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 § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites both the transitional phrases “comprising” and “consisting of” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether Applicant intends to recite an open-ended claim or not. Further, the term “even” before the transitional phrase “consisting of” also renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear whether the limitations following the term are part of the claimed invention. Claims 10 and 12 recite the limitation "the submarine pipe" in line 2 of claim 10 and lines 1-2 of claim 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. 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) 1 -10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardy (WO2006/126320 as published as US2008/0190507 , which will be used for citations purposes) in view of Demanze (WO2017/174660 also published as US2020/0324507 , which will be used for citations purposes) and Jeruza l et al. (WO2006/047375) . With regards to claim s 1 and 9 , Hardy discloses a flexible underwater pipe for the transport of fluid comprising at least one or two reinforc ement layers (18, 20) separated by an anti-wear layer 24 of p olymeric material , each of the reinforcement layers being produced by helical winding of a longitudinal element of metal or of composite material (paragraph [0030]), the anti-wear layer being produced by helical winding of at least one strip of the polymeric material (paragraphs [0031] and [0032]). Hardy does not specifically disclose that the polymeric material comprises a polypropylene homopolymer having a flexural modulus and a melt flow index as claimed. However, Demanze teaches a flexible underwater pipe that comprises anti- wear layers made of polymeric material (paragraph [0158]), and Demanze also teaches that polymeric materials comprising polypropylene homopolymer are suitable to being used as layers of flexible underwater pipes, wherein the polypropylene homopolymer has the claimed melt flow index , see paragraphs [0126], [0143] and [0152). Further, Jeruza l et al. also teaches that polymeric materials made of polypropylene homopolymer that exhibit the claimed flexural modulus and melt flow index are suitable for use as inner layers in flexible underwater pipes because such pipes exhibit improved hoop stress performance, ring stress performance, durability and low temperature impact resistance performance , see claim 13 and paragraphs [0024], [0130] and [0131 ] . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used polymeric materials comprising polypropylene homopolymer as the anti-wear layers of the flexible underwater pipe of hardy, in light of the teachings of Demanze and Jeruza l et al., in order to produce flexible underwater pipes that exhibit improved hoop stress performance, ring stress performance, durability and low temperature impact resistance performance . Regarding claim 2, see claim 13 of Jeruza l et al. Regarding claims 3-5, see paragr a phs [0076], [0162] and [0163] and claim 13 of Jeruzal et al. Applicant should note that it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to select the different proportions of the different elements through routine experimentation. Regarding claim 6, see the figure of Hardy. Regarding claim 7, Applicant should note that Hardy and Demanze teach unbounded type pipes. Further, unbounded flexible underwater pipes are old and well known in the art. Regarding claim 8, Applicant should note that the recited structure is old and well-known in the art. Further, Hardy/ Demanze / Jeruzai et al. teach the recited polymeric material. Regarding claim 9, Applicant should note that the recited method steps are inherent in making the flexible underwater pipe of claim 1 taught by Hardy/ Denaze / Jeruzai et al. Regarding claims 10 and 12, Applicant should note that the flexible underwater pipe of Hardy/ Denaze / Jeruzai et al. is for transporting fluid. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (469)295-9278 . The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 10:00AM to 6:00PM. 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Alford Kindrerd can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272- 40 37 . 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. /ESSAMA OMGBA/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746