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 .
Status of the Application
This action is responsive to the amendment dated 9/02/2026. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 remain pending. Claims 1-6 and 16-20 are withdrawn. Claim 7 has been amended. The applicant’s amendment has necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection below. This action is Final.
Response to Remarks
Applicant's amendment to recite an uncured or under-cured glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner having an outer diameter larger than the inner diameter of the steel tube, wherein the inserting comprises pulling the glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner through the steel tube while the glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner retains deformable characteristics; and fully curing the glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner inside the steel tube after the glass- reinforced epoxy composite liner is pulled through the steel tube has overcome the rejection of record. However, a new ground(s) of rejection is applied to the claims below. As such, applicant's arguments with respect to the 102 rejection over Boyadjieff have not been found persuasive. Boyadjieff in view of Reid as stated below in the 103 rejection teaches each and every limitation including an uncured or under-cured glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner having an outer diameter larger than the inner diameter of the steel tube, wherein the inserting comprises pulling the glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner through the steel tube while the glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner retains deformable characteristics; and fully curing the glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner inside the steel tube after the glass- reinforced epoxy composite liner is pulled through the steel tube.
Applicant's amendments to the claims have necessitated further search and/or consideration and/or revision of the rejection, and accordingly, this action must be made Final.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/02/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claim(s) 7, 8, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyadjieff et al. (US 2006/0151179, hereafter “Boyadjieff”) in view of Reid et al. (US 2021/0088173, hereafter “Reid”).
Regarding claim 7, Boyadjieff discloses a method of manufacturing a composite liner for a steel tube (200), comprising: coating an inner diameter (ID) of the steel tube with an anti-corrosion coating or plating (para. [0049]); inserting an uncured or under-cured glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner (para. [0052]), wherein the inserting comprises inserting the glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner through the steel tube while the glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner retains deformable characteristics (para. [0052]); and fully curing the glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner inside the steel tube after the glass- reinforced epoxy composite liner is pulled through the steel tube (para. [0052]), but fails to disclose the uncured or under-cured glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner has an outer diameter larger than the inner diameter of the steel tube, and wherein inserting comprising pulling the glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner through the steel tube.
Reid teaches a liner (2016) has an outer diameter larger than the inner diameter of the tube (2012). (para. [0225] and [0231])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the system of Boyadjieff such that the uncured or under-cured glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner has an outer diameter larger than the inner diameter of the steel tube as taught by Reid in order to provide a secured connection between both tubes by squeezing the outer tube around the inner tube. (para. [0225])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the method of Boyadjieff such that inserting comprising pulling the glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner through the steel tube since this is combining prior art elements (pulling an inner tube through an outer tube) according to known methods to yield predictable results (inserting an inner tube around an outer tube by pulling). The motivation for doing so is to provide a simple and cost effective method to insert the liner into the steel tube.
Regarding claim 8, Boyadjieff in view of Reid further discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner has an outer diameter larger than the inner diameter of the steel tube. (as best understood, Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 12, Boyadjieff in view of Reid further discloses the method of claim 9, wherein the curing stage involves precise control of curing temperature and time to cure resin within the liner to a lesser degree, retaining deformable characteristics. (para. [0052]; the temperature and time are necessarily precise in order to ensure desired results)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyadjieff in view of Reid and Choi et al. (US 2021/0316538, hereafter “Choi”).
Regarding claim 9, Boyadjieff in view of Reid further discloses the method of claim 7, but fails to disclose wherein the anti-corrosion coating or metal plating comprises a low gas permeability material.
Choi teaches a coating that comprises low gas permeability material. (para. [0019])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the anti-corrosion coating or metal plating of Boyadjieff to have low gas permeability material as taught by Choi in order to provide a coating that prevents gases from being able to permeate as desired by the user.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyadjieff in view of Reid and Bruton et al. (US 2023/0313384, hereafter “Bruton”).
Regarding claim 10, Boyadjieff in view of Reid further discloses the method of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the anti-corrosion coating comprises a polymer coating.
Bruton teaches a coating that comprises a polymer coating. (para. [0051])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the anti-corrosion coating to comprise a polymer coating as taught by Bruton since the equivalence of a polymer coating and any other coating is recognized for their use in the coating art and the selection of any of these known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. The motivation for making such an equivalent substitution would be to provide a specific material for the anti-corrosion coating that is known and desired.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyadjieff in view of Reid and Hakuta et al. (US 2020/0024845, hereafter “Hakuta”).
Regarding claim 11, Boyadjieff in view of Reid further discloses the method of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the anti-corrosion metal plating is at least one of Ni—P, or Ni—W coating.
Hakuta teaches a coating that is at least one of Ni—P, or Ni—W coating. (para. [0345])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the coating of Boyadjieff to comprise at least one of Ni—P, or Ni—W as taught by Hakuta since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a coating of a specific material based on user defined criteria.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyadjieff in view of Reid and Virdi et al. (US 2023/0028634, hereafter “Virdi”).
Regarding claim 13, Boyadjieff in view of Reid further discloses the method of claim 9, but fails to disclose wherein the glass-reinforced epoxy composite liner comprises a dual catalyst system.
Virdi teaches a liner that comprises a dual catalyst system. (para. [0081])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the liner of Boyadjieff to comprise a dual catalyst system as taught by Virdi since selection of a known material on the basis of its suitability for an intended use involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a liner made of a specific material based on user defined criteria.
Regarding claim 14, Boyadjieff in view of Reid and Virdi further discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the dual catalyst system comprises a low temperature catalyst and a high temperature catalyst. (para. [0081])
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boyadjieff in view of Reid, Virdi and Fraidenburgh (US 2018/0117858).
Regarding claim 15, Boyadjieff in view of Reid and Virdi further discloses the method of claim 13, but fails to disclose further comprising filament winding glass-reinforced epoxy on a mandrel.
Fraidenburgh teaches filament winding glass-reinforced epoxy on a mandrel. (para. [0021])
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the method of manufacturing of Boyadjieff to include filament winding glass-reinforced epoxy on a mandrel as taught by Fraidenburgh since this is combining prior art elements (filament winding) according to known methods (filament winding epoxy on a mandrel) to yield predictable results (glass-reinforced epoxy). The motivation for doing so is to utilize a known method to provide a strong and cost effective glass-reinforced epoxy.
Conclusion
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 PAUL J GRAY whose telephone number is (571)270-0544. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, 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 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.
/PAUL J GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights