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 Status
Claims 19-24 are pending. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments to claims 19-22.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19-24 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 2 – add --end-- between “second” and “of the inner sleeve”.
Correction is required.
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 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gerner U.S. Patent No. 3,268,240.
With regard to claim 19, and as shown in Figure 8, Gerner discloses a thermally-insulated conduit (TIC) comprising:
an outer metal conduit (at 10) having a first end (end near 75), an opposite second end (end opposite to the first end), and an inner surface;
an inner sleeve (at 11) positioned within the outer metal conduit and defining a central bore (bore thru 11), wherein an outer surface of the inner sleeve is spaced apart from the inner surface of the outer metal conduit to define an annular gap (as shown below) therebetween;
a first end cap (at 71) operatively coupled to a first end of the inner sleeve (at 11), the first end cap defining a shoulder (as shown below) that abuts the inner surface of the outer metal conduit at the first end, wherein the first end cap further defines an end face (as shown below) having a gland (at 78) configured to house at least a portion of an inter-conduit sealing member (at 77); and
a second end cap operatively coupled to a second end of the inner sleeve, the second end cap being configured to operatively couple with the second end of the outer metal conduit (wherein this configuration can be configured to be located at the opposite second end of the conduit and sleeve to be coupled to another conduit and sleeve in a string of tubing at column 4, lines 24-28);
wherein the TIC is releasably connectable to a further TIC by a conduit connector (at 75) such that when connected, the inter-conduit sealing member is compressed between the end face of the first end cap of the TIC and a second end cap of the further TIC (note that the further TIC and second end cap are not a part of the claimed invention and the TIC can be configured to be releasably connected to a second end cap).
PNG
media_image1.png
176
272
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 21, Gerner discloses wherein the second end cap (at 71, note that the configuration in Fig 8 is being utilized to represent the second end of the conduit and sleeve) defines an inner surface (inner surface of 71) that is at least partially operatively connected to the second of the inner sleeve (at 11), and wherein the inner surface of the second end cap (inner surface of 71) defines one or more glands (at 74), the one or more glands each for housing a third sealing member (at 73) that is configured provide a fluid tight seal between the inner surface of the second end cap and the second end of the inner sleeve.
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.
Claim(s) 20 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerner in view of Taylor et al U.S. Patent No. 3,479,059.
With regard to claim 20, Gerner discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose that the shoulder of the first end cap defines a gland for housing a second sealing member that is configured to provide a fluid tight seal between the first end cap and the first end of the outer metal conduit when the first end of the outer metal conduit abuts the first end cap. Taylor et al teach that a sealing member (at 44 as shown in Fig 1) can be housed in a gland of a shoulder (gland of 20 next to 48 as shown in Fig 1 and 2) to provide sealing engagement to effect a pressure seal against gas and fluid pressures (column 4, lines 5 and 42-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shoulder of the first end cap define a gland for housing a second sealing member with a reasonable expectation of success to provide sealing engagement to effect a pressure seal against gas and fluid pressures as taught by Taylor et al.
With regard to claim 22, Gerner discloses wherein the second end cap (at 71, note that the configuration in Fig 8 is being utilized to represent the second end of the conduit and sleeve) defines an outer surface that is at least partially operatively connected to the second end of the outer metal conduit, but does not disclose that the outer surface of the second end cap defines one or more glands, the one or more glands each for housing a fourth sealing member that is configured to provide a fluid tight seal between the outer surface of the second end cap and the second end of the outer metal conduit. Taylor et al teach that a sealing member (at 44 as shown in Fig 1) can be housed in a gland (gland of 20 next to 48 as shown in Fig 1 and 2) to provide sealing engagement to effect a pressure seal against gas and fluid pressures (column 4, lines 5 and 42-43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the shoulder of the first end cap define a gland for housing a second sealing member with a reasonable expectation of success to provide sealing engagement to effect a pressure seal against gas and fluid pressures as taught by Taylor et al.
Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gerner in view of Stephenson U.S. Patent No. 4,635,967.
With regard to claim 23, Gerner discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose that the annular gap is filled with a thermal-insulation material (TIM). Stephenson teaches filling an annular space between an outer conduit and an inner sleeve with a thermal insulating material (column 2, lines 14-17) to permit fluids of high temperatures and pressure to flow through with low heat loss and without leakage (column 2, lines 10-14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the annular gap be filled with a thermal-insulation material with a reasonable expectation of success to permit fluids of high temperatures and pressure to flow through with low heat loss and without leakage as taught by Stephenson.
With regard to claim 24, Gerner in view of Stephenson disclose the claimed invention but do not disclose that the TIM is an aerogel, calcium silicate, a cotton wool, a cotton wool insulation, a felt insulation, a fiberglass, a formed plastic, a polystyrene, a sheep wool, a silica gel, a styrofoam, a urethane foam, a wool felt or any combinations thereof. However, Stephenson teaches that the appropriate insulating material is determined by the use, the annular volume and the extremes of temperature that the TIM would be exposed to (column 3, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the TIM be an aerogel, calcium silicate, a cotton wool, a cotton wool insulation, a felt insulation, a fiberglass, a formed plastic, a polystyrene, a sheep wool, a silica gel, a styrofoam, a urethane foam, a wool felt or any combinations thereof with a reasonable expectation of success as Stephenson teaches that the appropriate insulating material is determined by the use, the annular volume and the extremes of temperature that the TIM would be exposed to and because it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment of at least claim 19 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 FANNIE KEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1820. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Matthew Troutman can be reached at 571-270-3654. 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.
/F.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3679
/Matthew Troutman/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3679
Prosecution Insights