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 . 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.
Election/Restrictions
Claim 57-61 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 01/28/2026. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden in examining the inventions together. This is not found persuasive because the groups lack unity of invention and would require different fields of search and different search strategies and queries.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 56 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 56 recites “an elongate pliant substrate” in line 2. It is unclear whether this is the same pliant substrate mentioned previously in claim 32. Claim 56 also recites that the elongate pliant substrate “extends along a longitudinal axis” in line 3. It is unclear whether this is the previously recited longitudinal axis of the inner pipe, the previously recited longitudinal direction of the elongate mat, or a different axis altogether. For examination purposes, the claim has been construed as further limiting the same mat, cables, and pliant substrate of claim 32. Therefore the redundant and confusing limitations are not considered as part of the claim, and the claim is interpreted as shown below:
56. The method of Claim 32, wherein the mat
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.
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.
Claims 32-35, 38-39, 41-44, and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant’s admitted prior art (hereinafter referred to as APA) in view of Minois (US 2015/0378120).
APA discloses a conventional method of applying heating cables (14) to an elongate inner pipe (12) of a pipe-in-pipe (PiP) system, the method comprising: unspooling the cables from reels (16), guiding the cables via guides (18) onto an outer surface of the pipe such that the heating cables are angularly spaced around the circumference pipe, strapping the cables in place, adding spacers (24) on top of the cables, applying insulation (26) over the cables between the spacers, and inserting the inner pipe—which includes the cables, straps, spacers, and insulation—into an outer pipe (30) of the PiP system (See Fig. 1 and its description in pages 3-4 of the instant specification).
APA does not expressly disclose providing an elongate mat comprising the heating cables supported by a pliant substrate, bringing the mat together with the inner pipe in a common longitudinal direction, and wrapping the mat around the circumference of the inner pipe to position the cables on the outer surface of the pipe, and fixing the wrapped mat to the inner pipe as claimed.
Minois teaches a method of applying components (206) to a pipeline (202), the method comprising: unspooling a pipe-conforming structure (112,200,401) from a reel (114), bringing the pipe-conforming structure together with the pipeline in a common longitudinal direction, wherein the pipe-conforming structure comprises electrical heating lines (410) supported by a thin and flexible polymeric structure (400), conforming the pipe-conforming structure to an outer surface of the pipeline and thereby positioning the electrical heating lines at angular positions along its circumference, and holding the pipe-conforming structure in place on the pipeline with straps (See Figures; [0023]-[0047]). The pipe-conforming structure reads on the instantly claimed elongate mat, with the electrical heating lines and polymeric structure reading on the instantly claimed at least two longitudinally extending cables and pliant substrate, respectively. The conforming step reads on the instantly claimed step of wrapping the mat around a circumference of the inner pipe to position the cables at respective angular positions along a longitudinal axis of the inner pipe, and the holding step reads on the instantly claimed fixing step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use the method of Minois to angularly space the heating cables (14) to the elongate inner pipe (12) in the method of APA, since Minois teaches that such a method was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for applying heating cables to an outer circumference of a pipe, as detailed above.
Regarding the limitation requiring that the wrapping step cover “at least a majority of the circumference of the inner pipe,” Minois only teaches a step of wrapping the pipe-conforming structure to cover up to 180° (i.e. half) of the pipe’s circumference (See [0036]). However in the proposed combination of Minois and APA, the application of the pipe-conforming structure to at least a majority of the circumference of the inner pipe would have been obvious. In particular, since APA discloses angularly spaced heating cables which fully surround the inner pipe, one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize a wider pipe-conforming structure to achieve the desired distribution.
Regarding claim 33, the methods of both APA and Minois are performed in a simultaneous and continuous manner as claimed.
Regarding claim 34, APA teaches applying spacers (24) upstream of the outer pipe, as detailed above.
Regarding claim 35, APA teaches applying insulation (26) over the cables between the spacers, as detailed above.
Regarding claim 38, Minois teaches a step of unspooling the pipe-conforming structure from a reel (114) and advancing the structure toward the pipeline, as detailed above.
Regarding claim 39, Minois teaches a step of conforming the pipe-conforming structure to the shape of the pipeline after it exits the reel (See Figures; [0040]; [0047]).
Regarding claims 41 and 42, the reel of Minois rotates in a static position while the pipeline advances past the reel, which meets the claims.
Regarding claim 43, Fig. 1 of Minois shows that the pipe-conforming structure converges with the pipeline from above as claimed.
Regarding claim 44, both APA and Minois disclose straps which fix heating cables to the pipeline, as detailed above.
Regarding claim 56, the pipe-conforming structure adopts a circular profile as it conforms to the shape of the inner pipe. The application of the pipe-conforming structure to at least a majority of the circumference of the inner pipe would have been obvious in the combination of APA and Minois, as detailed above. Where such an arrangement is present, opposing longitudinal ends of the pipe-conforming structure must necessarily either face each other (if a gap is present) or abut or overlap each other (if no gap is present). Examiner notes that the particular edge configuration is not positively recited in the claim. The claim only requires that the mat is “wrappable” to achieve such a configuration. Therefore the claim is met by any mat which is capable of being wrapped in such a manner regardless of whether such wrapping takes place.
Regarding the substantially uniform thickness of the mat in claim 56, selection of mat thickness along its width is a routine matter of design choice which does not materially impact the method and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. While Minois suggests that edges of the mat be tapered, such a configuration is provided only to create a smooth transition to a pipe wall (See [0046]). When the pipe is fully surrounded by the mat in proposed combination of APA and Minois, the tapered portions become unnecessary. Examiner notes that the claim also recites a mat thickness which is “substantially uniform” along its width. Since complete uniformity is not required in the claim as written, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation includes mats with uniform thickness across a large majority of their width with only a slight taper at the ends as shown in Fig. 3 of Minois.
Claims 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Minois (US 2015/0378120), as applied to claims 32 and 34 above, and further in view of Cherkaoui (US 2018/0087694).
APA and Minois combine to teach a method of applying heating cables to an elongate inner pipe of a PiP system, as detailed above.
APA and Minois do not expressly disclose spacers which are aligned with cut-outs in the mat to directly contact the inner pipe and which include recesses in which the heating cables are accommodated.
Cherkaoui teaches a PiP assembly comprising a spacer array (24) with ribs (26) arranged at positions between heating elements (10) such that the ribs directly contact an inner pipe (12) of the PiP assembly (See Figs. 8-10 and their descriptions) and wherein the spacer array includes gaps (28) between the ribs in which the heating elements are retained (See Figures; [0072]; [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the spacer arrangement of Cherkaoui—which includes direct contact between the ribs and the inner pipe (claim 36) and recesses for accommodating the heating elements (claim 37)—in the method taught by the combination of APA and Minois because Cherkaoui teaches that such an arrangement was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for a heated PiP structure.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Minois (US 2015/0378120), as applied to claims 32 and 38-39 above, and further in view of Damour (US 2010/0095520).
APA and Minois combine to teach a method of applying heating cables to an elongate inner pipe of a PiP system, as detailed above.
APA and Minois do not expressly disclose funneling the mat after unspooling the mat to facilitate the wrapping step as claimed.
Damour teaches a method of wrapping a sheet (4) around an elongate element (2), the method comprising unspooling the sheet from a coil, feeding the sheet through a conical tube (3) from a large base (3a) to a small base (3b) and thereby forcing the sheet to be wrapped around the elongate element (See Figures; [0047]-[0066]). The conical tube acts as a funnel, and feeding the sheet through the conical tube reads on the instantly claimed funneling step.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a conical tube in the method taught by the combination of APA and Minois to funnel the mat around the inner pipe since Damour teaches that such a step was recognized in the prior art as being suitable for wrapping sheets around elongate elements.
Claims 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over APA in view of Minois (US 2015/0378120), as applied to claim 32 above, and further in view of Haas (US 3,374,308).
APA and Minois combine to teach a method of applying heating cables to an elongate inner pipe of a PiP system, as detailed above.
APA and Minois do not expressly disclose fixing the wrapped mat by including complementary fastening structures at opposing longitudinal edges of the mat, wherein the fastening structures engage one another upon wrapping the mat around the inner pipe.
Haas teaches a method of forming a PiP system with an inner pipe (10) inside an outer pipe (12), the method comprising providing segments (16) along a circumference of the inner pipe, wherein each segment includes a tongue (28) on a first longitudinal side and a groove (34) on a second longitudinal side, wherein the tongue fits into the groove when the segments are wrapped on the inner pipe (See Figures; col. 2, line 46 to col. 3, line 19). The tongue and groove of Haas read on the instantly claimed inter-engaging complementary fastenings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate the complementary fastenings of Haas on opposing longitudinal edges of the pipe-conforming structure (i.e. elongate mat) in the method taught by the combination of APA and Minois in order to provide a secure connection which holds the pipe-conforming structure in its desired position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARSON GROSS whose telephone number is (571)270-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm Eastern.
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, Michael Orlando can be reached at (571)270-5038. 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.
/CARSON GROSS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1746