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
Claims 17-20 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/22/2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8/14/2023. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim 14 objected to because of the following informalities: "pig comprises includes". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities: "the basis the materials", line 9, should read "the basis of the materials", method step “g” comprises confusing language with regard to the grammatical structure of the sentence, and “its path” in line 20 is unclear if “it” is referring to the pig train or pipeline. Appropriate correction is required.
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 5, 12, and 16 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 5 and 12 recites the limitations "the treated pipe section" in line 6 “the input and output of the launcher” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitations “the to-be-treated-pipe section” in line 3, “the designated pressure” in line 4, “the digital flow meter and roto meter” in line 5, “the level of flow” in line 6, “the level of aggregated leaked” in line 6, “the basis the materials” in line 9, “the launching tube” in line 11, “the proper order” in line 12, “the treated-pipe-section” in line 13, “the level of flow of water” in line 14, “the speed” in line 14, “the drive flow” in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “tightly loading” in claim 16 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “tightly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "and otherwise preparing " renders the claim indefinite because the claim includes elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "otherwise preparing "), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 13-14 are 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 13 iterates that the pig train comprises gel pigs which is already stated in independent claim 8 and therefore does not further limit the subject matter. Claim 14 iterates that the pig train includes one gel pig and the at least one sealant composition includes one sealant composition. This is already iterated in independent Claim 8 and thus does not further limit the subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
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 1-4, 6-11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perstnev et. al. (US 20190226623) in view of Kozisek (US 5769955).
Regarding claim 1, Perstnev et. al. teaches: A method for curing at one leakage site in a pipeline, the method including; a. locating a leakage at a remote site (locates a leakage site to send a pig to the location [Para. 175, lines 2-4]) c. introducing a pig train into the pipeline from said launcher system, the pig train including (Para. 40-41); i) at least one gel pig (Para. 42); and ii) at least one sealant composition; wherein the at least one gel pig and the at least one sealant composition form said pig train (Para. 43); d. enabling the pig train to move along the pipeline to a region of the at least one leakage and to seal the at least one leakage (Para. 44).
Perstnev fails to teach: b. deploying a launcher system proximal to said remote site
Kozisek teaches: b. deploying a launcher system proximal to said remote site (launcher system 10 is moved to a remote site and deployed in order to launch a pig into the pipeline [Col. 2, lines 6-14])
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of curing a leakage site of Perstnev et. al. with the remote pig launching and retrieving apparatus of Kozisek in order to provide a pig launching and retrieving apparatus to a plurality of sites to better facilitate introducing a pig for sealing at various locations with pipelines of different diameters and retrieving the pig downstream or upstream of the pipeline (Kozisek – Col. 1, line 65 – Col. 2, line 5).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Perstnev et. al. and Kozisek teaches: A method according to claim 1, further comprising following the sealing of leakage along the pipeline enabling the pig train to move to a downstream point for extraction of the remaining pig train (extracts the pig train downstream via a different conduit [Perstnev et. al. - Para. 37]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Perstnev et. al. and Kozisek teaches: A method according to claim 1, further comprising following the sealing of leakage along the pipeline enabling the pig train to stop and reverse its motion back to an upstream point for extraction of the remaining pig train (the pig would stop and reverse the direction to the launch site and be extracted upstream [Kozisek – Col. 5, lines 49-56]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Perstnev et. al. and Kozisek teaches: A method according to claim 1, further comprising transporting said launcher system to said leakage site (launcher system is transported to sites via mobile trailer 20 [Kozisek – Col. 3, lines 47-50]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Perstnev et. al. and Kozisek teaches: A method according to claim 1, wherein at least part of said pipeline is underground or under water (method is to seal a subterranean/underwater pipeline [Perstnev et. al. – Para. 3]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Perstnev et. al. and Kozisek teaches: A method according to claim 1, wherein said leakage site is underground or under water (method is to seal a subterranean/underwater pipeline [Perstnev et. al. – Para. 3]).
Regarding claim 8, Perstnev et. al. teaches: A method for curing at one leakage site in a pipeline, the method including: b. introducing a pig train into the pipeline from said launcher system, the pig train including (Para. 40-41); i) at least one gel pig (Para. 42); and ii) at least one sealant composition; wherein the at least one gel pig and the at least one sealant composition form said pig train (Para. 43), thereby enabling the pig train to move along the pipeline to a region of the at least one leakage and to seal the at least one leakage (Para. 44).
Perstnev fails to teach: a. deploying a launcher system proximal to said remote site
Kozisek teaches: a. deploying a launcher system proximal to said remote site (launcher system 10 is moved to a remote site and deployed in order to launch a pig into the pipeline [Col. 2, lines 6-14]).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of curing a leakage site of Perstnev et. al. with the remote pig launching system of Kozisek in order to provide a pig launching system to a plurality of sites to better facilitate sealing at various locations and with pipelines of different diameters (Kozisek – Col. 1, line 65 – Col. 2, line 5).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Perstnev et. al. and Kozisek teaches: A method according to claim 1, further comprising following the sealing of leakage along the pipeline enabling the pig train to move to a downstream point for extraction of the remaining pig train (extracts the pig train downstream via a different conduit [Perstnev et. al. - Para. 37]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Perstnev et. al. and Kozisek teaches: A method according to claim 8, further comprising following the sealing of leakage along the pipeline enabling the pig train to stop and reverse its motion back to an upstream point for extraction of the remaining pig train (the pig would stop and reverse the direction to the launch site and be extracted upstream [Kozisek – Col. 5, lines 49-56]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Perstnev et. al. and Kozisek teaches: A method according to claim 8, further comprising transporting said launcher system to said leakage site (launcher system is transported to sites via mobile trailer 20 [Kozisek – Col. 3, lines 47-50]).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Perstnev et. al. and Kozisek teaches: A method according to claim 8, wherein said pig train is a gel pig train (Pig train is a pig train of gel pig(s) [Perstnev et. al. – Para. 20-21]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Perstnev et. al. and Kozisek teaches: A method according to claim 8, wherein said pig train pig comprises includes one gel pig and the at least one sealant composition includes one sealant composition (pig train includes one gel pig and the sealant composition includes a sealant composition [Perstnev et. al. – Para. 30]).
Claims 5, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perstnev et. al. (US 20190226623) in view of Kozisek (US 5769955) as applied to claims 1 and 8, respectively, above, and further in view of Johnsen (US 10024768) and Howard et. al. (US 6841007) .
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Perstnev et. al. and Kozisek teaches: A method according to claim 1, wherein said launcher system comprises: b. at least one check valve (comprises valves 16 and 56 [Kozisek – Fig. 4]); d. an outlet to the treated pipe section into which a pig train is launched (outlet 13 [Kozisek – Fig. 3]) e. an outlet to an upstream point for extraction of the remaining pig train (outlet 37 for extraction [Kozisek – Fig. 2]) f. an outlet for back pressurizing downstream of the stopped pig train back towards the launcher (outlet for back pressurizing downstream using P2 [Perstnev et. al. – Fig. 5]) g. a launching conduit configured to house a pig train prior to launching (pig is housed in conduit 22 prior to launch [Kozisek – Col. 3, lines 52-55]);
If it is seen that the combination does not teach a check valve, it would have been obvious to someone having only routine skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a check valve from a selection of known valves for the valve as taught by Kozisek on the basis of its suitability for the intended use in order to meet design requirements and/or quality control purposes.
The combination fails to teach: c. a pipe manifold configured to feed three flow paths; h. at least one flow meter. i. pressure gauges that measure the pressures at the input and output of the launcher.
Johnsen teaches: c. a pipe manifold configured to feed three flow paths (pipe manifold 304 feeds into 3 paths [Fig. 4]); h. at least one flow meter (flow meter 416 [Fig. 4]) i. pressure gauges that measure the pressures at the input and output of the launcher (one or more pressure gauges 414 used in the line [Col. 7, lines 5-7 and Fig. 4]).
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Perstnev et. al. and Kozisek with the filter for a pig launching system of Johnsen in order to determine or characterize emissions of the pig launching system to meet safety requirements (Johnsen - Col. 2, lines 30-37).
The combination fails to further teach: at least one input filter.
Howard et. al. teaches: a. at least one input filter (a filter included in pig launcher/receiver [Col. 50-54]);
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the combination of Perstnev et. al., Kozisek, and Johnsen with the filter for a pig launching system of Howard et. al. in order to protect the pipeline from receiving contaminants that could cause damage (Howard et. al. - Col. 1, lines 32-39).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Perstnev et. al., Kozisek, Johnsen, and Howard et. al. teaches: A method according to claim 8, wherein said launcher system comprises: a. at least one input filter (filter included in pig launcher/receiver [Howard et. al. - Col. 50-54]); b. at least one check valve (comprises valves 16 and 56 [Kozisek – Fig. 4]); c. a pipe manifold configured to feed three flow paths (pipe manifold 304 feeds into 3 paths [Johnsen - Fig. 4]); d. an outlet to the treated pipe section into which a pig train is launched (outlet 13 [Kozisek – Fig. 3]) e. an outlet to an upstream point for extraction of the remaining pig train (outlet 37 for extraction [Kozisek – Fig. 2]) f. an outlet for back pressurizing downstream of the stopped pig train back towards the launcher (outlet for back pressurizing downstream using P2 [Perstnev et. al. – Fig. 5]) g. a launching conduit configured to house a pig train prior to launching (pig is housed in conduit 22 prior to launch [Kozisek – Col. 3, lines 52-55]); and h. at least one flow meter (flow meter 416 [Johnsen - Fig. 4]). i. pressure gauges that measure the pressures at the input and output of the launcher (one or more pressure gauges 414 used in the line [Johnsen - Col. 7, lines 5-7 and Fig. 4]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Perstnev et. al., Kozisek, Johnsen, and Howard et. al. teaches: A method for curing at one leakage site in a pipeline, according to claim 1, the method further comprising: a. Treated Pipe Pressurization- Pressurizing the to-be-treated-pipe-section from the Launcher to the designated pressure (pipe is pressurized to a designated press [Perstnev et. al. – Para. 33-34]); b. Leakage Measurement Test- Reading the digital flow meter and roto meter to determine the level of flow reflecting the level of aggregated leakage in the to-be-treated- pipe-section (digital flow meter 416 and rotameter 458 are read to determine the level of flow in the pipe section [Johnsen - Col. 7, lines 48-57 and Col. 8, lines 44-51]); c. In-Situ Materials Preparation- Mixing, blending, pouring and otherwise preparing prepackaged components that form the basis the materials comprising the pig train (gel pig formed by mixing components that form the materials comprising the pig [Perstnev et. al. – Para. 210-212 and Para. 194, lines 1-3]); d. Loading the Launcher- Tightly loading the launching tube with the materials in the proper order to form the pig train (loading the launcher with the pig train of materials in a specific order [Perstnev et. al. – Para. 194] and the portable system includes loading the pig train into a barrel [Kozisek – Col. 2, lines 31-34]); e. Setting Drive Flow- Opening a discharge valve downstream of the treated-pipe- section to determine the level of flow of water and therefore setting the speed of the pig train (pressure is set by a discharge valve 514 downstream [Perstnev et. al. – Para. 196]); f. Launching- Creating a flow path to include the pig train therefore inducing its launch from the launching tube into the treated-pipe-section (flow path is created as the pig train is launched through the pipe section using a pressure differential [Perstnev et. al. – Para. 194]. Furthermore, Kozisek teaches deploying the mobile launcher system to align and create a flow path with the inlet section of the pipeline [Col. 2, lines 6-8]); g. Driving Pig Train- Monitoring the drive flow and when it drops due to a leak seal increasing it back to the drive flow at launch (pressure P1 is regulated by control means [Perstnev et. al. – Para.195] where the difference between pressure P1 and P2 determines the flow of the pig and monitoring the pressure is taught by Johnsen [Johnsen - Col. 7, lines 5-7 and Fig. 4]); h. Retrieving Pig Train -At the end of its path allowing the pig train to be extracted downstream from the treated-pipe-section (pig is extracted downstream [Kozisek – Col. 3, lines 40-42]); and i. Leakage Measurement Test- Reading the digital flow meter and roto meter to determine the level of flow reflecting the residual level of aggregated leakage in the treated-pipe-section (digital flow meter 416 and rotameter 458 are read to determine the level of flow in the pipe section [Johnsen - Col. 7, lines 48-57 and Col. 8, lines 44-51]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Norman (US 20090321077) teaches: a method and apparatus for forming foam pigs for transportation of fluids (abstract).
Theener (US 20190078722) teaches: a pipeline pig launcher using a pressure bottle, two-chambered drip leg, and a launcher barrel (abstract).
Jagannathan et. al. (US 20220003629) teaches: pipeline maintenance using automatic multiple pig launcher (abstract) comprising pressure sensors, vents and valves (Fig. 1 and Para. 23).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DENNIS LEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. If Craig Schneider cannot be reached, please contact Kenneth Rinehart at 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.
/JOSHUA D LEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights