CTNF 18/730,531 CTNF 76601 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 7, 11 and 16-18 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 7, line 2, “include” should be deleted; in claim 11, line 1, --the-- should be inserted before “second layer”; in claim 16, line 3, “to” first occurrence should read --the --. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites the limitations "the ends" and “the wrapped portion” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. 07-34-05 Claims 8-10 recite the limitation "the edges" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claim 12 is indefinite in that it is unclear whether or not “a securing” device recited in line 2 is the same as the one recited in claim 1. Claim 15 recites the limitation "wherein sealing further comprises" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since there is no “sealing” step recited in claim 1 from which claim 15 depends. 07-34-05 Claims 17 and 18 recite the limitation "the edges" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. 07-36 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. 07-36-01 AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 recites “wherein the structural adhesive further comprises the structural adhesive” which is redundant as it only repeats a limitation that has been recited in claim 1 . Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-7, 12, 13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. (US Patent 8,329,291) in view of Parker (US Patent 1704760) . With regards to claim 1, Green et al. discloses a method of repairing a flexible pipe (plastic pipe: col. 2, lines 6-8. Further, “flexible” has not been given any patentable weight since the method steps are applicable to any type of pipe), the method comprising securing a composite tape to a surface of an outer sheath using a structural adhesive, the composite tape forming a composite repair over a rupture in the outer sheath (col. 2, lines 14-32). Green et al. does not disclose immobilizing the composite tape at ends of a wrapped portion with a securing device. However, Parker teaches providing a securing device at ends of a sleeve adhered to a pipe in order to repair the pipe, see page 1, lines 54-64. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , to have immobilized the composite tape of Green et al. by using a securing device as taught by Parker, in order to ensure a perfect moisture proof seal. Regarding claim 2, see column 2, lines 16-18 of Green et al. Regarding claim 3, see page 1, lines 54-59 of Parker where it is taught that the binder can be applied to the pipe and to the repair member. Regarding claim 4, Green et al. discloses a structural adhesive, see col. 2, lines 16-18. Regarding claim 5, Green et al. discloses a polymer adhesive, see column 2, lines 16-18 and 6-63. Regarding claims 6 and 7, see col. 3, lines 12-25 of Green et al. Regarding claims 12 and 13, see page 1, lines 54-64 of Parker. Regarding claim 16, Green et al. discloses a method of repairing a flexible pipe (plastic pipe: col. 2, lines 6-8. Further, “flexible” has not been given any patentable weight since the method steps are applicable to any type of pipe), the method comprising applying a structural adhesive to the pipe and securing a composite tape to an outer sheath of the flexible pipe, the composite tape forming a composite repair over a rupture in the outer sheath (col. 2, lines 14-32. Although Green et al. does specifically disclose applying the structural adhesive to the composite tape however, it is known to apply a composite adhesive to a tape that is to be a secured to an outer sheath of a pipe in order to form a repair over a rupture in the outer sheath of the pipe as attested by Parker, see page 1, lines 54-59 of Parker where it is taught that the binder can be applied to the pipe and to the repair member. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the structure adhesive of Green et al. to the composite tape, in light of the teachings of parker, as is known in the art . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 8-11, 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al./Parker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brooks (US 2015/0204475 . Regarding claims 8 and 17, Green et al./Parker discloses a method of repairing a flexible pipe as shown above. Although Green et al./Parker does not explicitly disclose securing comprising wrapping a layer of the composite tape helically around the flexible pipe, the edges of the composite tape abutting and forming a single layer however it is known to secure a composite tape to a surface of an outer sheath of a flexible pipe by wrapping a layer of the composite tape helically around the flexible pipe, the edges of the composite tape abutting and forming a single layer as attested by Brooks, see paragraphs [0026] and [0028] and figure 3. Further, Official Notice is taken in that it is known to form such layers such that edges of the composite tape abut and form a single layer. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have secured the composite tape to the surface of the outer sheath of the flexible pipe by wrapping a layer of the composite tape helically around the flexible pipe, the edges of the composite tape abutting and forming a single layer in the method of Green et al./Parker, in light of the teachings of Brooks, as is known in the art. Regarding claims 9-11 and 18, Official Notice is taken in that such wrapping techniques are old and well-known in the art . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al./Parker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Borland et al. (US 20060272724) . Green et al./Parker discloses a method of repairing a flexible pipe as shown above. Although Green et al./Parker does not explicitly disclose preparing the outer sheath prior to securing the composite tape by cleaning or abrading however, it is known to prepare an outer sheath of a pipe to be repaired by cleaning or abrading the outer sheath at the section needing repair in order to ensure good bonding of the repair material to the outer sheath as attested by Borland et al., see paragraph [0054]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have prepared the outer sheath of the flexible pipe of Green et al./Parker prior to securing the composite tape by cleaning or abrading, in light of the teachings of Borland et al., in order to ensure good bonding of the repair material to the outer sheath . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al./Parker as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) . Green et al./Parker discloses a method of repairing a flexible pipe as shown above. Although Green et al./Parker does not explicitly disclose installing a vent port however, it is known to build vent ports in such flexible pipes in order to release gases accumulated in the annulus formed in the flexible pipe as attested by Applicant at paragraph [0004] of the specification to be known as AAPA. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have ensured that vent ports are maintained after repair of the pipe of Green et al./Parker, in light of the teachings of AAPA, in order to allow release of gases accumulated in the annulus formed in the flexible pipe . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al. in view of Brooks . Green et al. discloses a system comprising a flexible pipe (plastic pipe: col. 2, lines 6-8), a composite repair sealing a rupture in an outer sheath, the composite repair comprising a composite tape wrapped around the flexible pipe, and a structural adhesive securing the composite tape to the flexible pipe (col. 2, lines 14-32). Green et al. does not disclose the composite tape being wrapped helically around the flexible pipe. however it is known to secure a composite tape to a surface of an outer sheath of a flexible pipe by wrapping a layer of the composite tape helically around the flexible pipe as attested by Brooks, see paragraphs [0026] and [0028] and figure 3. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have secured the composite tape to the surface of the outer sheath of the flexible pipe by wrapping a layer of the composite tape helically around the flexible pipe in the method of Green et al./Parker, in light of the teachings of Brooks, as is known in the art . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Green et al./Brooks as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Parker . Green et al./Brooks discloses a system as shown above. Although Green et al./Brooks does not disclose one or more securing devices securing an end of the composite tape however, Parker teaches providing a securing device at ends of a sleeve adhered to a pipe in order to repair the pipe, see page 1, lines 54-64. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention , to have immobilized the composite tape of Green et al./Brooks by using a securing device as taught by Parker, in order to ensure a perfect moisture proof seal . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (469)295-9278. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM . 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, Alfred Kindred can be reached at 571-272-4037. 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. /ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/730,531 Page 2 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/730,531 Page 3 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/730,531 Page 4 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/730,531 Page 5 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/730,531 Page 6 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/730,531 Page 7 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/730,531 Page 8 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/730,531 Page 9 Art Unit: 3746 Application/Control Number: 18/730,531 Page 10 Art Unit: 3746
Prosecution Insights