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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20190072479 (herein Yanik) in view of GB2504214A (herein Munn).
Regarding claim 1, Yanik teaches A corrosion detection system, comprising:
a wire formed as a single conductor and coated with an electrically insulative sheathing, and the electrically insulative sheathing configured to corrode when exposed to the corrosive fluid or to absorb the corrosive fluid, wherein the wire is disposed around an exterior surface of a pipe (electrical conductor having a first end in the cavity, [0018], Fig. 1; [0012] and [0025] teaches electrical conductor extends into electrically insulative material; [0036] teaches sensor is capable of conveying a signal with a single wire; the insulative material is capable of absorbing fluid, [0012]),
the pipe comprising a pipe wall and a pipe liner that lines an inside surface of the pipe wall (metal pipe, liner, [0008]);
a sensor electrically coupled to the wire (sensor, [0011]), wherein the sensor is disposed distal from the exterior surface of the pipe (an exterior second end for connection to a voltage source connected to the sensor, [0011]; see Figure 1 showing ‘electrical connection to sensor’), the sensor configured to:
generate a voltage in the wire (voltage source connected to electrical conductors, [0011]); and
detect a change in a property of the wire caused by exposure of the wire to a corrosive fluid that has permeated or leaked through the pipe liner and breached the pipe wall (when corrosion has thinned the interior of the pipe sufficiently to admit fluid into the cavity, and enough of that fluid has been absorbed to render the insulative material conductive, the circuit is completed, allowing current to flow through the wire pair, [0028]; Fig. 1 shows cavity would be past the liner which corresponds to location of corrosion of the present invention).
Additionally regarding claim 1, Yanik does not teach, “the wire formed of a material configured to chemically react with the corrosive fluid” or “wire disposed in a groove extending circumferentially around an exterior surface of a pipe.” However, Munn teaches and equivalent wire in a helical groove (p. 10, Line 11-12), the resistance of the wire increases as it corrodes (p. 8, Lines 11-13). This corresponds to the chemical reaction of the present invention.
Regarding claim 2, Yanik teaches wherein the wire is disposed within the groove at a depth that corresponds to a corrosion allowance limit of the pipe (cavity is formed so that its deepest portion is at a predetermined spacing from the inner surface. This spacing is marked “corrosion allowance” in the drawing, and indicates how much of the thickness of the pipe may be corroded before the corrosion indicator detects the corrosion and generates an alarm, [0024]).
Regarding claim 3, Yanik teaches wherein the corrosion allowance limit is measured from an interface between the pipe wall and the pipe liner (This spacing is marked “corrosion allowance” in the drawing, [0024]; Fig. 1 shows corrosion allowance between liner and pipe cavity).
Regarding claim 4, Yanik teaches wherein the pipe wall is formed of metal and the pipe liner is formed of a polymeric material (the pipe is made of metal, [0022]; liner is made of a non-metallic material. In an embodiment, the non-metallic material comprises a polymeric material, [0023]).
Regarding claim 5, Yanik teaches wherein the groove is disposed less than twelve inches in a longitudinal direction from a vent that extends through the pipe wall (In an embodiment, the corrosion indicator is at least about 0.175 inches from a vent, at least about 0.5 inches from a vent, at least about 1 inch from a vent, at least about 3 inches from a vent, at least about 6 inches from a vent, at least about 8 inches from a vent, [0031]).
Regarding claim 6, Yanik teaches a control system communicatively coupled to the sensor, wherein the sensor is configured, responsive to detecting the change in the property of the wire, to transmit a signal to the control system, and wherein the control system is configured, responsive to receiving the signal from the sensor, to generate a warning or alarm indicating regarding corrosion (an alarm or other indication of the corrosion condition may be generated at the location of the corrosion indicator itself, at the pipe, or at a remote location such as an operation room for the pipe system. For instance, a message may be transmitted electronically to a remote display or processing device, [0029]).
Regarding claim 7, Yanik teaches wherein the change in the property of the wire comprises a change in at least one of resistivity or current flow of the wire (when corrosion has thinned the interior of the pipe sufficiently to admit fluid into the cavity the circuit is completed, allowing current to flow through the wire pair, [0028]).
Regarding claim 8, Yanik teaches wherein the electrically insulative sheathing is consumed by the corrosive fluid, thereby exposing the wire to the corrosive fluid (insulative material, [0012]; the electrical conductors become electrically connected when the insulative material absorbs a predetermined amount of the fluid, [0012]).
Regarding claim 9, Yanik does not teach, “wherein the groove forms a helical coil that makes more than one circumferential loop around the exterior surface of the pipe.” However, Munn teaches corresponding helical groove ([0026], Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Yanik teaches a second wire, the second wire electrically coupled to the sensor (second electrical conductor connected to the sensor, [0011]). Yanik does not teach, “disposed in a second groove extending circumferentially around the exterior surface of the pipe.” However, Munn further teaches sensor may include multiple grooves having different breadths, depths, and/or helical pitches (p. 9, Lines 9-10).
Regarding claim 11, Yanik teaches A piping system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a pipe configured to convey one or more fluids, the pipe comprising a pipe wall and a pipe liner that lines an inside surface of the pipe wall (metal pipe, liner, [0008]);
a wire formed as a single conductor and coated with an electrically insulative sheathing, and the electrically insulative sheathing configured to corrode when exposed to the corrosive fluid or to absorb the corrosive fluid, (electrical conductor having a first end in the cavity, [0018], Fig. 1; [0012] and [0025] teaches electrical conductor extends into electrically insulative material; [0036] teaches sensor is capable of conveying a signal with a single wire; the insulative material is capable of absorbing fluid, [0012]); and
a sensor electrically coupled to the wire (sensor, [0011]), the sensor configured to:
generate a voltage in the wire (voltage source connected to electrical conductors, [0011]); and
detect a change in a property of the wire caused by exposure of the wire to a corrosive fluid that has permeated or leaked through the pipe liner and breached the pipe wall, entering the groove (when corrosion has thinned the interior of the pipe sufficiently to admit fluid into the cavity, and enough of that fluid has been absorbed to render the insulative material conductive, the circuit is completed, allowing current to flow through the wire pair, [0028]; Fig. 1 shows cavity would be past the liner which corresponds to location of corrosion of the present invention).
Further regarding claim 11, Yanik does not teach, “the wire formed of a material configured to chemically react with the corrosive fluid “ or “a groove extending circumferentially around an exterior surface of a pipe”, or “a wire disposed within the groove.” However, Munn teaches and equivalent wire in a helical groove (p. 10, Line 11-12), the resistance of the wire increases as it corrodes (p. 8, Lines 11-13). This corresponds to the chemical reaction of the present invention.
Regarding claims 12-19, the same limitations are found in claims 2-9, respectively, and may be rejected in the same manner. Refer to rejections for claims 2-9 above.
For the above claims 1-19, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the wire of Yanik with the corrosive wire of Munn because both provides strategies for approximating the corrosion rate (p. 9, Line 10). The above findings satisfies the Graham factual inquiries stated in MPEP 2143 B regarding simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the cavity of Yanik into the groove of Munn for at least the purpose of detecting corrosion in other locations of a pipe or tube. Furthermore, based on MPEP 2144.04 IV B, changes of shape is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed was significant. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Note that according to § MPEP 2144, “Office personnel may invoke legal precedent as a source of supporting rationale when warranted and appropriately supported.”
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanik and Munn as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 20220065726 (herein Mcnab).
Regarding claim 20, Yanik and Munn do not teach, “a reinforcing sleeve disposed around the exterior surface of the pipe and covering the groove, the reinforcing sleeve formed of a rigid material and provided to reinforce a structural integrity of the pipe.” However, Mcnab teaches it is known in the art to protect pipes 100 using tensile armour layer 105 ([0047]). Mcnab further teaches in [0047] that tensile armour layer is used to sustain tensile loads and internal pressure, and is made of metal or carbon steel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the armour of Mcnab into the combination of Yanik and Munn. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of resisting internal and external pressure and mechanical crushing loads ([0047]).
Claim(s) 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanik and Munn as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US 4863572 (herein Jasinski).
Regarding claims 21-22, Yanik and Munn do not teach, “wherein the sensor is coupled to a stand-off pipe, and the stand-off pipe is coupled to the pipe.” However, Jasinski teaches it is known in the art to have a stand-off pipe connected to a corrosion probe (see pipe in Fig. 1 connected perpendicularly to pipe 14 and coaxial with prob 12). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the stand-off pipe of Jasinski into the combination of Yanik and Munn. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of allowing permeate chemical species into the cavity and into contact with the sensor (Yanik, [0014]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/12/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Yanik remains relevant as presented in Office Action filed 2/12/2026. The Office now presents Munn to address the amendments that include a wire that chemically reacts, e.g. by changing resistance, to determine corrosion. Munn also addresses a helical groove for which the wire sits.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
