the tapering end profile as shown in fig. 7, corresponding to the tapering profile of the shaping tools defining the ends of the mould cavity).
Hoffmann does not explicitly disclose the profiles of the one or more shaping tools to be variable profiles, and does not explicitly disclose the end profiles of the pipeline junction coating to be variable end profiles. However, Hoffmann discloses that the extensions 48 of the mould cavity (defined by shaping tools 44 at either end) cause the pipeline junction coating to be formed with corresponding extended end portions which partially overlap the parent coatings 38 of the pipeline sections, whereby the “overlaps beneficially lengthen and hence increase the area of the interfaces between the pipe coatings 38 and the field joint coating” (para. 83).
Thus, Hoffmann generally discloses that the end portions of the mould cavity (i.e. the portions defined by the end shaping tools) define the shape of the extended end portions of the pipeline junction coating formed in the mould tool, and suggests that the form of these end portions (i.e., the length) has an effect on the interface (i.e., the area of the interface) between the parent coating and the junction coating.
It is also noted that the purpose of a mold cavity, in general, is to substantially define the shape of the component formed by the molding material provided to the cavity. If it were desired to change the shape of a component produced by a mold tool, a person having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage changing the corresponding shape of the mold cavity used to form the component as one reasonable course of action for achieving the desired result.
Morel teaches (i.e., figs. 1A & 1B) a lap joint (overlap) interface between two polymer materials (i.e., rubbers A & B) having a variable profile at an end.
In particular, Morel explains that junctions between different materials, “when subjected to stresses (whether tension, compression or shear), represent a particularly vulnerable area of the article considered, the life of the article being greatly limited by the destruction of the joint, whether this destruction being due to adhesion failure or to stress concentration at the location of the joint, or even to external aggression in the case of some junctions” (para. 3).
To overcome this, Morel teaches that “at least of the edges” of one of the materials being joined “has an end whose trace-line resembles an oscillating movement, namely an oscillating trace-line” (para. 5); “[a]ny trace-line may be suitable”, with given examples being sinusoidal (para. 7; FIG. 1B), semi-circular (para. 7; fig. 3B), “crenellated” or “serrated” (para. 8), and “periodic trapezoidal” (para. 18; FIG. 3C)
Morel explains that the use of a variable end profile improves the life of the article by reducing the effects of the above known causes of failure (para. 4); and that comparison tests between straight edged joints and the variable profiled joints demonstrate “the very clear superiority” of the variable profiles (para. 17).
As set forth in MPEP § 2141.03(I), "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
As previously explained, the purpose of a mold cavity, in general, is to substantially define the shape of the component formed by the molding material provided to the cavity and if it were desired to change the shape of a component produced by a mold tool, a person having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage changing the corresponding shape of the mold cavity used to form the component as one reasonable course of action for achieving the desired result.
In the case of the apparatus and methods disclosed by Hoffmann, said person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the shape of the end portions of the mould cavity (i.e. the portions defined by the profile of the end shaping tools) defines the end profiles of the extended end portions of the pipeline junction coating formed in the mould tool. Thus, if it were desired to change the profile of the extended end portions of the pipeline junction coating produced by the mould tool of Hoffmann, said person having ordinary skill in the art would have at once envisaged changing the corresponding profile of the end shaping tools defining the end portions of the mould cavity as one reasonable course of action for achieving the desired result.
In view of the above, 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 method of coating a pipeline junction of Hoffmann such that the profiles of the shaping tools at one or both ends of the mould tool (i.e. the profile defining the extensions of the mould cavity for forming the extended end portions of the junction coating overlapping the parent coating) are provided as variable profiles (e.g., sinusoidal, crenellated, periodic trapezoidal, etc.), whereby the pipeline junction coating formed by the subsequent step of injecting a moulding material into the mould cavity is formed with a variable end profile at one or both ends, in view of the teachings of Morel, to improve the service life of the pipeline by reducing vulnerability of the overlapping joint to adhesion failure, stress concentration and/or external “aggression” (i.e., physical wear), as suggested by Morel.
The above modification would have otherwise been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as a combination of known prior art elements (i.e., forming a pipeline junction coating using a mould cavity with shaping tools defining extended end portions to create a lap joint with a parent coating, as in Hoffmann; forming a lap joint between two polymeric materials to have a variable end profile, as in Morel) according to known methods (i.e., Hoffmann already discloses that the profiles defining the mould cavity extensions form the extended end portion of the junction coating overlapping the parent coating; modifying the profile of a mould cavity to modify the profile of the component formed within the cavity would have been fundamentally known to the person skilled in the art) to obtain predictable results (i.e., providing for a pipeline junction coating with variable end profiles which, as suggested by Morel, improves the service life by reducing vulnerability of the overlapping joint to adhesion failure, stress concentration and/or external “aggression” [i.e., physical wear], etc.).
Regarding claim 19, Hoffmann further discloses the additional limitations wherein the mould tool (32) comprises two half shells (42; see fig. 2; para. 59: “the mould tool 32 comprises a tube 42 of generally circular cross-section, divided longitudinally on a diameter of the cross-section into two halves…”), and each half shell comprises a half-shell shaping tool (i.e., end portions 44 defining the “extensions 48” of the mould cavity, and having seals 54 for sealing the ends of the mould cavity; the end portions 44 are end portions of the tube 42 and so would be understood to be correspondingly half-shells once divided as shown) at each end (see figs. 2-6).
Regarding claim 20, Hoffmann discloses the additional limitation wherein the moulding material is polypropylene or polyurethane.
In particular, Hoffmann discloses the moulding material to be polypropylene (“PP 58”) (see paras. 3, 10-12, 16, 69, 82, 93, etc.), but explains that molded polyurethane (PU) coatings are otherwise known in the art (see para. 8, 9, 31, 32).
Claim 18 (as understood) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann in view of Morel as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Wiesemann et al. (US 2020/0282677 A1; hereafter Wiesemann).
Regarding claim 18, in the apparatus of Hoffmann (i.e., as used in the corresponding method), the end portions of the mould cavity define the shape of the extended end portions (i.e. the portions defined by the end shaping tools) of the pipeline junction coating formed in the mould tool and, as set forth in the grounds of rejection for claim 17 above, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art in view of Morel to modify the profile of the shaping tools to have a variable profile so as to impart a corresponding variable end profile to the pipeline junction coating.
However, Hoffmann does not explicitly disclose the coating method to further comprise a step of fixing one or more shaping tools with a variable profile to one or both ends of the mould tool prior to step (a).
Wiesemann teaches (figs. 7A-B, 8-10 & 12) a method of coating a pipeline junction between two coated metallic pipeline sections (steel pipes 20; having coatings 28 & 30) comprising the steps of: positioning a mould tool (44; see figs. 7A & B) around a field joint (as otherwise known, see related FIG. 3 showing a prior art mould tool around a field joint) to define a mould cavity (i.e., the cavity defined between the inner surface of the mould tool and the outer surface of the field joint), the mould tool having one or more shaping tools (“inserts” 50, 52, 54, 56 for creating exterior grooves 58, 60, 62, 64 in the resulting junction coating; see paras. 55-62), and injecting a moulding material (i.e., PP, to form an IMPP [injection-molded polypropylene] field joint) into the mould cavity to form a pipeline junction coating (46) having a corresponding profile (i.e., grooves 58, 60, 62, 64 in figs. 8-10 & 12).
Wiesemann further teaches that the shaping tools (50, 52, 54, 56) are fixed to the mould tool (e.g., para. 56: “The mold comprises…inserts 50, 52, 54, 56 welded along the inner circumference of the mold, to impart circumferential grooves in the coating”), which is clearly understood to be a step which takes place prior to positioning the mould tool around the field joint.
In general, Wiesemann teaches that “the three-dimensional geometry of the injection molded/cast coating can have an influence on the stress placed on the line coating during cooling”, “[m]olding or casting a coating having circumferential grooves, or other groove geometry, proximal to the interface with the line coating, will reduce line coating failure proximal to the field joint, in particular line coating failure related to the initial spooling/reeling of the pipe.” (para. 41).
Wiesemann explains that the inserts provide such “geometry” to the pipeline coating, e.g., circumferential grooves (see para. 55), whereby the design of the mould (which corresponds to the design of the junction coating) is desirably designed to limit the coating volume, reducing residual stress in the parent coating imparted by shrinkage of the junction coating, while maintaining overall integrity of the joint (para. 57). Wiesemann suggests that routine experimentation may be used to optimize the groove configuration for each pipe and coating geometry (para. 61).
Finally, Wiesemann teaches an alternative embodiment (fig. 7C) with inserts (68) that form a variable profile (i.e., a profile which varies over the circumference). Wiesemann explains: “It is believed that further alternative geometries may also provide line coating crack resistance by releasing strain on the line coating proximal to the IMPP coating. A mold capable of providing further alternative geometries can be seen in FIG. 7C, which, for example,… has perpendicular inserts 68 interspersed within the mold, and not running the entire circumference.” (para. 67).
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 method of Hoffmann to further comprise a step of fixing the one or more shaping tools with the variable profile to one or both ends of the mould tool prior to step (a), in view of the teachings of Wiesemann, as the use of a known technique (i.e., attaching separately formed shaping tools to a field joint coating mold, e.g., by welding, before positioning the mould tool around a field joint and injecting molding material into the mould cavity; as in Wiesemann) to improve a similar method (i.e., the field joint coating method of Hoffmann, as otherwise modified in view of Morel such that the mould tool include shaping tools with a variable profile) in the same way (e.g., enabling customization of the mould cavity geometry for a particular application, whereby a base moulding tool can be used to form various coating geometries by appropriate selection of the shaping tools to be attached; and/or by simplifying manufacture / reducing costs since, where the moulding tool shell is formed by a split tubular structure, using a thinner tubular material and attaching separately formed shaping tool inserts inside to reduce the mould cavity thickness where needed may reasonably be more cost effective than machining larger cavity volumes on the inside of a thicker stock material).
The above modification would have been otherwise obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as the simple substitution of one known shaping tool arrangement (i.e., arrangement of Hoffmann, having shaping tools with profiles integrally formed at the ends of the mould tool) for another (i.e., the arrangement of Wiesemann, wherein the profiled shaping tools are separately formed and attached to the mould tool, as by welding) to obtain predictable results (i.e., as above, enabling customization of mould cavity geometry by selection of appropriate inserts to be attached; and/or simplifying manufacture / reducing material costs by enabling the use of a thinner tube to form the mould tool rather than machining cavity volumes inside a thicker tube, etc.).
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 - Friday, 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
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753