Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/541,716

Flexible Protection for Rigid Pipes

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Dec 15, 2023
Examiner
KEE, FANNIE C
Art Unit
3679
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Hellermanntyton S A S
OA Round
2 (Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
536 granted / 769 resolved
+17.7% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
28 currently pending
Career history
797
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
32.3%
-7.7% vs TC avg
§102
38.4%
-1.6% vs TC avg
§112
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 769 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 1-19 and 21 are pending. Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 5 and 12-17, the cancelation of claim 20 and new claim 21. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 retrieved on 8/4/25. Drawings The drawings were received on 9/4/25. These drawings are acceptable to Examiner. Claim Objections Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 – add a space after the comma between “material,” and “the first material”. Correction is required. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regard to claim 1, Applicant argues that Santinello does not disclose the claimed invention as the elements in Santinello are not arranged as required by the claim. Examiner disagrees. As set forth in the rejection below, Santinello discloses a flexible layer defining a longitudinally opened cavity (paragraph 25, lines 1-3 of the English translation previously cited with the non-final office action) with one or more holding arms arranged to hold the pipe in the cavity (paragraph 27, lines 1-2). Therefore, the elements of Santinello are arranged as required by the claim. Applicant should note that while anticipation requires the disclosure of each and every limitation of the claim at issue in a single prior art reference, it does not require such disclosure in haec verba. In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660, 193 USPQ 12, 16 (CCPA 1977). In addition, it does not require that the prior art reference "teach" what the application at issue teaches. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 218 USPQ 781 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Finally, Applicant is reminded that during examination claim limitations are to be given their broadest reasonable reading. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989). With regard to claim 1, Applicant argues that Santinello does not disclose that the holding arms are made of a different material than the flexible layer where the second material has a second rigidity greater than a first rigidity of the first material. Examiner disagrees. Claim 1 does not recite that the first material and the second material are claimed to be different materials. Rather, claim 1 recites that the second material has a rigidity that is greater than a rigidity than the first material. As set forth in the rejection below, the first material of the flexible layer has less rigidity as the flexible layer curves around an inserted pipe (as shown in Fig 3) while the second material of the holding arms is more rigid as the second material forces a stable positioning of the flexible layer around the inserted pipe (paragraph 27, lines 1-3). Therefore, the Santinello discloses the claimed limitations. With regard to claim 1, Applicant argues that Santinello does not disclose that the flexible layer has a varying thickness. Examiner disagrees. As shown below, the flexible layer has a varying thickness. PNG media_image1.png 202 226 media_image1.png Greyscale 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) 1-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Santinello Italian Patent No. ITTV20080118A1. With regard to claim 1, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses a flexible protection sheath for protecting a pipe, the sheath comprising: a flexible layer (at 4, 10, 6a, 6b - paragraph 25, lines 1-3, see previously cited English translation) defining a longitudinally opened cavity (see below) arranged to receive the pipe, wherein the flexible layer is made in a first material, the first material having a first rigidity (as shown in Figure 3 where the flexible layer is flexible and curves around an inserted pipe) and a varying thickness (see below); and one or more holding arms (at 7), made in a second material, the second material having a second rigidity greater than the first rigidity, and the one or more holding arms arranged to hold the pipe in the cavity (where the holding arm holds the flexible layer in place as shown in Figure 4, forces a stable positioning of the flexible layer around the inserted pipe (paragraph 27, lines 1-3), and therefore is more rigid than the flexible layer). PNG media_image2.png 470 694 media_image2.png Greyscale With regard to claim 2, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses further comprising: a stiffening base (paragraph 23, lines 4-5 - where the base is thicker providing a stiffening for the flexible layer). With regard to claim 3, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the stiffening base is made in the second material (as the base provides stiffening for the flexible layer and is thicker than the flexible layer, the base is more rigid and is therefore the second material having a second rigidity greater than the first rigidity). With regard to claim 4, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the stiffening base extends at least partially in a longitudinal direction (see above). With regard to claim 5, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the stiffening base is at least one of connected to the one or more holding arms (via the flexible layer) or integral with the one or more holding arms (as shown in Figure 1 where the stiffening base is formed integrally with the one or more holding arms and the flexible layer). With regard to claim 6, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the one or more holding arms (at 7) extend above an opened plane of the longitudinally opened cavity (as shown in Fig 1). With regard to claim 7, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the one or more holding arms extend radially (where the holding arm at 7 extends radially from the flexible layer). With regard to claim 8, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the stiffening base is made in the second material (as the base provides stiffening for the flexible layer, the base is more rigid and is therefore the second material similar to the one or more holding arm having a second rigidity greater than the first rigidity). With regard to claim 9, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the stiffening base extends at least partially in a longitudinal direction (see above). With regard to claim 10, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the one or more holding arms (at 7) extend above an opened plane of the longitudinally opened cavity (as shown above). With regard to claim 11, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the one or more holding arms extend radially (where the holding arm at 7 extends radially from the flexible layer). With regard to claim 12, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the flexible layer is made of a plurality of layers (as shown above). With regard to claim 13, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the flexible layer has an inner layer and an outer layer, and the outer layer has ridges (as shown above). With regard to claim 14, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the outer layer has openings (as shown above). With regard to claim 15, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the sheath extends at least partially in a longitudinal direction in a rest position, wherein in the rest position the sheath extends in an unbent position in the longitudinal direction (where the sheath extends in a longitudinal direction as shown in Figure 1 when the sheath is not moving or being utilized, i.e., a rest position). With regard to claim 16, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the sheath extends at least partially in a longitudinal direction in a rest position, wherein in the rest position the sheath extends in an unbent position in the longitudinal direction (where the sheath extends in a longitudinal direction as shown in Figure 1 when the sheath is not moving or being utilized, i.e., a rest position). With regard to claim 17, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the flexible layer is made of a plurality of layers (as shown above). With regard to claim 18, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the one or more holding arms extend radially (where the holding arm at 7 extends radially from the flexible layer). With regard to claim 19, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses wherein the one or more holding arms (at 7) extend above an opened plane of the longitudinally opened cavity (as shown in Fig 1). With regard to claim 21, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses a flexible protection sheath for protecting a pipe, the sheath comprising: a flexible layer (paragraph 25, lines 1-3, see attached English translation) defining a longitudinally opened cavity (see below) arranged to receive the pipe, wherein the flexible layer is made in a first material, the first material having a first rigidity (as shown in Figure 3 where the flexible layer is flexible and curves around an inserted pipe) and a varying thickness; and one or more holding arms (at 7), made in a second material, the second material having a second rigidity greater than the first rigidity, and the one or more holding arms arranged to hold the pipe in the cavity (where the holding arm holds the flexible layer in place, as shown in Figure 4, and is therefore more rigid than the flexible layer – paragraph 27, lines 1-2). With regard to claim 21, and as shown in Figure 1, Santinello discloses a flexible protection sheath for protecting a pipe, the sheath comprising: a flexible layer (at 4, 10, 6a, 6b - paragraph 25, lines 1-3, see previously cited English translation) defining a longitudinally opened cavity (as shown above) arranged to receive the pipe, wherein the flexible layer is made in a first material, the first material having a first rigidity (as shown in Figure 3 where the flexible layer is flexible and curves around an inserted pipe) and a varying thickness (as shown above), the flexible layer made of a plurality of layers (as shown above); and one or more holding arms (at 7), made in a second material, the second material having a second rigidity greater than the first rigidity, and the one or more holding arms arranged to hold the pipe in the cavity (where the holding arm holds the flexible layer in place as shown in Figure 4, forces a stable positioning of the flexible layer around the inserted pipe (paragraph 27, lines 1-3), and therefore is more rigid than the flexible layer); and a stiffening base (paragraph 23, lines 4-5 - where the base is thicker providing a stiffening for the flexible layer) made in the second material (as the base provides stiffening for the flexible layer and is thicker than the flexible layer, the base is more rigid and is therefore the second material having a second rigidity greater than the first rigidity), the stiffening base at least one of: connected to the one or more holding arms (via the flexible layer); or integral with the one or more holding arms (as shown in Figure 1 where the stiffening base is formed integrally with the one or more holding arms and the flexible layer). Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 15, 2023
Application Filed
Jun 08, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Aug 11, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Aug 11, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 04, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §102
Apr 08, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 08, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601439
FITTING WITH RING NUT FOR FIXING A BRANCH PIPE OF AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601429
Wear Ring
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601432
FLOATING CONNECTOR FOR LIQUID COOLING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595865
Coupling and Circumferential Groove Shape
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590666
COUPLING FOR INSULATED PIPING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
70%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+29.8%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 769 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month