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 § 103
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent No. 3951438 to Scales (Scales) in view of United States Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0025953 to Fraser et al. (Fraser).
With regard to claim 1, Scales discloses a flexible pipe comprising:
a pipe body comprising first and second pipe layers (the layers on either side of element 20 in fig. 2), the first pipe layer being a composite pipe layer formed of a composite comprising a reinforcement embedded in a thermoplastic matrix material (20, fig. 2 is a reinforcement but it is not disclosed as being embedded in a thermoplastic matrix material); and
an end fitting (10, fig. 2) to which a first end of the pipe body is connected (shown in fig. 2), the end fitting comprising a tubular connector member (11/21, fig. 1) concentric to the pipe body (the tubular extension 11 and swageable outer member 21 are concentric to the pipe body after assembly), wherein a length of the pipe body at the first end is free of the second pipe layer so exposing the first pipe layer to the tubular connector member to enable direct contact therebetween (column 3, lines 45-52).
Scales fails to disclose a pipe body made of a spiral wrapped strip of composite material (a reinforcement embedded in a thermoplastic matrix).
Fraser discloses a pipe made of a sheath wrapped with a tape of thermoplastic material embedded with metal fibers. The thermoplastic is a polymer such as polyethylene that provides a strip the is relatively strong in tension as discussed in paragraph 0011.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to provide the device of Scales with a reinforced polymer strip as taught by Fraser in order to provide a pipe that is resistant to axial forces.
With regard to claim 2, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a flexible pipe according to claim 1 as set forth above, and Scales further discloses wherein the first pipe layer is disposed radially inward of the second pipe layer and the tubular connector member is disposed radially outward of the first pipe layer. The first layer 18 of scales is disposed radially inward of the tubular connector member 21.
With regard to claim 3, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a flexible pipe according to claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the first pipe layer is formed of one or more helically wrapped tapes formed of the composite, and optionally wherein the reinforcement comprises a plurality of metallic wires (scales discloses metal wire reinforcements).
With regard to claim 4, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a flexible pipe according to claim 1 as set forth above, and Fraser further discloses wherein the second pipe layer is a polymeric pipe layer providing a protective layer (Fraser discloses a polymeric second layer ).
With regard to claim 5, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a flexible pipe according to claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the end fitting comprises a further tubular connector member disposed radially inward of the first pipe layer (17, fig. 2).
With regard to claims 6 and 7, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a flexible pipe according to claim 1 as set forth above, but does not further disclose wherein the pipe body comprises a third pipe layer disposed radially inward of the first pipe layer.
Fraser discloses a third pipe layer 22 which comprises an inner impervious tubular polymeric sheath. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include the third pipe layer taught by Fraser as an impervious material for the same reasons that layer is provided in the Fraser device and to enhance the fluid conveyance abilities of the flexible pipe.
with regard to claim 8, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a flexible pipe layer according to claim 6 as set forth above, and Scales further discloses wherein the end fitting comprises a further tubular connector member disposed radially inward of the first pipe layer, and wherein a further length of the pipe body at the first end is free of the third pipe layer so exposing the first pipe layer to the further tubular connector member to enable direct contact therebetween (as shown in fig. 2 of Scales the first layer is free of the second and third layers of the pipe in order to place that layer into direct contact with the tubular connector member).
With regard to claim 9, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a flexible pipe layer according to claim 5 as set forth above, and Scales further discloses wherein the first pipe layer is clamped between the tubular connector member and the further tubular connector member (as shown in fig. 2 of Scales).
With regard to claim 10, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a flexible pipe layer according to claim 9 as set forth above, and Scales further discloses wherein the pipe body comprises a third pipe layer disposed radially inward of the first pipe layer, and wherein the third pipe layer is clamped, together with the first pipe layer, between the tubular connector member and the further tubular connector member (Scales, column 3, line 45 to column 4, line 3).
With regard to claim 11, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a flexible pipe according to claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the pipe is a reinforced thermoplastic pipe for conveying oil and gas field fluids (this limitation is considered a statement of the field of intended use of the hose that does not further limit the structure of the claimed apparatus beyond requiring an ability to perform the stated function. There is nothing of evidence to suggest the hose of Scales in view of Fraser is not capable of performing the claimed function of conveying oil and gas field fluids).
With regard to claim 12, Scales in view of Fraser discloses the flexible pipe of claim 1 as set forth above, and further discloses the method of manufacturing a flexible pipe, the method comprising: providing a pipe body comprising first and second pipe layers (as shown in the figures), the first pipe layer being a composite pipe layer formed of a composite comprising a reinforcement embedded in a thermoplastic matrix material (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above); providing an end fitting comprising a tubular connector member (as set forth above); removing a length of the second pipe layer at a first end of the pipe body to provide a length of the pipe body free of the second pipe layer (as set forth in the rejection of claim 8 above); and introducing the pipe body into the tubular connector member, or visa versa, so bringing the first pipe layer and the tubular connector member into direct contact with one another (as disclosed in the figures of Scales).
With regard to claims 13, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a discloses a method according to claim 12 as set forth above, wherein the first pipe layer is disposed radially inward of the second pipe layer, and the method comprises introducing the pipe body into the tubular connector member (as shown in the figures of Scales).
With regard to claim 14, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a method according to claim 13 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the end fitting comprises a further tubular connector member disposed radially inward of the tubular connector member and an annular gap extending therebetween, and the method comprises introducing the pipe body into the annular gap (as shown in the figures of Scales).
With regard to claim 15, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a method according to claim 14 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the wherein the pipe body comprises a third pipe layer disposed radially inward of first pipe layer, the method comprises removing a length of the third pipe layer at the first end of the pipe body to provide a further length of the pipe body free of the third pipe layer, and introducing the pipe body into annular gap so bringing the third pipe layer and the further tubular connector member into direct contact with one another (the method of Scale in view of Fraser requires the removal of the material between the third pipe layer and the connector member).
With regard to claim 16, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a method according to claim 14 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein the method comprises clamping the first end of the pipe body in the annular gap (as set forth in scales column 3, line 45 to column 4, line 3).
With regard to claim 17, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a method according to claim 16 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein clamping the first end of the pipe body comprises clamping the first pipe layer only (as shown in the figures of Scales the material removed before clamping results in the first liner being the only layer that is clamped).
With regard to claim 18, Scales in view of Fraser discloses a method according to claim 16 as set forth above, and further discloses wherein clamping the first end of the pipe body comprises crimping or swagging the tubular connector member (Scales discloses a swagging connection).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are potentially relevant: USPNs 1257852, 2031833 and 5230414.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID R DEAL whose telephone number is (469)295-9216. The examiner can normally be reached M-F generally 8-4 pm CST.
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 supervisors can be reached at: Craig M Schneider (571) 272-3607 and Ken Rinehart (571) 272-4881. 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.
/DAVID R DEAL/ Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3753
