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 .
Response to Amendment
The Preliminary Amendment filed July 26, 2024 has been entered and considered with this Office Action.
Claims 18-22 have been cancelled.
Drawings
The drawings were received on July 26, 2024. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “barrier” should be changed to --a barrier--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 2 is 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 2 recites a “pressure volt”. A definition for “pressure volt” could not be found. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “pressure volt” in claim 2 appears to be being used by the claim to mean “pressure vault,” while there is no accepted meaning for “pressure volt.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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) 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binet et al. (US 2010/0084035, Binet) in view of Resendes (US 2010/0212768).
Regarding claim 1: Binet discloses a flexible pipe 1 comprising:
one or more outer layers 7-9;
a primary liner 6 disposed internal to the one or more outer layers Fig 2; and.
a secondary liner 2 disposed internal to the primary liner Fig 2.
Binet discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the secondary liner being removable.
Resendes discloses a multiple layer flexible pipe. The inner liner 46 of the pipe is removable [0031], [0035].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Binet so that the secondary liner was removable, as taught by Resendes, in order to have been able to replace or repair the inner liner if it became damaged or worn without having to replace the entire pipe [0035].
Regarding claim 2: Wherein the one or more outer layers comprise one or more of the following: a tubular sheath [0036] of Binet; a pressure volt layer, an armor layer [0035] of Binet; and an external sheath [0036] – Fig 2 of Binet.
Regarding claim 4: The flexible pipe further comprising an annular flow region [0034] of Binet formed between the primary liner and the removable liner.
Regarding claim 5: The flexible pipe further comprising one or more sensors 14 of Binet disposed within the annular flow region Fig 2 of Binet.
Regarding claim 6: The flexible pipe further comprising one or more structures 4, 5, of Binet disposed between the primary liner and the removable liner to maintain the annular flow region [0034] of Binet.
Regarding claim 7: Wherein the one or more structures comprise one or more of the following: helical rods wires – [0034] of Binet, peaks, ribs, longitudinal rods, and helical rods.
Regarding claim 8: Wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more of the following: a pressure sensor [0038] of Binet, moisture sensor, dielectric sensor, and densitometer.
Regarding claim 10: Wherein the primary liner is a first color and the removable liner is a second color. While there is no recitation of the color of the layers in Binet or Resendes, each layer will inherently have a color and there is no requirement in the claim that the first and second color be different.
Regarding claim 11: Binet discloses a flexible piping system comprising:
a flexible pipe 1 having a first end and a second end all pipes will have a first and second end,
the flexible pipe comprising:
one or more outer layers 7-9;
a primary liner 6 disposed internal to the one or more outer layers Fig 2;
a secondary liner 2 disposed internal to the primary liner Fig 2; and
an annulus disposed between the primary liner and the secondary liner [0034];
a pressure port 20 extending from the annulus to an outer surface of the flexible piping system [0038]; and
an end fitting 11 disposed at the first end of the flexible pipe Fig 2.
Binet discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the secondary liner being removable.
Resendes discloses a multiple layer flexible pipe. The inner liner 46 of the pipe is removable [0031], [0035].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Binet so that the secondary liner was removable, as taught by Resendes, in order to have been able to replace or repair the inner liner if it became damaged or worn without having to replace the entire pipe [0035].
Regarding claim 16: The flexible piping system further comprising a pressure monitor 14 of Binet fluidly connected to the annulus via the pressure port.
Regarding claim 17: Wherein the removable liner of Binet, as modified, would have been configured to be removed from and inserted into the flexible piping system in order to have been able to replace a damaged liner [0035] of Resendes.
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binet in view of Resendes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Espinasse et al. (US 2017/0184246, Esp).
Regarding claim 3: Binet, as modified, discloses that the primary liner is made from a polymer Abstract, [0033] but fails to disclose that the primary liner comprises an erosion-resistant liner.
Esp discloses a flexible, multi-layer pipe. A primary liner 20 of the pipe is made from polyethylene [0069].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Binet so that the primary liner was made from polyethylene, as taught by Esp, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is not whether or not this variable is recognized in the art applied. Such recognition would potentially lead to the variable being rejected as being anticipated by the reference. The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is whether or not one or ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this variable could be changed or altered, and the results of this change, without deviating from the intended purpose of the reference. Further, the variable must not have any associated criticality in the instant application.
In this case, paragraphs [0030], [0033], [0041], and [0067] of the instant specification gives no criticality to the specific type of polymer the primary liner is made from. Therefore, the specific material of the primary liner can be said to be obvious.
It is acknowledged that Esp fails to disclose that the polyethylene of the primary liner is erosion resistant however paragraph [0041] of the instant application lists polyethylene as a type of polymer the primary liner can be made from and be considered erosion resistant. As such, the primary liner of Binet, as modified, would be considered erosion-resistant.
Regarding claim 9: Binet, as modified, discloses that the primary liner and removable liner are made from a polymer Abstract, [0030], [0033] but fails to disclose that the primary liner is made from polyethylene and the removable liner is made from urethane.
Esp discloses a flexible, multi-layer pipe. A primary liner 20 of the pipe is made from polyethylene [0069] and an inner liner 40 is made from urethane [0124], [0125].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Binet so that the primary liner was made from polyethylene and the removable liner from urethane, as taught by Esp, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is not whether or not this variable is recognized in the art applied. Such recognition would potentially lead to the variable being rejected as being anticipated by the reference. The test for obviousness of a result-effective variable is whether or not one or ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this variable could be changed or altered, and the results of this change, without deviating from the intended purpose of the reference. Further, the variable must not have any associated criticality in the instant application.
In this case, paragraphs [0030], [0033], [0038], [0041], [0047], and [0067] of the instant specification gives no criticality to the specific type of polymer the primary liner and removable liner are made from. Therefore, the specific material of the primary liner and removable liner can be said to be obvious.
Claim(s) 10 is/are alternately rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binet in view of Resendes as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schuster et al. (US 2012/03183498, Schuster).
Claim 10 is alternately being rejected to address the first and second colors being different.
Binet, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the primary liner being a first color and the removable liner being a second color.
Schuster discloses a multiple layer pipe where each layer is a different color Abstract, [0019].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Binet so that the layers were different colors, as taught by Schuster, in order to have been able to determine the degree of wear of the pipe based on what color is exposed Abstract.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binet in view of Resendes as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Gray et al. (US 2018/0283588, Gray).
Regarding claim 12: Binet, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the removable liner extending to a distal end of the end fitting.
Gray discloses a multiple layer, flexible pipe that includes an end fitting 330, 335. An inner liner 102 of the pipe extends to a distal end of the end fitting Fig 3a, [0173]-[0178].
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Binet so that the removable liner extended to a distal end of the end fitting, as taught by Gray, in order to have been able to reach the removable liner when it needed to be removed and replaced [0180].
Regarding claim 13: Wherein the removable liner is connected to the end fitting by a distal connector 310 – Fig 3a of Gray.
Regarding claim 14: Wherein the pressure port extends through one or more of the one or more outer layers Fig 2 of Binet.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binet in view of Resendes as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Manuli (US 5,654,499).
Binet, as modified, discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the flexible piping system further comprising barrier disposed within the pressure port.
Manuli discloses a multiple layer, flexible pipe. The pipe includes a pressure port 36 that extends through some of the outer layers to an annular chamber 14. The pressure port includes a barrier 35 – Fig 3.
It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified Binet so that the pressure port included a barrier, as taught by Manuli, in order to have been able to control the flow of fluid out of the pressure port using a one-way valve 2:48-58
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER H GAY whose telephone number is (571)272-7029. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday, 6-3:30 and every other Friday 6-11.
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, Anita Y Coupe can be reached at (571)270-3614. 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.
/JENNIFER H GAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
JHG
6/18/2026
Prosecution Insights