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 .
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, "element (4) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. (specification, page 11, line 36).
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.
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 character. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or an amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) 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. 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.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheet” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: "character number 4" is discussed in the specification, . 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. 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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure does not commence on a separate sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(4) and 1.72(b). A new abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the specification fails to describe reference characters .
Appropriate correction is required.
735 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms that are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: "said pipe diameter D" and "the pipe bending diameter D". The specification inconsistently uses "said pipe diameter D" and "the pipe bending diameter D" interchangeably (Detailed Description of the Invention, page 14, Ninth Example Section, lines 20–24) without a single controlling definition, contributing to the indefiniteness of claim 9.
Applicant should adopt one consistent term to facilitate the understanding of any person having ordinary skill in the art of the claimed invention.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 4–6, 8, 9, 11–13, and 16–18 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 4–6, 11–13, and 16–17, the applicant repeatedly uses the non-standard, grammatically improper construction “the at least a first metal stiffening element (2)” in claims 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 17, “the at least tow first metal stiffening elements (2)” in claims 8 and 9; “the at least a second metal stiffening element (4)” in claim 12; and “the at least a lower web member (64)” in claim 16. Sound claim drafting practice (MPEP 2173.05(e)) requires that an element first be introduced as “at least one element,” and thereafter referred to on each subsequent recitation simply as “the element,” without repeating the quantifier. The list below identifies each instance and a suggested correction:
In claim 4, the term “the at least a first metal stiffening element (2)” in step (d) should read “the first metal stiffening element (2).”
In claim 5, both terms “the at least a first metal stiffening element (2)” in lines 1 and 2 should read “the first metal stiffening element (2).”
In Claim 6, both terms “the at least a first metal stiffening element (2)” in lines 1 and 2 should read “the first metal stiffening element (2).”
In claim 8, “the at least two first metal stiffening element (2)” in line 1 should read “the two first metal stiffening element (2).”
In claim 9, “the at least two first metal stiffening element (2)” in line 1 should read “the two first metal stiffening element (2).”
In claim 11, the term “the at least a first metal stiffening element (2)” in line 2 should read “the first metal stiffening element (2).”
In claim 12, both terms “the at least a second metal stiffening element (4)” in line 1, and “the at least a first metal stiffening element (2)” in line 1, should read “the second metal stiffening element (4),” and “the first metal stiffening element (2),” respectively.
In claim 16, both terms “the at least a first metal stiffening element (2),” in line 2, and “the at least a lower web member (64)” in line 2, should read “the first metal stiffening element (2),” and “the lower web member (64),” respectively.
In claim 17, the term “the at least a first metal stiffening element (2)” in line 2 should read “the first metal stiffening element (2).”
Claim 13 recites “the at least first metal stiffening element (1).” Numeral (1) is defined throughout the specification and in claim 1 as “the first metal plate,” not the “stiffening element” (numbered (2) throughout). Character number “(1)” should read “(2)”, and “at least” should read “at least a.”
Claim 18 contains typographical errors: “welding at least tow first metal stiffening element (2) on the first metal place (1)” should read “at least two first stiffening elements (2) on the first metal plate (1).
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) 2, 3, 4, 9, 16, 17, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 3 and 4 recite that the welding steps occur “within 400⁰ of the bending line.” Because a helix is a three-dimensional geometry with an advancing pitch, an angular path measurement extended beyond a full single rotation (360⁰) requires an explicit directional reference frame (e.g., in the clockwise or counterclockwise direction of helical pitch advancement) to define a finite boundary. Because the claims and the specification fail to state the directional vector of this 400⁰ arc relative to the baseline origin, the physical boundaries of the claimed welding zone are mathematically ambiguous. One skilled in the art cannot determine the limits of the claim, rendering the scope indefinite.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "said pipe diameter" (claim 9, line 2) and, later in the same claim No antecedent for “pipe bending diameter D” exists anywhere in claim 9’s chain of dependency (claims 1, 7, and 8 do not introduce “the pipe bending diameter D;” only claim 2 does, and claim 9 does not depend from claim 2). It is additionally unclear whether “pipe diameter D” and “pipe bending diameter D” denote the same or different parameters. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 16 recites in lines 2–3 “after said lower web member (64) and at least a first metal stiffening element (2) have been bent together with the first metal plate (1).” The use of the indefinite phrase “at least a first” creates ambiguity regarding antecedent basis. Because “at least a first metal stiffening element (2)” was previously introduced in parent claim 1 and reference earlier in claim 16, reintroducing the element with an indefinite article rather than a definite term (e.g., “said at least one first metal stiffening element (2)”) renders it unclear whether the claim refers back to the previously introduced element or introduces an additional structural element.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "a pre-manufactured at least a first metal stiffening element (2)" in line 3. Specifically, independent claim 1 already establishes step (d): “welding at least a first metal stiffening element (2) to the pipe.” Rather than referring back to the element previously established in claim 1, claim 17 introduces the component as an entirely new structural item utilizing an indefinite phrase. Because claim 17 introduces a new item while simultaneously reusing the identical reference numeral (2) and ordinal designation (“first”), it is completely unclear whether claim 17 is:
Specifying the fabrication timing and geometry of the same “first metal stiffening element (2)” introduced in step (d) of claim 1; or
Introducing an entirely separate, second stiffening element that is confusingly designated as “a first metal stiffening element (2).”
This renders the scope of claim 17 ambiguous and indefinite, failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Furthermore, claim 17 recites positioning the stiffening element “after at least a full turn of the helix is bent, but before the complete first metal plate is bent.” In a continuous or semi-continuous roll-forming method, a long metal plate undergoes progressive plastic bending along its longitudinal length. To recite that an action occurs “before the complete first metal plate is bent” creates an ambiguous temporal boundary. It is unclear whether “before the complete first metal plate is bent” refers to when the trailing edge enters the bending rolls, when it exits, or the state of the final assembled pipe cylinder. Moreover, if read literally, this condition creates an arbitrary negative limitation that provides no procedural boundary for when the positioning or the welding step must cease or continue during active rolling, leaving a person of ordinary skill in the art unable to determine the metes and bounds of the claim with reasonable certainty.
Claim 18 is also rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected dependent claim 4.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 14, 15, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhan (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0373109 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhan discloses a method of manufacture for a reinforced pipe (Figure 1) including the steps of,
a) providing a first metal plate (first steel belt layer 1, released from a steel coil), having a thickness (pipe wall) t (Step 1, paragraph [0013], line 1; see Figure 6 (top image));
b) bending the first metal plate (first steel belt layer 1) along a bending line to form a helix (Figure 6 (bottom image); “spirally bending and rolling the double layer by a spiral steel weld pipe processing device”) (paragraph [0016], lines 1–3),
wherein the pitch of the helix (Figure 6, see bottom image) is substantially equal to the width of the plate (paragraph [0042], lines 3–5, i.e., after one full turn (360⁰), the belt’s leading edge meets the next unrolled portion, which occurs only when the pitch (axial advance per turn) equals the belt width); and wherein two consecutive turns of the helix are in contact at a seam (see also Figure 1, showing the closely pitched helical turns of the composite belt);
c) welding the helix along the seam (paragraph [0042], lines 3–8; see Figure 3 (structural diagram of welding groove 4)) forming a pipe (paragraph [0011], lines 2–3 “a continuous spiral welded seam is formed when a pipeline is formed by roll welding;” paragraph [0016], lines 3–4); and
d) welding at least a first metal stiffening element (at least two supporting steel bars 3, (see Figure 4)) to the pipe, forming a reinforced pipe (Step 2, paragraph [0014], lines 3–6, supporting steel bars 3 are welded only to the bottom (second belt layer)).
Therefore, Zhan anticipates claim 1 because every limitation is expressly disclosed in each step.
Regarding claim 5, Zhan discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 1. Zhan further discloses wherein the at least a first metal stiffening element (supporting steel bars 3) is helicoidal having the same outer diameter as the inner diameter of the reinforced pipe (second steel belt layer 2) (Abstract; paragraph [0005], lines 5–11; paragraph [0034]; see Figures 2, 4, and 6). (Specifically, because supporting bars 3 extend parallel along the longitudinal length of the metal belt prior to spiral coiling, rolling the composite belt into a pipe causes the supporting bars to form continuous internal helicoidal stiffening element matching the internal diameter of the pipe.)
Regarding claim 7, Zhan discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 1, wherein step (S2) comprises welding at least two first metal stiffening elements (paragraph [0014], lines 1–6) supporting steel bars perpendicular to the second steel belt layer) on the first metal plate (steel belt layer) as shown in Figure 6 (second and third images).
Regarding claim 8, Zhan discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 7, wherein the at least two first metal stiffening elements (supporting steel bars 3) are parallel to each other as shown in Figure 6 (second image; paragraph [0005], lines 1–6).
Regarding claim 10, Zhan discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 1, wherein t is 30 mm or less (Zhan discusses a known issue regarding the weight and the thickness ratio in paragraph [0003], lines 1–15).
Regarding claim 14, Zhan discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 1, comprising bending the first metal plate (steel belt layer 1) to form at least two turns of the helix as depicted in Figure 1 (bending of the composite belt through at least two full turs of the helix; paragraph [0016], lines 1–4).
Regarding claim 15, Zhan discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 1, wherein step b) (paragraph [0016]; “S4: spirally bending and rolling the double-layer composite steel belt by a spiral steel welded pipe processing device,” see Figure 6) and step d) (S3: releasing a first steel belt with the same width as the second steel belt from the steel coil, horizontally placing the first steel belt on the supporting steel bars to form a first steel belt layer, and performing welding and fixing to form a double-layer composite steel belt) are simultaneous (as depicted in Figure 6 (paragraphs [0015]–[0016])). According to Zhan’s invention (paragraph [0042]), the pipe processing device is continuously forming a steel pipe (i.e., all the steps (welding and fixing) are being performed simultaneously as a nonstop industrial operation); therefore, Zhan anticipates every structural and functional limitation of claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, Zhan discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 7. Zhan further discloses wherein step b) (paragraph [0016]; “S4: spirally bending and rolling the double-layer composite steel belt by a spiral steel welded pipe processing device,” see Figure 6) and step d) (S3: releasing a first steel belt with the same width as the second steel belt from the steel coil, horizontally placing the first steel belt on the supporting steel bars to form a first steel belt layer, and performing welding and fixing to form a double-layer composite steel belt) are simultaneous (as depicted in Figure 6 (paragraphs [0015]–[0016])). According to Zhan’s invention (paragraph [0042]), the pipe processing device is continuously forming a steel pipe (i.e., all the steps (welding and fixing) are performed simultaneously as a nonstop industrial operation); therefore, Zhan anticipates every structural and functional limitation of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, Zhan discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 8, wherein step b) (paragraph [0016]; “S4: spirally bending and rolling the double-layer composite steel belt by a spiral steel welded pipe processing device,” see Figure 6) and step d) (S3: releasing a first steel belt with the same width as the second steel belt from the steel coil, horizontally placing the first steel belt on the supporting steel bars to form a first steel belt layer, and performing welding and fixing to form a double-layer composite steel belt) are simultaneous (as depicted in Figure 6 (paragraphs [0015]–[0016])). According to Zhan’s invention (paragraph [0042]), the pipe processing device is continuously forming a steel pipe (i.e., all the steps (welding and fixing) are being performed simultaneously as a nonstop industrial operation); therefore, Zhan anticipates every structural and functional limitation of claim 20.
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) 2, 9, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan`109 (U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0373109 A1), in view of Zhan`367 (Chinese Patent No. CN 204114367 U), hereinafter Zhan`367.
Regarding claim 2, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Zhan`109 discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 1. Zhan`109 further discloses bounding the structural parameters of this reinforced pipe to handle massive external and internal load pressures for large-scale utility diameters exceeding 2 to 3 meters (paragraph [0003], lines 1–10). However, Zhan`109 does not specifically disclose wherein the reinforced pipe has a diameter D, and the ratio D/t is comprised between 100 and 1500, preferably between 200 and 800.
On the other hand, Zhan`367 teaches (see Table 2 translation below), wherein the reinforced pipe (pipe body 2) (see Figure 8) has a diameter D, and the ratio D/t is comprised between 100 and 1500, preferably between 200 and 800 (paragraph [0051], lines 1-2).
Zhan`367 further provides computed D/t values (from Table 2 data: diameters 3–10 m against computed wall thicknesses of 3.72–9.56 mm) yielding D/t ratios of approximately 806–1046, falling squarely within the claimed range of 100-1500 (overlapping the “preferred” 200–800 sub-range at its upper boundary).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size the reinforced spiral pipe of Zhan`109 to have a diameter and a diameter-to-wall-thickness ratio between 100 and 1500, as demonstrated by the dimensioning metrics taught in Zhan`367. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a pipe having a diameter D with a D/t ratio between 100 and 1500 because both Zhan`109 and Zhan`367 are directed to solving the identical problem: mitigating self-weight deformation, and high material cost in large-diameter steel pipes (Zhan`109, paragraph [0003]; Zhan`367, paragraph [0008], lines 1–5). Incorporating reinforcing elements allows thinning the structural wall to less than half the thickness of an unreinforced pipe while drastically boosting the circumferential section moment of inertia (Zhan`367, paragraph [0008], lines 1–3; paragraph [0009], lines 1–10). The selection of a specific D/t ratio within the disclosed and claimed ranges would have been obvious (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)), particularly given Zhan`367’s explicit data below (paragraphs [0058] – [0059]).
Table 2–Comparation of Wall Thickness: Ordinary vs. Present (Reinforced) Spiral Pipe
Diameter (mm)
Ordinary Spiral Steel Pipe Wall Thickness (mm)
Present Utility Model Pipe Comprehensive Wall Thickness (mm)
3000
18.9
3.72
4000
25.2
4.96
6000
37.8
5.74
8000
50.39
7.65
10000
63
9.56
Note: Comprehensive wall thickness is defined in paragraph [0054] (Zhan`367) as the average combined thickness of the pipe wall and the reinforcing ring.
Regarding claim 9, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Zhan`109 discloses a method of manufacturing a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 1 and in claim 8, as set forth above. However, Zhan`109 fails to disclose wherein the distance between the at least two first metal stiffening elements is between 1/50 and 1/4 of said pipe diameter, preferably between 1/30 and 1/6 of the pipe bending diameter D.
On the other hand, Zhan`367 teaches in Table 5 a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe, wherein the distance between the at least two first metal stiffening elements (reinforcing rings 4) is between 1/50 and 1/4 of said pipe diameter, preferably between 1/30 and 1/6 of the pipe bending diameter D. Furthermore, Zhan`367 teaches all the limitations of claim 9 as shown in Table 5 (Ring Geometry and Flexibility Factor, paragraphs [0101] – [0102]) below. The ring-to-ring spacing values of 600 mm (D = 3000 mm; ratio = 1/5), 550 mm (D = 4000 mm; ration = 1/7.3), 480 mm (D = 6000 mm; ratio = 1/12.5); 350 mm (D = 8000 mm; ratio = 1/22.9), and 270 mm (D = 10000 mm; ratio = 1/37), all falling in the claimed range of 1/50 to 1/4 of D, several of which additionally fall within the preferred 1/30 to 1/6 range.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the interval spacing between adjacent supporting steel bars in Zhan`109 such that the ratio of spacing distance to pipe diameter is between 1/50 and 1/4, as taught by Zhan`367. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select this spacing ratio to optimize the local buckling resistance of the thin shell wall between adjacent stiffening elements, as well as the spiral steel pipe flexibility coefficient, to satisfy the demand of construction (Zhan`367, paragraph [0103]).
Table 5 – Ring Geometry and Flexibility Factor
Diameter (mm)
Ring Height (mm)
Ring Width (mm)
Ring Spacing (mm)
Moment of Inertia (mm4/mm)
Flexibility Factor (FF)
3000
80
200
600
10434.84
0.0043
4000
80
200
550
14505.69
0.0055
6000
50
300
480
36368.84
0.0049
8000
50
300
350
50587.37
0.0063
10000
50
300
270
65965.73
0.0076
Regarding claim 13, Zhan`109 discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 1, as set forth above. Zhan`109 further discloses a reinforced pipe having square-shaped stiffening element but fails to disclose wherein the at least a first metal stiffening element is a T-beam or a U-beam.
On the other hand, Zhan`367 teaches in Figures 1-3 (paragraph [0024], lines 1-8) a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe, wherein the at least a first metal stiffening element (reinforcing ring 4) is a T-beam or a U-beam (paragraph [0024], lines 7-8: “in this embodiment, the profile, can also be trapezoidal, square, etc.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the solid rectangular stiffener bars of Zhan`109 with a U-beam or T-beam cross-sectional profile as taught by Zhan`367 (paragraph [0025], line 9).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a U-beam or T-beam profile because structural shapes with standing web flanges provide a significantly higher second moment of area per unit weight compared to solid rectangular bars, which greatly saves the cost, at the same time, the pipeline section moment of inertia as a geometric factor is greatly improved than common reinforcing method (as taught by Zhan`367, Abstract).
Claim(s) 3, 4, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan`109, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holste et al. (German Patent No. DE 102009051695 B3), hereinafter Holste et al.
Regarding claim 3, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Zhan`109 discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 1. However, Zhan`109 does not explicitly disclose wherein the helix is welded along the seam within 400⁰ of the bending line.
On the other hand, Holste et al. teaches in Figure 2b (see the welding unit 7 placed within 400⁰, in the vicinity of the forming line as the claimed invention), wherein in this step, the helix (spiral) is welded along the seam (welding unit for tack welding) within 400⁰ of the bending line as depicted in Figure 2b (within 290⁰, starting from zero counterclockwise [see detailed drawing below]), of the forming line (page 4, paragraph [002], lines 1–5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the welding of the helix seam of Zhan`109 within a limited angular displacement (within 400⁰) of the bending line, consistent with Holste et al.’s teaching, so as to achieve the high speed of the tack welds (weld used to hold metal pieces in their correct position and alignment) and higher performance of the tube molding machine (page 2, lines 21–23; “any rejects are reduced to a minimum,” page 3, lines 19–22).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Detailed drawing
Regarding claim 4, as best understood based on 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified earlier, by analogy, the combination of Zhan`109 and Holste et al. discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 3. Holste et al. further teaches in Figure 2b wherein in this step, the at least a first metal stiffening element is welded within 400° of the bending line (forming line) as depicted in Figure 2b (within 290⁰ [see detailed drawing above]), starting from zero counterclockwise, of the forming line (page 3, lines 10–31; page 4, lines 3—17).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to locate the welding of the (at least) first stiffening element of Zhan`109 within a limited angular displacement (within 400⁰) of the bending line, consistent with Holste et al.’s teaching, so as to achieve the high speed of the tack welds (weld used to hold metal pieces in their correct position and alignment) and higher performance of the tube molding machine (page 2, lines 21–23; “any rejects are reduced to a minimum,” page 3, lines 19–22).
Regarding claim 18, as best understood based on 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified earlier, the combination Zhan`109 and Holste et al. discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 4, as set forth above. Zhan`109 further discloses in Figure 6 (second image), wherein step d) (S2; paragraph [0014], lines 1–6) comprises welding at least [two] first metal stiffening elements (supporting steel bars 3) on the first metal plate (second steel belt layer 2; paragraph [0014], lines 3–6).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (Chinese Patent No. CN 2937729 Y), hereinafter "Li et al."
Regarding claim 6, Zhan discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 1. Zhan further discloses in Figure 6 a continuous coiling of helical profiles (supporting steel bars 3). However, Zhan fails to disclose wherein the at least a first metal stiffening element is circular having the same outer diameter as the inner diameter of the reinforced pipe, or wherein the at least a first metal stiffening element is circular having the same inner diameter as the outer diameter of the reinforced pipe.
On the other hand, Li et al. teaches in Figures 1, 2, and 3 wherein the at least a first metal stiffening element is circular having the same inner diameter as the outer diameter of the reinforced pipe.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the continuous helical pipe-forming method of Zhan by selectively attaching pre-manufactured circular stiffening hoops or rings as explicitly taught by Li et al. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select circular stiffening elements over continuous helical stiffening threads when specific axial zones of the pipeline require localized ring rigidity. As taught by Li et al. (Abstract; Description, page 2, Disclosure section, lines 1–25), utilizing closed circular reinforcing hoops significantly increases the pipe’s resistance to external earth or hydrostatic crushing loads (ring stiffness) while allowing overall pipe thickness to be minimized, thereby reducing material weight and production costs (Li et al., Abstract).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would further be motivated to selectively choose between internal (ring) and external circular stiffening element (hoop) positioning based on the intended installation environment: placing the circular stiffening elements (hoops) externally maintains a completely smooth internal bore to eliminate hydraulic fluid resistance and prevent sediment buildup in drainage pipelines (as taught by Li et al., page 2, lines 1–25).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Zhan discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 1, including bending a first metal plate (second steel belt layer 2; see Figure 5) along a bending line to form a helix, wherein two consecutive turns of the helix are in contact at a seam (welding groove; see Figure 3), and welding at least a first metal stiffening element (supporting steel bars 3; see Figure 5) to the pipe (paragraph [0017]).
Zhan does not expressly disclose a method further comprising the step of providing a pre-manufactured at least a first metal stiffening element (supporting steel bars 3) forming full circle or substantially a full circle, and positioning the at least a first metal stiffening element (supporting steel bars 3) inside or outside the helix formed by the bent metal plate after at least a full turn of the helix is bent, but before the complete first metal plate is bent, as claimed in claim 17.
However, Li et al. teaches a method further comprising the step of providing a pre-manufactured at least a first metal stiffening element (page 2, lines 31–39; Figure 1: stainless steel reinforcing hoops 2 and Figure 2: reinforcing collar 4) forming full circle or substantially a full circle, and positioning the at least a first metal stiffening element (reinforcing hoops 2; reinforcement collar 4) outside the helix formed by the bent metal plate (tube body 3) as depicted in Figures 1 and 2.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhan’s continuous spiral-forming process by incorporating Li et al.’s teaching of adding a discrete, pre-formed, closed reinforcement ring onto an already formed portion of the pipe body, rather than co-forming the ring with the plate as in Zhan’s continuously wound embodiment. Li et al. itself establishes (“It is unnecessary to make the tube body thicker, and ensures the pipe body has light weight, low cost, high intensity, which is used for conveying liquid or gas fluid medium, mainly used for discharging and mining pipe”; see Li et al., Abstract) that adding a separately pre-formed closed ring to an already existing pipe body rather than integrally forming the ring during pipe manufacture was a known, interchangeable alternative technique for achieving the same result (increasing hoop strength via a reinforcement ring), motivated by manufacturing flexibility and the ability to select different materials for the ring versus the body (as Li et al. explains that in the two-piece construction the hoop and the pipe may be the same material or of different materials [Li et al., page 2, Disclosure section, lines 15–18]). See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Here, substituting Li et al.’s known “add pre-formed ring to existing body” technique for Zhan’s “co-form ring with plate” technique yields the predictable result of a reinforced pipe wall. This is a routine application of a known technique (preformed ring addition) to a known type of device (continuous spiral pipe forming) to yield a predictable result.
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Converse et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,044,072 B2), hereinafter Converse et al.
Regarding claim 11, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) issue identified above, Zhan discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 1. Zhan further discloses welding primary structural metal stiffeners (supporting steel bars 3) across the metal plate stock prior to or during spiral coiling. However, Zhan fails to further disclose a method comprising the step of welding at least a second metal stiffening element on the first metal plate, at an angle to the at least a first metal stiffening element.
However, Converse et al. teaches in Figures 9B and 10A a method of manufacturing a cylindrical hull further comprising the step of welding at least a second metal stiffening element (14) on the first metal plate (12), at an angle to the at least a first metal stiffening element (16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second stiffening element angled (e.g., perpendicular) to the first stiffening element ring as taught by Converse et al., as combining circumferential or longitudinal and orthogonal stiffening members into a stiffened grid is a well-known technique for both flat and curved plate structures, amounting to combining known elements by known methods to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
Regarding claim 12, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) issue identified above, Zhan discloses a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 11. Zhan further discloses welding primary structural metal stiffeners (supporting steel bars 3) across the metal plate stock prior to or during spiral coiling but fails to disclose wherein the at least a second metal stiffening element is perpendicular to the at least a first metal stiffening element.
However, Converse et al., teaches (Col. 10, lines 21–42) an advanced cylindrical shell hull or pipe manufacturing technique, wherein the at least a second metal stiffening element (longitudinal stiffener 14) is perpendicular to the at least a first metal stiffening element (rings 16 and flanges 17) (see Figure 10A; Col. 7, lines 15–20)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spiral pipe manufacturing process of Zhan by incorporating a second set of metal stiffening elements welded at a perpendicular angle across the primary stiffeners, as taught by Converse et al. (Figure 10A). A person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to introduce a perpendicular second set of stiffening members to form a complete cross-directional reinforcement grid (“the longitudinal stiffeners 14 are also anchored at both ends so as to similarly act in tension at all times;” Col. 8, lines 6–7). As taught by Converse et al. (Col. 1, lines 24–35; col. 2, lines 20–43), arranging secondary stiffeners perpendicular to primary circumferential or helical rings optimizes the shell plate against multi-axis loads, allowing the primary rings to resist hydrostatic or radial crushing forces while the perpendicular stiffeners resist axial bending and prevent localized shell plate buckling (Col. 10, lines 21–42).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhan, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith, Sr. (U.S. Patent No. 4,429,654), hereinafter Smith.
Regarding claim 16, as best understood based on the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) issue identified above, Zhan discloses (steps a through d) a method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe as claimed in claim 1, from which claim 16 depends, including providing a first metal plate, bending it along a bending line to form a helix with seamed turns, welding the seam, and welding at least a first metal stiffening element to the pipe, as set forth in the rejection above.
Zhan fails to disclose a method further comprising the step of welding at least a lower web member (64) to the first metal plate and wherein the at least a first metal stiffening element is placed on top of the at least a lower web member and welded together after said at least lower web member and at least a first metal stiffening element have been bent together with the first metal plate.
However, Smith, in the same field of endeavor (fabrication of large-diameter, helically wound, seam-welded, stiffened cylindrical structures, (see Smith, Background of the Invention, discussing platform supports for offshore oil drilling operations, directly analogous to Applicant’s own stated field of offshore floating wind buoyancy tanks, paragraphs [002]–[0003]), teaches a multi-stage structural web reinforcement assembly for cylindrical metal shell comprising the step of welding at least a lower web member (first longitudinal half 26a) to the first metal plate (outer strip 38) and wherein the at least a first metal stiffening element (beam section 26b, see Figures 4 and 6) is placed on top of the at least a lower web member (first longitudinal half 26a) and welded together after said at least lower web member (first longitudinal half 26a) and at least a first metal stiffening element (beam section 26b, see Figures 4 and 6) have been bent together with the first metal plate as depicted in Figures 5 and 6.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the continuous helical pipe manufacturing process of Zhan by staging the stiffening element attachment as taught by Smith (i.e., welding a lower web-member portion of the stiffener to the plate before bending, and welding the remainder of the stiffening element to that web member only after the plate and web member have been bent together) because Smith itself expressly identifies the motivation and advantage of this staged approach: it provides a “continuous, automated and integrated operation” with reduced “labor cost” and minimized required skills, and Smith use of “position welding directed downwardly” is described as more reliable and less time-consuming. Combining Smith’s known two-stage stiffener welding technique with the known helical pipe-forming method of Zhan is thus a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result recited in claim 16 (Col. 1, lines 36–44; Col. 5, lines 40–45; see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc, 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Roggendorfa method of manufacture of a reinforced pipe having a plurality of stiffening ring elements placed orthogonally to form a longitudinally extending large tubular member.
Hua et al. (Chinese Patent No. CN 106964691 B) teaches a flexible composite forming method for grid rib component where a plate blank is selected based on target component size, placed on a guide plate workbench, and press-formed into a planar grid-rib structure using continuous partial extrusion; them the grid rib plate is curved via three-roller bending and welded into a cylindrical member with grid ribs.
Thompson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 2,301,092) teaches the manufacture of tubular material with circular stiffening rib option, by spiraling a strip of material upon itself and joining its longitudinal edges along a helical seam.
Beppu (U.S. Patent No. 8,387,251 B2) teaches a production method of an internally ribbed steel tube, capable of forming spiral ribs stably so as to reduce troubles at the time of cold drawing for forming the spiral ribs of the steel tube.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PIERRE FAUBERT MONDESTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0918. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571)270-1477. 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.
/P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3725
/Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725
Prosecution Insights