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
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Reply of August 10, 2026.
Claims 4, 5, 18-22 have been cancelled.
Claim 23 has been added.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 15 overcomes the previously presented objection thereto.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 2 overcomes the previously presented 35 USC 112(b) rejection thereof.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the one or more sensors being disposed along the flexible pipe within the annular flow region as recited in claims 1 and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). The disclosure makes clear that the one or more sensors are located in the annular flow region but specifically state that they are no shown. No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 15-17, and 23 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) and Manuli (US 5,654,499).
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;
an annular flow region [0034] formed between the primary liner and the secondary liner; and
one or more sensors 14 disposed along the flexible pipe and in communication with the annular flow region Fig 2.
Binet discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the secondary liner being removable and the one or more sensors being within the annular flow region and configured to provide an indication of a location of a leak in the removable liner.
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].
Binet discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the one or more sensors being within the annular flow region and configured to provide an indication of a location of a leak in the removable liner.
Manuli discloses a multiple layer flexible pipe that includes an annular flow region 14 located between a primary liner 12 and a secondary liner 2, Fig 3. A leakage detector device 38 passed through an end fitting 28 of the pipe and is located within the annular flow region Fig 3. The leakage detector includes a sensor or trigger device that can be responsive to pressure within the annular passage, via one-way valve 35, or a fluid operated switch 80 – Fig 7. The switch is responsive fluid or moisture within the annular flow region and thus is considered a moisture switch 3:60-4:5.
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 sensor was located within the annular flow region, as taught by Manuli, in order to have been able to detect fluid leaking into the annular flow region without pressure affecting the primary liner 1:17-52.
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 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 moisture sensor 3:60-4:5 of Manuli, a dielectric sensor, and a densitometer.
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 annular flow region [0034] formed between the primary liner and the secondary liner; and
one or more sensors 14 disposed along the flexible pipe and in communication with the annular flow region Fig 2;
a pressure port 20 extending from the annular flow region 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 and the one or more sensors being within the annular flow region and configured to provide an indication of a location of a leak in the removable liner.
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].
Binet discloses all of the limitations of the above claim(s) except the one or more sensors being within the annular flow region and configured to provide an indication of a location of a leak in the removable liner.
Manuli discloses a multiple layer flexible pipe that includes an annular flow region 14 located between a primary liner 12 and a secondary liner 2, Fig 3. A leakage detector device 38 passed through an end fitting 28 of the pipe and is located within the annular flow region Fig 3. The leakage detector includes a sensor or trigger device that can be responsive to pressure within the annular passage, via one-way valve 35, or a fluid operated switch 80 – Fig 7. The switch is responsive fluid or moisture within the annular flow region and thus is considered a moisture switch 3:60-4:5.
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 sensor was located within the annular flow region, as taught by Manuli, in order to have been able to detect fluid leaking into the annular flow region without pressure affecting the primary liner 1:17-52.
Regarding claim 15: The flexible piping system further comprising a two-way fluid permeable barrier 92, 3:60-4:5 – the wicking material would be fluid permeable from an direction disposed within the pressure port.
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.
Regarding claim 23: Wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more of the following: a moisture sensor 3:60-4:5 of Manuli, a dielectric sensor, and a densitometer.
Claim(s) 3 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binet in view of Resendes and Manuli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Espinasse et al. (US 2017/01484246, 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 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Binet in view of Resendes and Manuli as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schuster et al. (US 2012/03183498, Schuster).
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 and Manuli 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.
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 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
8/28/2026
Prosecution Insights