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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 57-61 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/09/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 56 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 pertaining to the previously applied rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither APA nor Minois explain how the mat and cables are combined to be deployed on the elongate element. This is not commensurate with the scope of claim 32, which makes no mention of how the mat and cables are combined, only reciting “the mat comprising at least two longitudinally-extending cables that are supported by a pliant substrate.” Examiner maintains that Minois clearly teaches such a mat and its application to an exterior surface of a pipeline, as detailed in the rejection above.
Applicant also argues that neither APA nor Minois teaches how the mat may be applied to at least a majority of the circumference of the pipe. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This limitation is also addressed in the rejection above. When applying a mat over a larger portion of the pipeline, the manner in which it is applied does not change from the teachings of Minois, namely that the mat is brought into contact with the pipeline and pressed thereon with roller boxes.
Applicant also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would not contemplate inserting a pipe with additional structures on its exterior into an outer pipe as claimed and that having pipe-conforming structures on an inner pipe would necessarily result in additional pipe thickness that would prevent such a pipe from fitting within an outer pipe. This is not persuasive, as APA clearly shows that it is well known and conventional in the prior art to apply additional materials such as cables, spacers, and insulation on an inner pipe and then insert such a pipe into an outer pipe. When determining pipe sizes, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that an outer pipe must be sized to accommodate these additional components.
Applicant argues that the uneven thickness of the mat of Minois would create an unevenly insulated pipe with localized cold regions, thereby undermining the purpose of the claimed invention. Firstly, it is important to note that the method of Minois is not introduced to provide a fully insulated pipe. The technique of Minois is used to fasten cables about the exterior of a pipe as an alternative to the individually applied cables of APA. When combined with APA, the application of insulation is a separate step which occurs after the cables are applied. Furthermore, the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 32 makes no mention of insulation and in no way requires uniform layer thickness to prevent localized cold spots. Examiner also notes that claim 32 recites “wrapping the mat around at least a majority of the circumference of the inner pipe.” The wrapping step expressly allows for only a portion (i.e. 51% to 99%) of the pipe to be wrapped, which would result in areas of the inner pipe with no mat or cables. In other words, the claim as written allows for the same uneven mat layer that the applicant argues would destroy the purpose of the invention.
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 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
Prosecution Insights