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
Applicant’s election of Group I in the reply filed on 14 August, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 1 and 6 recites “driving means”. These limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a plurality of wheel assemblies, and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [0068] of the specification of the instant application).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a mechanism in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 13 recites “a mechanism”. These limitations are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as a pressurized fluid, mechanical actuator, hydraulic actuator, a positive displacement mechanism, a pressurized fluid, or any combination thereof, and equivalents thereof, to accomplish the claimed function (see at least [0048] of the specification of the instant application).
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.
Claims 1-6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Arx (3,885,521) in view of Broze (2015/0217323).
Regarding Claim 1, Von Arx teaches a pipeline pig system (Fig. 1) adapted to clean a pipe before applying a chemical to an interior wall of the pipe (Fig. 1), the pipeline pig system comprising:
a cleaning pig (Ref. 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a cleaning pig body (Ref. 11-13, Fig. 1) arranged to extend circumferentially about an axis (Fig. 1 annotated below), and
a cleaning structure (Ref. 14, fig. 1) coupled to the cleaning pig body (Fig. 1) and arranged to extend circumferentially around the cleaning pig body relative to the axis (Fig. 1),
an applicator pig (Ref. 2&G, Fig. 1) spaced apart axially from the cleaning pig (Fig. 1) to define a application storage space (Ref. M, Fig. 1) therebetween, wherein the applicator pig moves in the lateral direction through the pipe (Fig. 1), the applicator pig comprising:
an applicator pig body (Ref. 60&21-23, Fig. 1) arranged to extend circumferentially about the axis (Fig. 1), the applicator pig body includes a mixer (Ref. 24, left set of bristles, Fig. 1) in fluid communication with the application storage space between the cleaning pig and the applicator pig (Fig. 1), wherein the applicator pig body mixes one or more chemical applications that flow from the application storage space to the mixer as the applicator pig moves in the lateral direction through the pipe to provide a target application mixture ([Col. 4, Lines 31-41] Fig. 1, examiner interprets the limitation as intended use and the pig body (24) would be capable of mixing one or more chemical applications through agitation from the storage space while moving laterally),
an applicator brush (Ref. 24, right set of bristles, Fig. 1) coupled to the applicator pig body for movement therewith and arranged to extend circumferentially around the applicator pig body relative to the axis (Fig. 1), wherein the applicator brush applies the target application mixture from the mixer to the interior wall of the pipe as the applicator pig moves in the lateral direction through the pipe behind the cleaning pig (Fig. 1, [Col. 4, Lines 36-41]), and
drive means (Ref. 60, Fig. 1) for rotating the applicator pig body as it travels through the pipe ([Col. 5, Lines 15-18]).
Von Arx fails to explicitly teach the cleaning pig comprising wherein a cleaning brush removes residue from the interior wall of the pipe as the cleaning pig moves in a lateral direction through the pipe, and the drive means rotating the applicator pig body as it travels through the pipe thereby causing the applicator brush to rotate and uniformly apply the target application mixture to the interior wall of the pipe. Broze teaches a pipeline pig system with a cleaning pig and an applicator pig and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Broze teaches A pipeline pig system (Fig. 3) adapted to clean a pipe before applying a chemical to an interior wall of the pipe (Fig. 3, [0020]), the pipeline pig system comprising:
a cleaning pig (Ref. 16, 28, &18, Fig. 3) comprising:
a cleaning pig body (Ref. 28, Fig. 1) arranged to extend circumferentially about an axis (Fig. 1 lateral axis), and
a cleaning brush (Ref. 18, Fig. 3) coupled to the cleaning pig body (Fig. 3) and arranged to extend circumferentially around the cleaning pig body relative to the axis (Fig. 3), wherein the cleaning brush removes residue from the interior wall of the pipe as the cleaning pig moves in a lateral direction through the pipe (Fig. 3, [0023] describes "…The discs at the front end will help clean the pipeline inner surface (top, bottom or side) before applying fresh corrosion inhibitors…"),
an applicator pig (Ref. 14, Fig. 3) spaced apart axially from the cleaning pig (Fig. 3) to define a application storage space (Fig. 3 annotated below) therebetween, wherein the applicator pig moves in the lateral direction through the pipe (Fig. 3, [0006 & 0020] describes "…means for rotating the one or more circular brushes as the pig moves through the pipeline…"), the applicator pig comprising drive means for rotating the applicator pig body as it travels through the pipe (Fig. 3, [0006&0020] describes "…means for rotating the one or more circular brushes as the pig moves through the pipeline…"), thereby causing the applicator brush to rotate and uniformly apply the target application mixture to the interior wall of the pipe (Fig. 3, [0006&0020] describes "…means for rotating the one or more circular brushes as the pig moves through the pipeline…The brushes may be rotated by any method known to one of ordinary skill in the art"). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaning structure, as taught by Von Arx, with the cleaning brushes that removes residue from the interior wall of the pipe as the cleaning pig moves in a lateral direction through the pipe, as taught by Broze, to evenly distribute the chemical to the interior wall ([0023]). Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the driving means, as taught by Von Arx, to rotate the applicator pig body as it travels through the pipe causing the applicator brush to rotate and uniformly apply the target application mixture to the interior wall of the pipe, as taught by Broze, to ensure the coating is covering the entire inner circumference of the pipeline ([0020]).
PNG
media_image1.png
313
750
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
296
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Von Arx as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the drive means includes a plurality of wheel assemblies (Ref. 61-62, Fig. 1) coupled to the applicator pig body that extend from the applicator pig body to the interior wall of the pipe (Fig. 1), each wheel assembly having a wheel arm (Ref. 61, Fig. 1) coupled to the applicator pig body (Fig. 1) and a wheel (Ref. 62, fig. 1) coupled to the wheel arm at an angle relative to the axis (Fig. 1, [Col. 5, Lines 26-31] describes "This, and the fact that the wheels lie at angles to the axis, i.e., along helical arcs, ensures reliable rotation and improved smoothing by polishing device G as the coating apparatus advances and the speed thereof varies."), wherein the wheel rotates about a wheel axis (See annotated Fig. 1 above).
Regarding Claim 3, Von Arx as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the applicator pig body includes an applicator pig head (Ref. 2, Fig. 1), an applicator pig shaft (Ref. 42,3,&Z, Fig. 1) that extends axially away from the applicator pig head (Fig. 1), and a rear applicator pig disc (Ref. 4, Fig. 1) that extends radially outward from and circumferentially around the applicator pig shaft (Fig. 1) at a location spaced apart axially from the applicator pig head to define an annular cavity therebetween (Fig. 1), wherein the applicator brush (24) is coupled to the applicator pig shaft of the applicator pig body (42,3&Z) in the annular cavity between the applicator pig head and the rear applicator pig disc (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 4, Von Arx as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, and further teaches wherein the rear applicator pig disc spreads the target application mixture to a uniform thickness on the interior wall of the pipe (Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Lines 45-47] describes "a polishing device positioned in the duct upstream of the piston assembly to smooth the coating").
Regarding Claim 5, Von Arx as modified teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the applicator pig body includes more than one rear applicator pig disc and each rear applicator pig disc extends radially outward from and circumferentially around the applicator pig shaft and/or wherein the applicator pig body includes more than one forward applicator pig disc and each forward applicator pig disc extends radially outward from and circumferentially around the applicator pig shaft. However, an embodiment of Von Arx teaches an applicator pig body (Ref 2&G1, Fig. 2) includes more than one rear applicator pig disc (Ref. 141, Fig. 2) and each rear applicator pig disc extends radially outward from and circumferentially around the applicator pig shaft (Fig. 1) and/or wherein the applicator pig body includes more than one forward applicator pig disc and each forward applicator pig disc extends radially outward from and circumferentially around the applicator pig shaft. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to duplicate the rear applicator pig disc, as taught by the first embodiment of Von Arx, to have more than one rear applicator pig disc, as taught by the second embodiment of Von Arx, by duplication of parts to ensure a proper thickness and polishing of the coating in the pipe and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of polishing the coating on the interior wall of the pipe.
Regarding Claim 6, Von Arx teaches the limitations of claim 3 as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the applicator pig body further includes a forward applicator pig disc that extends radially outward from and circumferentially around the applicator pig shaft at a location axially between the applicator pig head and the rear applicator pig disc to divide the annular cavity into a first section between the applicator pig head and the forward applicator pig disc and a second section between the forward applicator pig disc and the rear applicator pig disc. However, an embodiment of Von Arx teaches an applicator pig body (Ref 2&G1, Fig. 2) includes a rear applicator pig disc (Ref. 141, right disc, Fig. 1) and a forward applicator pig disc (Ref. 141, left disc, Fig. 1)that extends radially outward from and circumferentially around the applicator pig shaft (Fig. 1) at a location axially between the applicator pig head (1) and the rear applicator pig disc (141, right) to divide the annular cavity into a first section between the applicator pig head (Fig. 1) and the forward applicator pig disc (141, left disc) and a second section (Ref. 141c, Fig. 1) between the forward applicator pig disc and the rear applicator pig disc (Fig. 1), wherein the drive means (60) is coupled to the applicator pig shaft (125, left side) in the first section of the annular cavity (Fig. 1, left opening between 2 and 141, left side) and the applicator brush is coupled to the applicator pig shaft of the applicator pig body in the second section of the annular cavity (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the rear applicator pig disc, as taught by the first embodiment of Von Arx, to have a forward applicator pig disc, as taught by the second embodiment of Von Arx, to ensure a proper thickness and polishing of the coating in the pipe since such a modification would yield the predictable result of polishing the coating on the interior wall of the pipe and to allow improved smoothing of the coating by providing more polishing brushes to the interior of the pipe ([Col. 5, Lines 34-45]).
Regarding Claim 11, Von Arx as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and further teaches wherein the cleaning pig body includes a cleaning pig head (Ref. 15, left side, Fig. 1), a cleaning pig shaft (Ref. Z, Fig. 1) that extends axially away from the cleaning pig head (Fig. 1), and a rear cleaning pig disc (Ref. 13&15, right side, Fig. 1) that extends radially outward from and circumferentially around the cleaning pig shaft (Fig. 1) at a location spaced apart axially from the cleaning pig head to define an annular cavity therebetween (Fig. 1), wherein the cleaning brush is coupled to the cleaning pig shaft of the cleaning pig body in the annular cavity between the cleaning pig head and the rear cleaning pig disc (Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 12, Von Arx as modified teaches the limitations of claim 11 as described above, and further teaches wherein the cleaning pig body includes more than one rear cleaning pig disc (Ref. 13&15, right side, Fig. 1) and each rear cleaning pig disc extends radially outward from and circumferentially around the cleaning pig shaft (fig. 1) and/or wherein the cleaning pig includes more than one cleaning pig brush and each cleaning pig brush is coupled to the cleaning pig body and arranged to extend circumferentially around the cleaning pig body relative to the axis..
Regarding Claim 13, Von Arx as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, and further teaches a mechanism (Ref. Z, Fig. 1) that applies a force to the applicator pig to move the cleaning pig and the applicator pig in the lateral direction through the pipe (Fig. 1, [Col. 4, Lines 31-34]).
Regarding Claim 14, Von Arx as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1 as described above, and further teaches wherein the one or more chemical applications comprises a member selected from the group consisting of a corrosion inhibitor, a biocide, a paraffin inhibitor, an asphaltene inhibitor, a surface wetting agent, a cleaning compound, an iron chelator, a solvent, a dispersant, a surfactant, an internal film forming material ([Col. 1, Lines 22-25] describes coating masses on the inner surface creating an internal film forming material such as glass fibers), a drag reducer, and any combination thereof.
Claims 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Arx in view of Broze as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Weaver (3,111,431).
Regarding Claim 7, Von Arx teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the applicator pig body is formed to define a passageway that extends axially into the applicator pig head and the applicator pig shaft of the applicator pig body, the passageway having an inlet at the applicator pig head of the applicator pig body that opens into the application storage space and at least one outlet that opens into the annular cavity to provide the target application mixture to the applicator brush, and wherein the mixer is located in the passageway. Weaver teaches a pipeline pig system with an applicator pig for applying a coating to an interior wall of a pipe and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Weaver teaches wherein an applicator pig body (Ref. 10, fig. 1) is formed to define a passageway (Fig. 1-2, dotted lines inner portion) that extends axially into an applicator pig head ((Ref. 8,&24, Fig. 1-2) and an applicator pig shaft of the applicator pig body ((Ref. 24’, Fig. 1), the passageway having an inlet (Ref. 22, fig. 2) at the applicator pig head of the applicator pig body (Fig. 2) that opens into the application storage space (fig. 2, Ref. 12, internal portion) and at least one outlet (Ref. 11, Fig. 1) that opens into the annular cavity (Ref. 10, Fig. 1) to provide the target application mixture to the applicator brush (Ref. 13, Fig. 1), and wherein a mixer (Ref. 23, Fig. 2) is located in the passageway (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the applicator pig body, as taught by Von Arx, with the passageway, as taught by Weaver, to effectively distribute the coating to the inner lining of the pipes evenly, thoroughly, quickly, and inexpensively ([Col. 1, Lines 23-29]).
Regarding Claim 9, Von Arx as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the applicator pig body is formed to define a passageway that extends axially into the applicator pig body, the passageway having an inlet that opens into the application storage space and at least one outlet that opens at the applicator brush. Weaver teaches a pipeline pig system with an applicator pig for applying a coating to an interior wall of a pipe and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Weaver teaches wherein an applicator pig body (Ref. 10, fig. 1) is formed to define a passageway (Fig. 1-2, dotted lines inner portion) that extends axially into an applicator pig head ((Ref. 8,&24, Fig. 1-2) and an applicator pig shaft of the applicator pig body ((Ref. 24’, Fig. 1), the passageway having an inlet (Ref. 22, fig. 2) at the applicator pig head of the applicator pig body (Fig. 2) that opens into the application storage space (fig. 2, Ref. 12, internal portion) the passageway having an inlet (Fig. 1 top of body (22-23)) that opens into the application storage space and at least one outlet that opens at the applicator brush (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the applicator pig body, as taught by Von Arx, with the passageway, as taught by Weaver, to effectively distribute the coating to the inner lining of the pipes evenly, thoroughly, quickly, and inexpensively ([Col. 1, Lines 23-29]).
Regarding Claim 10, Von Arx as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and Von Arx further teaches wherein the mixer is located in the passageway (Fig. 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Arx as applied to claim3 above, and further in view of Ralls (4,720,884).
Regarding Claim 8, Von Arx teaches the limitations of claim 3, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the applicator pig shaft of the applicator pig body is shaped to define a helical groove that extends circumferentially around the applicator pig shaft and the applicator brush is coupled to the applicator pig body in the helical groove. Ralls teaches a pipeline pig system with an applicator body and shaft and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Ralls teaches wherein an applicator pig shaft (Ref. 14, fig. 1) is shaped to define a helical groove (Ref. 20, Fig. 1) that extends circumferentially around the applicator pig shaft and the applicator brush (Ref. 26, Fig. 1) is coupled to the applicator pig body in the helical groove (Fig. 1, [Col. 2, Lines 45-47]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the applicator pig body, as taught by Von Arx, with helical grooves to hold the applicator brush, as taught by Von Arx, to ensure the entire surface of the pipeline is contacted by the bristles as the pig moves through the pipeline ([Col. 2, Lines 36-39]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gorovits (2013/0118628), Farris (7,354,483), and Shubert (3,966,389) each teach a pipeline pig system with an applicator pig for applying a coating to an interior wall of a pipe and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
