DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, in the reply filed on July 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on July 21, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 19, 20, 23 - 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mcguinness (AU2021102902A4).
Regarding claim 19, Mcguinness discloses a repair assembly for repairing a pipeline (Abstract), the repair assembly (Figure 8A: 200) comprising:
a bladder (paragraph [0096], Figure 8A: 202);
a liner (paragraph [0096], Figure 8A: 104) at least partially surrounding the bladder (Figure 8A: shows liner 104 wrapping bladder 202), the liner configured to be impregnated with a resin capable of curing and hardening (paragraph [0020 - 0022]: mentions about liner containing curable resin and being cured), wherein the liner has an outer surface configured to be positioned adjacent to the pipeline (Figure 32: shows liner 104 outer surface being adjacent to the inner wall of pipe 600);
a semi-rigid member (paragraph [0093]: tape 106, Figure 2: 106) positioned along the outer surface of the liner.
Regarding claim 20, Mcguinness discloses a repair assembly according to claim 19 as set forth above. Mcguinness further discloses the semi-rigid member is wrapped around the outer surface of the liner in a helical configuration (Figure 2: shows 106 wrapped around outer surface of 104 in helical configuration).
Regarding claim 23, Mcguinness discloses a repair assembly according to claim 19 as set forth above. Mcguinness further discloses the bladder being part of a packer (paragraph [00106]: “sealing arrangement 214”, Figure 8A: 214).
Regarding claim 24, Mcguinness discloses a repair assembly according to claim 19 as set forth above. Mcguinness further discloses the liner has an end (Figure 8A shows liner 104 has end), and the semi- rigid member extends to the end of the liner (Figure 2 shows 106 extends till end of 104).
Regarding claim 25, Mcguinness discloses a method of repairing a pipeline (Title, Abstract), said method comprising:
taking a repair assembly (Figure 8A: 200) having an inflatable bladder (paragraph [0096], Figure 8A: 202) and resin impregnable liner (Figure 8A: 104; paragraph [0020 - 0022]: mentions about liner containing curable resin and being cured), wherein the liner has an outer surface configured to be positioned adjacent to the pipeline (Figure 32: shows liner 104 outer surface being adjacent to the inner wall of pipe 600);
positioning the liner at least partially around the bladder (paragraph [0020]);
impregnating the liner with a resin capable of curing and hardening (paragraph [0020]); wrapping a semi-rigid member around the outer surface of the liner (paragraph [0093]: tape 106, Figure 2: 106);
positioning the repair assembly in the pipeline (paragraph [0020]);
inflating the bladder using fluid pressure causing the repair assembly to expand outwardly toward the inside wall of the pipeline (paragraph [0020]);
removing the bladder from the pipeline after the liner has cured and hardened (paragraph [0020]).
Regarding claim 26, Mcguinness discloses a method of repairing a pipeline according to claim 25 as set forth above. Mcguinness further discloses the semi-rigid member being wrapped around the outer surface of the liner in a helical configuration (Figure 2: shows 106 wrapped around outer surface of 104 in helical configuration).
Regarding claim 27, Mcguinness discloses a method of repairing a pipeline according to claim 25 as set forth above. Mcguinness further discloses the liner has an end (Figure 8A shows liner 104 has end), and the semi- rigid member provides a pathway between the liner and the pipeline allowing any air trapped between the liner and pipeline to travel along the pathway to the end of the liner (Figure 2 shows 106 extends till end of 104, the pathway or gap created between the pipe wall and liner because of the semi-rigid member being wrapped around the liner, as there are gaps formed between the helical windings of the semi-rigid member which will provide a helical pathway for fluid to travel along to the end of the liner in the same manner as the applicant’s device).
Regarding claim 28, Mcguinness discloses a method of repairing a pipeline according to claim 25 as set forth above. Mcguinness further discloses positioning the repair assembly within a bend in the pipeline (Figure 30 – 33 show the positioning of the repair assembly in a pipe bend).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcguinness in view of Kiest (US20090194184A1) hereinafter Kiest.
Regarding claim 21, Mcguinness discloses a repair assembly with a semi-rigid member positioned along the outer surface of the liner according to claim 19 as set forth above.
Mcguinness does not disclose the semi-rigid member being an O-ring.
Kiest teaches O-rings (paragraph [0059], Figure 5: 34) be placed around liner member (paragraph [0059]: describes O-rings 34 wrapped around main liner member 30). Kiest also mentions O-ring being constructed from semi-rigid known gasket material such as neoprene rubber, urethane or silicone rubber (paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the O-rings taught by Kiest as the semi-rigid member to more securely and resiliently keep the liner wrapped around the bladder until inflation of the bladder and prevent unwanted premature expansion of the bladder (and thus expansion of the liner) if the tape breaks prematurely for the repair assembly disclosed by Mcguinness.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mcguinness in view of Kiest and Belcher (US6592153) hereinafter Belcher.
Regarding claim 22, Mcguinness discloses a repair assembly with a semi-rigid member positioned along the outer surface of the liner according to claim 19 as set forth above.
Mcguinness does not disclose the semi-rigid member being an "X" shaped O-ring.
Kiest teaches O-rings (paragraph [0059], Figure 5: 34) be placed around liner member (paragraph [0059]: describes O-rings 34 wrapped around main liner member 30). Kiest also mentions O-ring being constructed from semi-rigid known gasket material such as neoprene rubber, urethane or silicone rubber (paragraph [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the O-rings taught by Kiest as the semi-rigid member to more securely and resiliently keep the liner wrapped around the bladder until inflation of the bladder and prevent unwanted premature expansion of the bladder (and thus expansion of the liner) if the tape breaks prematurely for the repair assembly disclosed by Mcguinness.
Belcher teaches that an O-ring can have cross-sections of varying shape, including an “O-shape” and an “X-shape” (col. 4, ln. 18-21).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the “X” shaped O-rings taught by Belcher as the semi-rigid member to keep the liner wrapped around the bladder for the repair assembly disclosed by Mcguinness in view of Kiest, as Belcher teaches these are known alternative functionally equivalent cross-sectional shapes for an O-ring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US20100212766A1 discloses apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-0113. The examiner can normally be reached Tue, Wed 9:00am-7:00pm and Thurs 8:30am-2:30pm EST.
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, Craig M Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached 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.
/FAISAL AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/MICHAEL R REID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights