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 .
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) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0136017 to Turner.
In regards to claim 1, Turner recites a method for monitoring internal corrosion in a compromised pipe [0007-0012], comprising: applying a reinforcement layer (sleeve) on an outer surface of a pipe over a defect detected in an internal surface of the pipe [0008, 0011, 0044]; mounting a testing fiber Bragg grating (FBG) detector on the outer surface of the pipe over the defect [0010]; mounting a reference FBG detector on the outer surface of the pipe [0040]; and monitoring ([0041]; sensor interrogator) a difference between the testing FBG detector and the reference FBG detector signals to identify variations in wall thickness [0044] over the defect. Although Turner does not expressly recite monitoring a difference in hoop strain between the testing FBG detector and the reference FBG detector to identify variations in wall thickness over the defect, Applicant teaches (Specification [0027]) internal metal loss affects the stiffness of the pipe resulting in a change in circumferential or hoop strain. Since both Tuner and Applicant teach the loss of metal due to corrosion and further since Tuner and Applicant both teach a loss of metal to be directly related to hoop strain and lastly since Turner teaches the monitoring system to detect changes in the wall thickness due to corrosion, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art that Turner must also monitor a difference in hoop strain between the testing FBG detector and the reference FBG detector to identify variations in wall thickness over the defect for the purpose of ensuring the reinforcement layer to have properly repaired the detected defect.
In regards to claim 16, Tuner recites a system for monitoring internal corrosion in a compromised pipe [0007-0012], comprising: a reinforcement layer (sleeve) on an outer surface of the pipe over a defect detected in an inner surface of the pipe [0008, 0011, 0044]; a testing fiber Bragg grating (FBG) detector mounted on the outer surface of the pipe over the defect on the inner surface of the pipe [0010]; a reference FBG detector mounted on the outer surface of the pipe [0040]; an interrogator [0041] coupled to the testing FBG detector, wherein the interrogator measures a first wavelength shift [0041] of a reflected signal from the testing FBG detector; the interrogator coupled to the reference FBG detector, wherein the interrogator measures a second wavelength shift [0041] of a reflected signal from the reference FBG detector; and an analysis system coupled to the interrogator, wherein the analysis system comprises: a processor; and instructions operable to direct the processor to: obtain the first wavelength shift from the interrogator; obtain the second wavelength shift from the interrogator; and calculate metal loss on the inside surface of the pipe under the reinforcement layer. Although Turner does not expressly recite calculating hoop strain under the testing FBG detector, Applicant teaches (Specification [0027]) internal metal loss affects the stiffness of the pipe resulting in a change in circumferential or hoop strain. Since both Tuner and Applicant teach the loss of metal due to corrosion and further since Tuner and Applicant both teach a loss of metal to be directly related to hoop strain and lastly since Turner teaches the monitoring system to detect changes in the wall thickness due to corrosion, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art that Turner must also calculate hoop strain under the testing FBG detector to identify variations in wall thickness over the defect for the purpose of ensuring the reinforcement layer to have properly repaired the detected defect.
In regards to claim 2, Turner recites mounting the reinforcement layer comprises applying a filler (attachment layer) on the outer surface of the pipe over the defect, and then mounting the reinforcement layer over the filler. [0008-0009]
In regards to claim 3, Turner recites mounting the reinforcement layer comprises wrapping the pipe with the reinforcement layer.
In regards to claim 4, Turner recites mounting the reinforcement layer comprises mounting a sleeve of the reinforcement layer over the pipe.
In regards to claims 5, 6, 19 and 20, Turner recites the reinforcement layer comprises a glass fiber-reinforced plastic (GFRP) composite or a carbon fiber-reinforced plastic (CFRP) composite. [0052, 0061]
In regards to claims 7 and 17, Turner recites mounting the testing FBG detector over the defect comprises mounting the testing FBG detector on the outer surface of the pipe over the defect then applying the reinforcement layer. [0008]
In regards to claim 8, Turner recites mounting the testing FBG detector over the defect comprises incorporating the testing FBG detector into the reinforcement layer. [0008]
In regards to claim 9, Turner recites mounting the testing FBG detector over the defect comprises adhering the testing FBG detector onto the surface of the reinforcement layer. [0009]
In regards to claim 10, Turner recites using the variations in wall thickness over the defect to determine a localized metal loss. [0044]
In regards to claims 11-15, although Turner does not expressly recite wherein the defect is between about 1 mm and about 100 mm in size, wherein the localized metal loss is between about 0.5 mm and about 10 mm, wherein the localized metal loss is between about 3.5 mm and about 7 mm, wherein the localized metal loss is between about 8 mm and about 11 mm, and wherein the detectable amount of localized metal loss is inversely proportional to a size of the defect. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges or values through routine experimentation when the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. Discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and would have been an obvious matter of common skill to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art and therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to a person having ordinary skill in the art for the localized metal loss is between about 0.5 mm and about 10 mm, the localized metal loss is between about 3.5 mm and about 7 mm, the localized metal loss is between about 8 mm and about 11 mm, and wherein the detectable amount of localized metal loss is inversely proportional to a size of the defect since detecting defects and localized metal loss in these ranges would be advantageous in order to prevent a larger defect. In re Aller, 105 USPA 233; In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)
In regards to claim 18, Turner recites the reference FBG detector is mounted to the surface of the reinforcement layer. [0008]
In regards to claim 21, Turner recites the reinforcement layer to comprise an epoxy, a polyurethane or a vinyl ester, or any combination thereof. [0009]
References Cited
The references cited made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
The documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements have been considered and made of record. Note attached copy of forms PTO-1449.
Inventorship
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TINA M WONG whose telephone number is (571)272-2352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/TINA WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights