Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/570,221

A METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A DOUBLE-WALLED ELBOW PIPE SEGMENT, A PIPE ASSEMBLY

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Dec 14, 2023
Examiner
MCCALISTER, WILLIAM M
Art Unit
3753
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Pipeflex Systems Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
699 granted / 1015 resolved
-1.1% vs TC avg
Strong +19% interview lift
Without
With
+19.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1048
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
38.6%
-1.4% vs TC avg
§102
29.8%
-10.2% vs TC avg
§112
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1015 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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. Claims 1-10 are 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 1 recites the limitation "said assembled inner pipe member" at lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 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(s) 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Perherin (US 2021/0010619), which discloses: A method of manufacturing a double-walled elbow pipe segment, comprising the steps of: providing an inner pipe member (4); providing at least one first support member (3), and positioning said at least one first support member coaxially over said inner pipe member (FIGS 7-8 and the accompanying written description); providing an outer pipe member (2) and slidably positioning said assembled inner pipe member and said at least one first support member within said outer pipe member (FIGS 8-9) such that said at least one first support member is supportingly engaged with an outer surface of said inner pipe member and an inner surface of said outer pipe member (e.g., in order to transmit bending forces from the outer tube to the inner tube; e.g., para. 0027), and bending a pipe assembly of said inner pipe member, said at least one first support member and said outer pipe member (e.g., para. 0048) into at least one first elbow section of a predetermined first angle and in a predetermined first direction between an upstream end portion and a downstream end portion of said pipe assembly (as shown in FIG 3, where either end could be the upstream or downstream end, depending on which way fluid will flow through the pipe). 2. A method according to claim 1, wherein step (d) comprises bending said pipe assembly into at least one second elbow section of a predetermined second angle and in a predetermined second direction between said upstream end portion and said downstream end portion (see FIG 4 and the end of para. 0049, describing multiple bends). 7. A method according to any one of claims 2, wherein said at least one first support member is adapted to operably cover said at least one first elbow section and said at least one second elbow section (because the bends occur at the support members 3, 3’, 3’’; para. 0049). 8.A method according to claim 2, wherein step (b) further comprises providing at least one second support member and positioning said at least one second support member coaxially over said inner pipe member at said second elbow section (see FIG 4 and the end of para. 0049, describing multiple bends at multiple support members 3, 3’, 3’’). Regarding claim 11, see the analysis of claim 1 above, where the structure of claim 11 clearly corresponds to the analogous steps of “providing” that are explained above. Regarding claim 14, see the corresponding analysis of claim 8 above. Regarding claim 15, the intended operating medium does not further define over the prior art since the prior art pipe is capable of handling fuel. See MPEP 2115. Claim(s) 3-6 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perherin alone. Regarding claims 3-6, Perherin discloses the invention as claimed with exception to the specific directions of the bends and sizes of the angles. However it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date (official notice) to create pipe bends in the same plane, or in different planes, and to create pipe bends having the same angle, or different angles as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create the claimed features in Perherin’s pipe in order to accommodate an operating environment which requires or is conducive to the such geometric features. Regarding claims 9 and 10, the use of pipe bending tools and ball- diameter testing equipment was also well-known in the art before the effective filing date and it would have been obvious to use the same with Perherin’s pipe in order to mechanically perform the required bending operation and ensure that the pipe has a minimum flow capability. Claim(s) 1 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by JP S49114567 (document and translation provided by Applicant), which discloses: 11. A pipe assembly, comprising: an inner pipe member (2); an outer pipe member (3), adapted to operably receive said inner pipe member, so as to define an interstitial space between an outer wall of said inner pipe member and an inner wall of said outer pipe member, as well as, between an upstream end portion and a downstream end portion (see FIGS 1 and 2); and at least one first support member (5), adapted to be provided coaxially within said interstitial space so as to supportingly engage said inner wall of said outer pipe member and said outer wall of said inner pipe member (translation, para. 0002), when forming at least one first elbow section, and to provide a fluid path between said upstream end portion and said downstream end portion (see the elbow-shape of FIG 2). Regarding claim 1, see the analysis of claim 11 above, which clearly corresponds to the elements of claim 1. 12. A pipe assembly according to claim 11, wherein said at least one first support member (5) is arranged around said inner pipe member in the form of a helix (it’s a coil spring, translation para. 0002). 13.A pipe assembly according to any one of claim 11, wherein said at least one first support member is a coil spring having a predetermined length (translation para. 0002). Claim(s) 1, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by WO 2015/186147 A1 (document provided by Applicant), which discloses: 11.A pipe assembly, comprising: an inner pipe member (11); an outer pipe member (13), adapted to operably receive said inner pipe member, so as to define an interstitial space (15) between an outer wall of said inner pipe member and an inner wall of said outer pipe member, as well as, between an upstream end portion and a downstream end portion (see FIG 1a); and at least one first support member (20), adapted to be provided coaxially within said interstitial space so as to supportingly engage said inner wall of said outer pipe member and said outer wall of said inner pipe member (e.g., see Abstract), when forming at least one first elbow section, and to provide a fluid path between said upstream end portion and said downstream end portion (through the inner pipe member, after bending). Regarding claim 1, see the analysis of claim 11 above, which clearly corresponds to the elements of claim 1. 16.A pipe assembly according to claim 11, wherein said outer pipe member comprises carbon steel (p. 5, para. 01). Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2015/186147 A1 alone. WO 2015/186147 A1 does not disclose the pipe to have protective zinc coating. However it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date to use a zinc coating on a pipe as claimed (official notice), and it would have been obvious to use a zinc coating on a steel pipe with the pipe assembly disclosed by WO 2015/186147 A1 in order to create an affordable and durable rendition thereof. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. DE 10 2010 040 249 (document provided by Applciant) discloses similar pipe supports in a double-walled pipe with multiple bends in the same plane. CN 103038010 discloses the use of a tightly-fitting ball to verify the inside diameter of a pipe bend (para. 0042). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. /WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 2/24/26
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 14, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601166
LINING TUBE FOR RECONDITIONING OF DEFECTIVE SEWER PIPES AND METHOD OF PRODUCING AND INSTALLING ONE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590711
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MONITORING MAKEUP WATER FOR AUTOMATED LEAK DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12584777
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTINUOUSLY SUPPLYING A METERING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575747
AIR CONTROL MECHANISM AND SPHYGMOMANOMETER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576970
WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM FOR AN AIRCRAFT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+19.1%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1015 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