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 .
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 20 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 20 recites the limitation "the characteristics" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, this claim is further indefinite because it is unclear as to what these “characteristics” are.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11, 16, 19, 21-23, 29, 30, 34 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Geir (GB 2593510 A).
Regarding claims 1, 34 and 35, Geir discloses a method - and a corresponding laid or formed pipe - for laying a pipe (1, 40) on a seabed from a vessel (3) said vessel comprising a reel (2) wound with deformable rigid pipe having an initial curvature and a straightener system (5) through which the pipe is provided, the method comprising at least the following steps: a) configuring the straightener system to straighten a pipe, and unwinding the pipe from the reel to provide a straight portion (42) (see figure 4) of pipe having a predetermined length (Lk) greater than 300m (page 8, lines 5-6: "For example, Lₖ may typically be [...] up to approximately 500m long [---]"; b) configuring the straightener system to provide a non-straight portion (see figure 4 and page 7, lines 27-34) of pipe having a predetermined length (LE); wherein the non-straight portion of pipe produced during step b) comprises at least one under-straightened sub-portion of pipe and at least one over- straightened sub-portion of pipe (see the sinusoidal shape of the curved portions in figure 4; see also page 5, lines 22-32 and figure 2A and the combination of claims 1, 3, 4 and 8).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Geir further discloses the straightener system comprises bending supports for supplying curvature and reverse curvature to the pipe (see tracks 6a and 6b in figure 1 and page 4, line 32 to page 5, line 7).
Regarding claim 4, Geir further discloses step (b) comprises configuring the straightener system to two or more of the group comprising: to under-straighten a sub-portion of the pipe, to over-straighten a sub-portion of the pipe, and to straighten a sub-portion of the pipe; followed after each configuration by unwinding the sub- portion of the pipe from the reel (see figure 2A and page 5, lines 22-32).
Regarding claim 11, Geir further discloses the non-straight portion of pipe is arranged in a symmetric or asymmetric way with reference to the center of the non-straight portion of pipe (see figure 2A in combination with figure 4, as defined by the combination of claims 1, 3, 4 and 8).
Regarding claim 16, Geir further discloses the or each straight sub-portion of pipe has a length between 15 m and 70 m (see figure 4 and page 8, lines 4-7: the disclosed range between 10m and 500m for Lk prejudices novelty of the the claimed range).
Regarding claim 19, Geir further discloses c) repeating steps a) and b) until the deformable rigid pipe is fully installed on a seabed (the repetition of steps a) and b) until full installation is seen as implicitly disclosed).
Regarding claim 21, Geir further discloses the non-straight portion of pipe has a predetermined length (LE) between 30 m and 250 m (the non-straight portions of figure 4 have each a length LE in the range of 25m to 40m or 40m to 70m, depending on the pipe diameter).
Regarding claims 29 and 30, Geir further discloses the non-straight portion of pipe comprises at least one under-straightened sub-portion of pipe having a first local residual strain, and at least one over-straightened sub-portion of pipe having a second local residual strain which is different from the first local residual strain; and the non-straight portion of pipe comprises an under-straightened sub-portion of pipe having a first local residual strain between two over-straightened sub-portions of pipe having a second local residual strain, the second local residual strain being smaller than the first local residual strain (see figure 2C).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 5-10, 14, 15, 17, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geir (GB 2593510 A) alone.
Regarding claims 5-10, 17, 18, 24-28 and 31-33, although not explicitly described in Geir, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a configuration of various and multiple over and under-straightened sections and straight as required for the specific pipe and installation site and vessel and reel positions.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, although not explicitly disclosed in Geir, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize under and over straightened pipe sections of 15m and 125m depending on a number of factors including pipe size, material composition, reel size, vessel installation speed, expected wave loads, water depth etc. Subsequently, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to design the non-straight portions of the pipe to promote better installation of the pipe on the seabed.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geir (GB 2593510 A) in view of McDermott (WO 2019/213541 A1).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Geir fails to disclose details of the local residual strain.
McDermott teaches a method of laying a pipe wherein the local residual strain of the under straightened pipe and over straightened pipe is between .08% and .25% and .02% and .1% respectively (Paragraph 26).
At the time of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Geir by adding the tolerances as described by McDermott to provide a tolerance that is under the failure values of the respective pipe sections for the material composition, thereby increasing safety.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (GB 2619950 A), (US 2023/0358336), (US 2017/0108143), (US 2013/0216314), and (US 2008/0232905) disclose methods of mitigating pipeline buckling in subsea conditions similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1184. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~10-6.
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 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.
KYLE ARMSTRONG, P.E.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3678
/KYLE ARMSTRONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619