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
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 Anelli et al. (US20160146380) in view of Demanze (WO2017/174660 also published as US2020/0324507, which will be used for citations purposes).
With regards to claims 1-5 and 9, Anelli et al. discloses a flexible underwater pipe for the transport of fluid comprising at least one or two reinforcement layers (41, 61) separated by an anti-wear layer 70 of polypropylene polymeric material (paragraphs [0075] and [0076]), each of the reinforcement layers being produced by helical winding of a longitudinal element of metal or of composite material (paragraph [0003]), the anti-wear layer being produced by helical winding of at least one strip of the polymeric material (paragraph [0076]). Anelli et al. also discloses that a covering layer of polypropylene material can also be provided between carcass 10 and a polymeric liner 20 (paragraphs [0058] and [0059]). Anelli et al. does not specifically disclose that the polypropylene material is 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). 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 polypropylene homopolymer material as the anti-wear layers of the flexible underwater pipe of Anelli et al., in light of the teachings of Demanze, since Anelli et al. broadly discloses that anti-wear layers for flexible underwater pipes made of polypropylene material are suitable for such use. Regarding the recitation of the polypropylene homopolymer having a flexural modulus measured at 23oC, according to the 2019 ISO 178 standard, greater than 1500 MPa, Applicant should note that the exact type of polypropylene material can be found through routine experimentation since it has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP 2144.05 II A. Regarding the recitation of the polymeric material comprising at lease 50% by weight of a polypropylene homopolymer, Applicant should note that because Anelli et al. discloses that the material of the polymeric material is polypropylene, it goes without saying that polypropylene will be the main constituent if not the only constituent thus meeting the claimed “at least 50% by weight of a polypropylene homopolymer”. Applicant should note that the recited method steps are inherent in making the flexible underwater pipe taught by Anelli et al./Demanze
Regarding claim 6, see figure 1 of Anelli et al.
Regarding claim 7, Applicant should note that Anelli et al. 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, Anelli et al./Demanze teach the recited polymeric material.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Applicant should note that the flexible underwater pipe of Anelli et al./Demanze is for transporting fluid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment 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 ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (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, Alexander Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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
Prosecution Insights