Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/727,960

PROCESS AND APPARATUS FOR MAKING INSULATED PIPE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 10, 2024
Examiner
FUNK, ERICA HARTSELL
Art Unit
1741
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Set Ehf
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
68%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
83%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 68% — above average
68%
Career Allow Rate
100 granted / 146 resolved
+3.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+14.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
177
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
67.9%
+27.9% vs TC avg
§102
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
§112
8.0%
-32.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 146 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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/Restriction Applicant's election without traverse of Group l: Claims 1-3 and 5 in the reply filed on 1/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6-12 are hereby withdrawn. IDS The IDS entered 07/10/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Claim Objections Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: in step a), the statement “ feeding the inner pipe through an extruder head and further into a tube vacuum unit the comprises a corrugator” appears to have a typo. The examiner will interpret this statement to read “ feeding the inner pipe through an extruder head and further into a tube vacuum unit that comprises a corrugator” based on P0015 of the specification. Appropriate correction is required. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noack of record (DE3216463A1) in view of Kalwar of record (DE1921659A1). Regarding claim 1, Noack teaches a method for producing a corrugated insulated pipe (P0003, P0021) that comprises an inner pipe (1), a corrugated outer jacket casing (3) and insulation layer between the inner pipe and the corrugated outer jacket casing (2, P0027, claim 1 and figure 1), the method comprising the steps of: a) feeding the inner pipe through an extruder head (7, P0027) and further into a tube vacuum unit (10, figure 1 P0027) that comprises a corrugator (P0016, P0021, fig.1), b) extruding by said extruder head a jacket casing around the inner pipe prior to it entering the tube vacuum unit (figure 1), d) feeding said jacket casing into said tube vacuum unit (figure 1), e) dispensing expandable liquid insulation material in the space between the inner pipe and the jacket casing to obtain said insulation layer (figure 1), f) feeding the obtained pipe assembly comprising said inner pipe, said jacket and said insulation layer through said tube vacuum unit and corrugator to obtain said corrugated insulated pipe (figure 1, P0027, P0032-33). Noack is silent to c) surface-treating the inner surface of said jacket casing to enhance attachment properties of said inner surface towards insulation material, wherein said step c) takes place upstream of step e) and before the extruded jacket solidifies. Kalwar, in the same field of endeavor, pipe manufacturing, discloses surface-treating the inner surface of said jacket casing to enhance attachment properties of said inner surface towards insulation material, wherein surface treatment takes place before the extruded jacket solidifies (Pg.2, P0001 and P0003, pg.3, P0001). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used surface treatment of an inner surface of a casing for the purpose of creating a high degree of adhesion as taught by Kalwar (pg.2, P0003). Regarding claims 2 and 3, Kalwar teaches surface-treating comprising corona treatment of said inner surface of the jacket layer where a discharge electrode that is positioned and shaped so as to discharge substantially circularly towards the inner jacket surface after the jacket surface has been extruded from extrusion exit(s) of the extrusion head (Pg.1, P0001, Pg.4, P0004). Regarding claim 5, Noack teaches said dispensing expandable liquid insulation material takes place inside said tube vacuum unit (P0008, fig.1, P0027). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET. 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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. /ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 10, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594719
HIGH DENSITY MESH FOR INVERTED 3D PRINTING
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589549
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590001
METHOD FOR PRODUCING SUPERHYDROPHOBIC CARBON NANOTUBE SHEETS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585226
EXTERIOR MEMBER, CASE AND TIMEPIECE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583175
MOLTEN LIQUID-MARBLES AND CURTAILING AGENT FOR FORMING 3D PARTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
68%
Grant Probability
83%
With Interview (+14.4%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 146 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