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 .
The claims filed 2/17/26 are acknowledged; claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sinko (US 3856246) in view of McCoy (US 20080279635).
CLAIM 1: Sinko discloses a spacer for a subsea control bundle umbilical. The spacer comprising a stack of two or more blocks (10/12) and at least one opening (see Fig. 1 showing openings between 12 and 10) that extends along a longitudinal axis through the spacer at an interface between abutting blocks of the stack to receive a respective elongate functional element of the umbilical (Fig. 1).
Sinko fails to disclose wherein outer blocks of the stack support rollers that are angularly spaced in a circular array.
McCoy discloses a conduit spacer.
McCoy discloses a spacer (20) with outer blocks (23) of the stack support rollers (28) that are angularly spaced in a circular array (see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the spacer of Sinko with the supported rollers of McCoy with a reasonable expectation of success as McCoy teaches the rollers resistance of the movement of the spacer within the conduits (see paragraph 0039).
CLAIM 2: The interface is substantially planar but is interrupted by at least one open ended channel for receiving a respective one of the functional elements (see Sinko, Fig. 1).
CLAIM 3: Each opening is defined by alignment between opposed channels in the abutting blocks of the stack (see Sinko, Fig. 1).
CLAIM 4: Each block of the stack has a thickness on the longitudinal axis that exceeds its height on an axis that is orthogonal to the longitudinal axis and to the interface (see Sinko, Fig. 1).
CLAIM 5: The outer blocks define chamfered corners of the spacer at which the rollers are supported (see McCoy, Fig. 2, the rollers being at angles to the tangent lines from one roller to the adjacent roller).
CLAIM 6: The rollers are supported by brackets (27) that each embrace one of the outer blocks (see McCoy Fig. 2).
CLAIM 7: One of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to have each bracket engages at least two blocks of the stack with a reasonable expectation of success as McCoy teaches having bolts (32) near the brackets engage two blocks (see Fig. 3, showing bolt 32 engaging two blocks) and shifting the bolts to the brackets would not change the operational function of securing the two blocks together.
CLAIM 8: One or more inner blocks of the stack are substantially cuboidal (see Sinko, Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that the combination of Sinko and McCoy is improper because Sinko spacer does not move inside a conduit. This is not persuasive. Sinko discloses “For the purpose of lateral interconnection between units, each modular unit 10 or 12 is provided on one side thereof… with a pair of prong members 50 each adapted to slidably engage a corresponding recess 52 formed on the other side… of each modular unit. Such interconnection is effected by sliding one modular unit relative to the other with a prong 50 disposed so as to register with a recess 52 and displacing one modular unit relative to the other in a direction parallel to the axes of the pipes or conduits,” (Sinko, col. 4, lines 29-39). Sinko clearly anticipates a need for moving the units in a manner that would be assisted by the wheels of McCoy. Therefore, the combination is proper.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 PATRICK F LAMBE whose telephone number is (571)270-1932. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10-4.
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, Amber Anderson can be reached at (571)270-5281. 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.
/PATRICK F LAMBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3676
/TARA SCHIMPF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3676