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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A heating device in claims 1, 23 and 30 wherein heating is a functional language with device being a generic placeholder for means.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A heating device is interpreted as a resistance heating wire as disclosed in the specification, or its equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-17, 19, 20, 23 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raterman et al (US 2005/0092736) in view of Jameson et al (US 4,455,474), Batallas et al (US 2010/0154917), and Tailor (US 2016/0039184).
With respect to claim 1, Raterman shows the structure of the heated hose claimed including a flexible tube (40; construct with Teflon which is known to be plastic/flexible; para 0018), an insulative layer (60, 62 or 64 made of fiberglass) surrounding the flexible hose, heating device/element (48) arranged between the flexible hose and the insulating layer wherein the insulating layer is wrapped around the heating element and thus also wrapped around the flexible hose (para 0019), but Raterman does not explicitly show that the insulating layer is a strip-shaped that is helically wound around the flexible hose that is capable of displacement relative to one another when the flexible hose is bent and that the insulating material contains an aerogel wherein the strip-shaped insulating material has a width of about 15 mm to about 60 mm and a thickness about 1 mm to about 3 mm as claimed.
Jameson shows it is known to provide an insulation that is a strip-shaped material (26 made of fiberglass paper; also see column 3, lines 46-68) wound helically around a flexible hose (20) as illustrated in Figure 2 wherein as Jameson shows the helically wound insulating material, such insulation material would also be capable of performing a displacement relative to one another when the flexible hose is bent as the insulation material (26) is also helically wound in the same manner as that of the claimed insulating material (MPEP 2114 II).
Batallas shows it is known to provide an insulating layer that comprises an insulating material containing an aerogel that is known to provide an effective thermal insulation. Also, see para 0115.
Tailor shows it is known to provide an insulating layer in a strip-shaped insulating material having a width of 2-24 inches or a thickness of .1 to 4 mm that encompasses the claimed width or thickness (para 0040) that can be wrapped around a tubular pipe/ hose that provides a heat loss protection, and Tailor also shows that the strip-shaped insulating material contains an aerogel (para 0106) wherein the insulation layer provides a long term thermal stability and thermal insulation to the pipe (also, see Abstract, para 0090 and 0093).
In view of Jameson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Raterman with the insulating tape/material that is wrapped around the flexible hose in a helically wound manner to ensure that the insulating tape/material would sufficiently and adequately cover the entirety of the flexible hose without exposing the flexible hose or the heating element wherein the helically wound strip-shaped insulating layer would also be capable of displacement relative to one another when the flexible hose is bent as that of the claimed strip-shaped insulating material, and it is further noted that such recitation is related as a manner of operating the device that does not differentiate the apparatus claim from the prior art wherein it is held that the apparatus claims cover what the device is and not what the device does (also, see MPEP 2114.II); and in view of Batallas, it would have been obvious to further adapt Raterman with the insulating material containing an aerogel which would predictably provide an effective thermal insulation/protection with a long term thermal stability to prolong the life of the heated hose without undesired heat loss; and in view of Tailor, it would have been obvious to further adapt Raterman with the strip-shaped insulating material having a width of 2-24 inches or a thickness of .1 to 4 mm that encompasses the claimed width or thickness (see para 0040 of Tailor) which would provide an adequate heat loss protection while providing the hose with mechanical and corrosion protection.
With respect to claims 3 and 17, Jameson further shows the strip-shaped insulating material that is wound helically in a self-overlapping manner (that is overlapped for half of its width, i.e., 50% of the width, providing a double thickness of the insulating material; also, see column 3, lines 49-52) which would further predictably provide an enhanced thermal protection of the heating device.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, Batallas further shows the insulating material containing an aerogel that is based on silica wherein silicate would be interchangeable with silica, and the insulating material also includes a woven fabric having glass fibers as a supporting structure. Also, see para 0134.
With respect to claims 8-10, Raterman shows the strip-shaped insulating tape/material further including a sheath or a covering layer (e.g., 60) surrounding the insulating layer, and Jameson shows a sheath or a covering layer (32 or 33) that covers the strip-shaped insulating layer material (26) wherein the covering layer can be wound helically in a self-overlapping manner as shown in Figure 3 to ensure that the strip-shaped insulating covering material can be further adequately protected and insulated.
With respect to claims 11, 12 and 19, Jameson further shows it is known to provide the heated hose with a control line or an electric supply line (29, 30 or 31) that is wound helically around the insulating layer wherein the control/supply line is connected to a connection structure (13: an electrical plug) which is configured to be mated or connected to corresponding mating structure (i.e., corresponding to the electrical plug 13) of a delivery device (e.g., melter; also, see column 2, lines 40-54), and it would also have been obvious to provide the control line or electrical supply line that is provided with the heated hose of the Raterman which is connected to a delivery device component (16) to supply a fluid/material which flows through the heated hose in a controlled manner.
With respect to claim 13, Raterman further shows an outer cover/layer (68).
With respect to claims 14 and 20, Jameson further shows it is known to provide a winding direction of the covering material (32) that corresponds to a winding direction of the insulating material (26) wherein component parts including control/supply line is also helically wound in the same direction as the winding direction of the insulating material (26) as illustrated in Figures 2-4.
With respect to claims 15 and 16, Jameson shows it is known to provide the insulating material (82) that is helically wound wherein it would have been obvious to helically wound the material between about 5° and about 30° or any other suitable winding angle as a matter of routine experimentation to optimize the insulation protection of the helical winding to adequately and sufficient allow the insulating material to be wrapped around the hole and provide the desired thermal insulating protection to the heated hose.
With respect to claim 23, Raterman shows the structure of the heated hose claimed including a flexible tube (40; construct with Teflon which is known to be plastic/flexible; para 0018), an insulative layer (60, 62 or 64 made of fiberglass) surrounding the flexible hose, heating device/element (48) arranged between the flexible hose and the insulating layer wherein the insulating layer is wrapped around the heating element and thus also wrapped around the flexible hose (para 0019), but Raterman does not explicitly show that the insulating tape/material that is helically wound around the flexible hose wherein the insulating material contains an aerogel, and a covering layer disposed adjacent the insulating layer having an adhesive that does not adhere to the insulating layer.
Jameson shows it is known to provide an insulation (26) that is a strip-shaped insulating material that is wound helically around a flexible hose (20) wherein Jameson further shows a covering layer (32) that is in direct contact with the insulating layer (26), the covering layer is further provided with an adhesive layer (shown by the electrical tape 36 with adhesive; column 4, lines 8-16) wherein the covering layer does not adhere to the insulating layer via the adhesive, and Jameson disclose that the adhesive layer shown by an electrical tape further provides a moisture protection.
Batallas shows it is known to provide an insulating layer that comprises an insulating material containing an aerogel that is known to provide an effective thermal insulation. Also, see para 0115.
Tailor also shows it is known to provide an insulating layer that comprises a strip-shaped insulating material that contains an aerogel (para 0106) wherein the insulation layer provides long term thermal stability and thermal insulation to the pipe (para 0090 and 0093).
In view of Jameson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Raterman with the insulating material that is wrapped around the flexible hose in a helically wound manner to ensure that the insulating material would sufficiently and adequately cover the entirety of the flexible hose without exposing the flexible hose or the heating element wherein a covering layer that is in direct contact with the insulating layer wherein the covering layer can be further provided with an adhesive layer that does not adhered to the insulating layer which allows for added insulation protection while the adhesive layer including an electrical tape that can further provide a moisture protection as taught by Jameson; and in view of Batallas and Tailor, it would have been obvious to further adapt Raterman with the insulating material containing an aerogel which would predictably provide an effective thermal insulation/protection with a long term thermal stability to prolong the life of the heated hose without undesired heat loss.
With respect to claim 29, Jameson further discloses for the strip-shaped insulating material (26) that directly surrounds and is in contact with the heating device (23,24) wherein it would have been obvious to provide Raterman with a heating arrangement with the strip-shaped insulation material that in in direct contact with the heating device as an alternative arrangement that predictably provides for thermal insulative protection of the heating device as known in the art.
Claim(s) 30 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jameson et al (US 4,455,474) in view of Tailor (US 2016/0039184) or Batallas et al (US 2010/0154917).
Jameson discloses the structure of the heated hose claimed including a flexible tube (20), a braided metal wire (21) on an exterior of the flexible hose, a heating device/element (23, 24) surrounding the flexible hose, an insulating layer (26) surrounding and in direct contact with the heating device, a covering layer (32) surrounding and in direct contact with the insulating layer wherein the insulating layer is a strip-shaped material (26 made of fiberglass paper; also see column 3, lines 46-68) that is wound helically around a flexible hose (20) as illustrated in Figure 2. But Jameson does not show that the strip-shaped insulating material contains an aerogel.
Tailor shows it is known to provide an insulating layer that comprises a strip-shaped insulating material that contains an aerogel (para 0106) wherein the insulation layer provides long term thermal stability and thermal insulation to the pipe (para 0090 and 0093).
Batallas also shows it is known to provide an insulating layer that comprises an insulating material containing an aerogel that is known to provide an effective thermal insulation. Also, see para 0115.
In view of Tailor or Batallas, it would have been obvious to further adapt Jameson with the insulating material containing an aerogel which would predictably provide an effective thermal insulation/protection with a long term thermal stability to prolong the life of the heated hose without undesired heat loss.
With respect to claim 34, Jameson discloses that the heated hose intended to transport a hot liquid (molten liquid) that is at a temperature on the order of 250º -350º F which is equivalent to about 121º-176º C which overlaps the claimed range of about 120º-200º C.
Claim(s) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jameson in view of Tailor or Batallas as applied to claims 30 and 34 above, and further in view of Marucci et al (US 2017/0009926).
Jameson in view of Tailor or Batallas shows the heated hose claimed except for the outer cover comprising silicone.
Marucci shows it is known to provide a heated hose having an outer cover/jacket (26) that comprises any suitable material including silicone (para 0038) for protection of the hose from wear.
In view of Marucci, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Jameson, as modified by Tailor or Batallas, with the outer cover/jacket that comprises silicone or any other suitable materials that would predictably provide a protection of the hose from wear and tear as known in the art.
Claim(s) 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jameson in view of Tailor or Batallas as applied to claims 30 and 34 above, and further in view of Straarup (US 2018/0231151).
Jameson in view of Tailor or Batallas shows the heated hose claimed except for the covering layer that comprises a textile tape or a woven glass fiber tape as claimed.
Straarup discloses it is known to provide a cover layer that is made of a woven or non-woven fiber that includes glass fibers (also, see para 0039 and 0043).
In view of Straarup, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Jameson, as modified by Tailor or Batallas, with the covering layer that can be made of woven or non-woven glass fiber that is known provide a good mechanical protection of the flexible hose.
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jameson in view of Tailor or Batallas as applied to claims 30 and 34 above, and further in view of Kagoura (US 2011/0017337).
Jameson in view of Tailor or Batallas shows the heated hose claimed except for the flexible hose that comprises a corrugated metal hose.
Kagoura discloses it is known to provide a flexible hose that comprises a corrugated metal hose that is known to provide good flexibility that is also excellent in low temperature resistance (para 0033).
In view of Kagoura, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Jameson, as modified by Tailor or Batallas, with the flexible hose that comprises a corrugated metal hose, as an alternative flexible hose, that can also provide a good flexibility having an excellent low temperature resistance.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that it would have not have been obvious to modify Raterman with teachings of the strip-shaped material having aerogel in Tailor since Tailor is related to provide improved mechanical properties to a pipe weld. This argument is not deemed persuasive since the strip-shaped material containing aerogel is used for providing thermal insulation (para 0028) as well as improved mechanical properties to a pipe, it would have been obvious to adapt Raterman with the teaching of Tailor including that of the strip-shaped material containing aerogel that provides thermal insulation to the heated hose of Raterman to prevent heat loss if not for the thermal insulation.
It is noted that having a flexible hose is taught by Raterman wherein modifying the teachings of Tailor or that of Batallas relating to the claimed aerogel does not teach away or frustrate intended purposes of Raterman. Applicant argues that the aerogel would be susceptible to being damaged when bent as being in the form of a tape. This argument is not deemed persuasive since Tailor shows the strip-shaped material that is bent to be wrapped around a hose and such showing discloses that the strip-shaped material contained aerogel can be bent to serve its intended purposes of thermal insulation without being damaged as argued by Applicant.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment also necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights