CTNF 18/799,043 CTNF 71819 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09 December 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Reference numeral “306”, as shown in Figure 3, does not appear within the written specification. 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 following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Providing a layer of material formed from a powder distributed through a resin matrix, as recited in claim 4. No new matter should be entered. 06-22 Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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 Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim s 1-8 and 16-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Re claim 1, claim line 1: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the system. Re claim 1, claim line 8: The phrase – one or more – should be inserted prior to the term “sensors.” Re claim 2, claim line 1: The phrase – one or more – should be inserted prior to the term “sensors.” Re claim 8, claim line 3: Should the term – latter – replace the term “later”; and the “period” immediately after the term “and” should be deleted. Re claim 16, claim line 1: The term – configured – should be inserted prior to the term “for” to positively recite the functionality of the system. Re claim 17, claim line 1: The phrase – one or more – should be inserted prior to the term “sensors.” 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 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. Re claim 1, claim line 6: The term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how close the one or more sensors must be to the pipe joint and/or the layer of material to be deemed near. Since the metes and bounds of the term are unknown, the term is deemed to be indefinite. Since the term is indefinite, the claim is also deemed to be indefinite. Re claim 9, claim line 6: The term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how close the one or more sensors must be to the layer of material to be deemed near. Since the metes and bounds of the term are unknown, the term is deemed to be indefinite. Since the term is indefinite, the claim is also deemed to be indefinite. Re claim 13, claim line 2: The term “near” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear how close the one or more sensors must be to the pipe joint to be deemed near. Since the metes and bounds of the term are unknown, the term is deemed to be indefinite. Since the term is indefinite, the claim is also deemed to be indefinite. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-2, 8-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by JP 2012-173217 (Hirakawa et al.) . With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Hirakawa et al. disclose a system for assessing joint integrity of pipelines in operation ( system, as shown in Figures 1 and 9, for determining the integrity, i.e., damage, of a pipe joint- – paragraphs [0002-0003] and [0009] ), the system comprising: a pipe joint (12) within a pipeline (10,11) in operation ( dissimilar metal welded joint connecting two pipes (10, 11) – Figure 1 ) ; a layer of a material integrated within the pipe joint of the pipeline, the material comprising graphene, a magnetostrictive material, or a combination thereof ( dissimilar metal, such as a nickel based alloy, makes up the joint material (12) – paragraphs [0002], [0006], [0019], and [0027]); and nickel based alloys are known to be magnetorestrictive ); and one or more sensors provided at or near the pipe joint and/or the layer of the material and operable to detect deterioration of the pipe joint during operation ( probe ((16) (2,3)) is used to inspect the circumference of the pipe to detect the presence of cracks within the joint material – paragraphs [0003], [0006], [0010], [0022] and [0031] ), wherein the sensors are operable to detect changes in the layer of the material indicating symptoms of deterioration of the pipe joint and/or anomalies within the pipe joint ( ultrasonic waves are used to detect crack formation, internal voids, etc., which are indicative of changes in the dissimilar metal weld joint – paragraphs [0003], [0006] and [0022] ). With respect to the limitations of claim 2, Hirakawa et al. further disclose that the one or more sensors comprise acoustic sensors ( ultrasonic transmitters (21-26) are broadly classified as acoustic sensors ). With respect to the limitation of claim 8, Hirakawa et al. further disclose an external interrogation tool provided or advanced to the pipe joint and operable to use one or more tool sensors to assess deterioration of the later of the material and/or the pipe joint ( an external probe(s) ((16) or (2,3)) is provided to the pipe joint and operable to use one or more tool sensors (transmitters ) to assess deterioration (cracks/damage) to the material of the pipe joint - Figures 1 and 9 ). With respect to the limitations of claim 9, Hirakawa et al. disclose a method of inspecting a pipe joint of a pipeline in active operation ( method, as shown in Figures 1 and 9, for determining the integrity, i.e., damage, of a pipe joint- – paragraphs [0002-0003] and [0009] ), the method comprising: installing, during or after initial assembly of the pipe joint, a layer of a material comprising graphene, a magnetostrictive material, or a combination thereof in the pipe joint ( during assembly of the pipe two pipes (10, 11) are combined using dissimilar metal, such as a nickel based alloy, to form a joint material (12) – paragraphs [0002], [0006], [0019], and [0027]); and nickel based alloys are known to be magnetostrictive ); initiating operation of the pipeline to enable transportation of fluid therethrough (pipe is in use in order to determine the damage/integrity of the pipe joint over a period of time and use – paragraph [0002], [0007]); assessing, via one or more sensors provided at or near the layer of the material ( probe ((16) (2,3)) is used to inspect the circumference of the pipe to detect the presence of cracks within the joint material – paragraphs [0003], [0006], [0010], [0022] and [0031] ), changes in the layer of the material indicating symptoms of deterioration and/or anomalies within the pipe joint leading to deterioration of the pipe joint during operation of the pipeline ( ultrasonic waves are used to detect crack formation, internal voids, etc., which are indicative of changes in the dissimilar metal weld joint – paragraphs [0003], [0006] and [0022] ); and designating the pipe joint for repair operations based upon the assessed symptoms of deterioration and/or anomalies within the pipe joint ( life determination of the joint portion can determined in accordance with the degree of damage to the joint – paragraphs [0008] and [0023-0034] ). With respect to the limitation of claim 13, Hirakawa et al. further disclose an external interrogation tool provided or advanced to the pipe joint and operable to use one or more tool sensors to assess deterioration of the later of the material and/or the pipe joint ( an external probe(s) ((16) or (2,3)) is provided to the pipe joint and operable to use one or more tool sensors (transmitters ) to assess deterioration (cracks/damage) to the material of the pipe joint - Figures 1 and 9 ) . 07-15 AIA Claim s 16-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by US 2019/0145932 (Feng et al.) . With respect to the limitations of claim 16, Feng et al. disclose a method of using nondestructive material inspection system, the system comprising: a layer of a material integrated within the pipe joint of the pipeline ( welds in pipelines can contain martensite – paragraph [0173] ), the layer of the material comprising graphene, a magnetostrictive material (martensite can experience magnetostriction because it is ferromagnetic), or a combination thereof; and a pigging robot operable to detect changes in the layer of the material from within an interior flowpath of the pipeline (pigging robot (1900) having an inspection device (1903) detects changes in the piping welds - paragraphs [0042], [0173], and [0175]), the pigging robot including: traversal means for navigating the pigging robot through the interior flowpath of the pipeline (an automatic inspection tool, i.e., a robotic crawler may be utilized – paragraph [0173] and Figure 19A), and one or more sensors included on the pigging robot and operable to detect deterioration of the pipe joint during operation ( the inspection device (1903) can include magnetic transmitters, magnetic sensors, acoustic sensors, and horseshoe magnets (Figure 19A and paragraphs [0042] [0173], and [0175] ), wherein the sensors of the pigging robot are operable to detect the changes in the layer of the material indicating symptoms of deterioration of the pipe joint and/or anomalies within the pipe joint leading to deterioration ( problems, such as cracks and erosion, in the weld is indicative of changes in the layer of material ). With respect to the limitations of claim 17, Feng et al. disclose that the sensors are selected from the group consisting of magnetostrictive sensors, magnetic field sensors, impedance sensors, acoustic sensors, temperature sensors, and electrical conductivity sensors, and any combination thereof ( the inspection device (1903) can include magnetic transmitters, magnetic sensors, acoustic sensors, and horseshoe magnets (Figure 19A and paragraphs [0042] [0173], and [0175] ). With respect to the limitation of claim 20, Feng et al. disclose that the inspection device may be on an automatic inspection tool capable of inspecting/scanning the inner diameter if a pipe, which is suggestive of some control means to control traversal of the inspection device through the pipe, scanning of the pipe, collecting the scanned information, and processing of the information ( paragraphs [0042] and [0173] ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 3, 5-6, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-173217 (Hirakawa et al.) in view of US 2013/0140811 (Fahrer et al.) . With respect to the limitation of claim 3, Hirakawa et al. disclose all of the limitations of the base claim, but fail to disclose that the pipeline and the pipe joint include reinforced thermosetting resin pipes in active operation. Fahrer et al. disclose a fiberglass pipe jointing method and system whereby reinforced thermosetting resin pipes are joined together (abstract) by an injectable/curable material located within a cavity formed between two joining surfaces of the two pipes (Figures 4 and 5). A structural adhesive is used during the assembly of the joint, whereby the mating surfaces will compress, spread and compact the adhesive to form a leak-tight seal ( paragraph [0078], lines 3-5 ). The adhesive can include any combination of epoxy and polyester ( paragraph [0078], lines 5-7 ), which are or can be thermosetting materials. Once the adhesive materials have set and a pressure check of the joint is successful, a joining compound comprising an epoxy resin mixture is injected into the cavity of the joint ( paragraph [0081], lines 1-3 ). Modifying Hirakawa et al. to utilize a reinforced thermosetting resin pipe would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention because reinforced thermosetting resin is an extremely corrosive resistant material, has a high strength to weight ratio, and a smooth inner surface, which makes is highly acceptable as a pipe material for transportation of produced fluids and injection water ( paragraphs [0006-0007] and Table 1 ). With respect to the limitation of claim 5, the combination fail to expressly disclose that the pipeline and the pipe joint are buried or otherwise inaccessible to an operator. The Examiner argues that burying a pipeline underground is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of protecting the pipeline from individuals. With respect to the limitation of claim 6, Hirakawa et al. disclose all of the limitations of the base claim, but fail to disclose that the layer of material is formed of a single layer of the material as a sheet, a plate, a film of a blanket integrated into a structure of the pipe joint. Fahrer et al. disclose a fiberglass pipe jointing method and system whereby reinforced thermosetting resin pipes are joined together (abstract) by an injectable/curable material located within a cavity formed between two joining surfaces of the two pipes (Figures 4 and 5). A structural adhesive is used during the assembly of the joint, whereby the mating surfaces will compress, spread and compact the adhesive to form a leak-tight seal ( paragraph [0078], lines 3-5 ). The adhesive can include any combination of epoxy and polyester ( paragraph [0078], lines 5-7 ), which are or can be thermosetting materials. Once the adhesive materials have set and a pressure check of the joint is successful, a joining compound comprising an epoxy resin mixture is injected into the cavity of the joint ( paragraph [0081], lines 1-3 ) as a single layer of material comprising a film. Modifying Hirakawa et al. to utilize a layer of the material would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing the invention as a means of sealing the thermosetting resin pipe so that the pipe can be utilized in an active operation. With respect to the limitation of claim 10, Hirakawa et al. disclose all of the limitations of the base claim, but fail to disclose that the pipe joint and the pipeline include reinforced thermosetting resin pipes formed in a resin matrix. Fahrer et al. disclose a fiberglass pipe jointing method and system whereby reinforced thermosetting resin pipes are joined together (abstract) by an injectable/curable material located within a cavity formed between two joining surfaces of the two pipes (Figures 4 and 5). A structural adhesive is used during the assembly of the joint, whereby the mating surfaces will compress, spread and compact the adhesive to form a leak-tight seal ( paragraph [0078], lines 3-5 ). The adhesive can include any combination of epoxy and polyester ( paragraph [0078], lines 5-7 ), which are or can be thermosetting materials. Once the adhesive materials have set and a pressure check of the joint is successful, a joining compound comprising an epoxy resin mixture is injected into the cavity of the joint ( paragraph [0081], lines 1-3 ). Modifying Hirakawa et al. to utilize a reinforced thermosetting resin pipe would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention because reinforced thermosetting resin is an extremely corrosive resistant material, has a high strength to weight ratio, and a smooth inner surface, which makes is highly acceptable as a pipe material for transportation of produced fluids and injection water ( paragraphs [0006-0007] and Table 1 ). With respect to the limitation of claim 12, Hirakawa et al. disclose all of the limitations of the base claim, but fail to disclose that the layer of material is formed of a single layer of the material as a sheet, a plate, a film of a blanket integrated into a structure of the pipe joint. Fahrer et al. disclose a fiberglass pipe jointing method and system whereby reinforced thermosetting resin pipes are joined together (abstract) by an injectable/curable material located within a cavity formed between two joining surfaces of the two pipes (Figures 4 and 5). A structural adhesive is used during the assembly of the joint, whereby the mating surfaces will compress, spread and compact the adhesive to form a leak-tight seal ( paragraph [0078], lines 3-5 ). The adhesive can include any combination of epoxy and polyester ( paragraph [0078], lines 5-7 ), which are or can be thermosetting materials. Once the adhesive materials have set and a pressure check of the joint is successful, a joining compound comprising an epoxy resin mixture is injected into the cavity of the joint ( paragraph [0081], lines 1-3 ) as a single layer of material comprising a film. Modifying Hirakawa et al. to utilize a layer of the material would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing the invention as a means of sealing the thermosetting resin pipe so that the pipe can be utilized in an active operation . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 11 is are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-173217 (Hirakawa et al.) in view of US 2019/0145932 (Feng et al.) . With respect to the limitations of claim 11, HIrakawa et al. disclose all of the limitations of the base claim; but fail to disclose advancing a pigging robot within an interior flowpath of the pipeline until reaching the pipe joint, wherein at least one of the one or more sensors are included sensors on the pigging robot. Feng et al. disclose a method of using nondestructive material inspection system to inspect a joint (1905) of a piping structure (1907a/1907b) inserting a pigging robot (1900) having an inspection device (1903) into the piping structure (1907a/1907b), whereby the inspection device (1903) can include magnetic transmitters, magnetic sensors, acoustic sensors, and horseshoe magnets (Figure 19A and paragraphs [0042] [0173], and [0175]). Modifying Hirakawa et al. to utilize a pigging robot to inspect the joint would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention as pigging robots are able to inspect large amounts of piping in a reasonable period of time . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2012-173217 (Hirakawa et al.) . With respect to the limitation of claim 14, Hirakawa et al. disclose all of the limitations of the base claim; but fail to expressly disclose that the pipeline is buried underground and that excavating the pipe joint for repair operations is required. The Examiner argues that burying a pipeline underground is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of protecting the pipeline from individuals; and that excavation of the pipe would be required in order to perform any repair operations. With respect to the limitation of claim 15, Hirakawa et al. disclose performing a visual inspection on the pipe joint ( paragraph [0024] ) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0145932 (Feng et al.) in view of US 2013/0140811 (Fahrer et al.) . With respect to the limitation of claim 18, Feng et al. disclose all of the limitations of the base claim, but fail to disclose that the pipeline and the pipe joint include reinforced thermosetting resin pipes in active operation. Fahrer et al. disclose a fiberglass pipe jointing method and system whereby reinforced thermosetting resin pipes are joined together (abstract) by an injectable/curable material located within a cavity formed between two joining surfaces of the two pipes (Figures 4 and 5). A structural adhesive is used during the assembly of the joint, whereby the mating surfaces will compress, spread and compact the adhesive to form a leak-tight seal ( paragraph [0078], lines 3-5 ). The adhesive can include any combination of epoxy and polyester ( paragraph [0078], lines 5-7 ), which are or can be thermosetting materials. Once the adhesive materials have set and a pressure check of the joint is successful, a joining compound comprising an epoxy resin mixture is injected into the cavity of the joint ( paragraph [0081], lines 1-3 ). Modifying Feng et al. to utilize a reinforced thermosetting resin pipe would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention because reinforced thermosetting resin is an extremely corrosive resistant material, has a high strength to weight ratio, and a smooth inner surface, which makes is highly acceptable as a pipe material for transportation of produced fluids and injection water ( paragraphs [0006-0007] and Table 1 ). With respect to the limitation of claim 19, the combination fail to expressly disclose that the pipeline and the pipe joint are buried or otherwise inaccessible to an operator. The Examiner argues that burying a pipeline underground is well within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art as a means of protecting the pipeline from individuals . Allowable Subject Matter 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art was not relied upon to reject claims 4 and 7 because the prior art of record fails to teach and/or make obvious the limitations of the above claims in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art discloses techniques for manufacturing pipelines; and systems for testing the integrity of pipelines. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL SEAN LARKIN whose telephone number is 571-272-2198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:30 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, Laura Sweeney can be reached at 571-272-2160. 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. /DANIEL S LARKIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 2 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 3 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 4 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 5 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 6 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 7 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 8 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 9 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 10 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 11 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 12 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 13 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 14 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 15 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 16 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 17 Art Unit: 2855 Application/Control Number: 18/799,043 Page 18 Art Unit: 2855
