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 .
Response to Appeal Brief
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 12/05/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejections is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 27 recites a negative limitation of the strip-shaped material that is “not a tape material”, and there is no support or description in the specification as to what constitutes “not tape” or that the strip-shaped material is “not a tape”. It is noted the term “tape” has a general meaning of “a narrow flexible strip or band” which is not limited in one particular tape element or structure as argued by the applicant. Thus, the specification fails to meet the description requirement.
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) 1-5, 8-17, 19, 20, 23-25, 27 and 28 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), and Tailor (US 2016/0039184) or Batallas et al (US 2010/0154917).
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.
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) that is 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).
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 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 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 Tailor or 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.
With respect to claim 2, Tailor further shows 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 (para 0040) which would provide an adequate heat loss 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, 33) 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 (36) having an adhesive (column 4, lines 8-16) is disposed adjacent the insulating layer (26) but that does not adhere to the insulating layer as there is an intervening layer/paper (32,33) that prevents the covering layer (36) to adhere to the insulating layer (26).
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 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 comprising adhesive but that does not adhered to the insulating layer as there is an intervening layer (32/33); and in view of Tailor or 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.
With respect to claim 24, Jameson shows the covering layer that is made of vinyl (which is known to be a plastic material) that can be moisture proof wherein such moisture proof would also be capable of being dustproof, i.e., no dust can penetrate as with the moisture to the insulating layer. Also, see column 4, lines 8-16.
With respect to claim 25, Raterman shows an outer cover (68) made of plastic cover (68) which can be smooth, and Batallas also shows an outer cover (26) disclosing a smooth exterior surface as illustrated in Figure 2, and it would have been obvious to provide the outer cover that is smooth to touch for the comfort of the user handling the heated hose.
With respect to claim 27, 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), a heating device (48) surrounding the hose, a primary thermal insulation (58) disposed radially outward and adjacent to the heating device wherein the primary thermal insulation is wrapped around the heating element and the flexible hose.
But, Raterman does not explicitly show that the primary thermal insulating tape/material is a strip-shaped insulating material that is not a tape material wherein the insulating material contains an aerogel.
Jameson shows it is known to provide an insulation that is a strip-shaped material (26 made of fiberglass paper which is “not tape”; also see column 3, lines 46-68) that is wound helically around a flexible hose (20) as illustrated in Figure 2.
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 Jameson, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Raterman with the insulating material (that is not a tape) 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 in view of Tailor or 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.
With respect to claim 28, Raterman in view of Jameson discloses the helically wound heating wire wherein Jameson further shows the strip-shaped insulating material (shown by the fiberglass paper) that is wound helically in a self-overlapping manner (that is overlapped for half of its width providing a double thickness of the insulating material; also, see column 3, lines 49-52) having an overlapped amount being greater than spacing of the adjacent wire sections (see adjacent spacing between the heating wires 23 and 24) such that there is substantially double layer of the strip-shaped insulating material surrounding the heating device which further predictably provides an enhanced thermal protection of the heating device.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raterman in view of Jameson, and Tailor or Batallas as applied to claims 1-5, 8-17, 19, 20, 23-25, 27 and 28 above, and further in view of Marucci et al (US 2017/0009926).
Raterman in view of Jameson, and Tailor or Batallas shows the heated hose claimed including 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 Raterman, as modified by Jameson, and 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 112 the first paragraph rejection regarding the strip-shaped insulating material that is “not tape”, Applicant argues that there is a support for since the specification distinguishes between the strip-shape materials that are tape (i.e., including adhesive) and strip-shape materials that are not a tape material. This argument is not deemed persuasive since the term “tape” has a general meaning of “a narrow flexible strip or band” wherein such strip or band does not necessarily include adhesive to define “tape”. It is noted according to a Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, for example, a tape is defined as a narrow flexible strip or band wherein such definition is not limited to an adhesive tape but include other materials including a string or ribbon, or a narrow woven fabric. Thus, the Applicant’s argument is not deemed persuasive.
With regard to the helically wound insulation material that is capable of displacement as claimed, Applicant argues that Raterman discloses for an insulation tape (58) which is referenced with another layer of tape 66 (which is disclosed as an electric tape in para 0019 of Raterman) renders the insulation tape 58 as another same electric tape which would adhere to itself and not capable of being displaced relative to another when the hose is bent. This argument is not deemed persuasive since while Raterman discloses for an electrical tape (66) there is no correlation between the insulation material (58) that is provide for the thermal protection of the flexible hose is same or equivalent to an electric tape as argued by Applicant. Furthermore, it is noted that Jameson shows the helically wound strip-shaped insulating material that is the same claimed structure wherein the helically would strip-shaped insulating material of Jameson would also be capable of displacement relative one another when the flexible hose is bent as 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. MPEP 2114.II.
Regarding the claimed covering layer that is disposed “adjacent” to the insulating layer, Applicant argues that the outermost insulation layer 26 of Jameson which is covered by five additional layers does not meet the claimed recitation of the covering layer that is disposed “adjacent” to the insulating layer. This argument is not deemed persuasive since the layers that are put together are “adjacent” and near to one another forming the composite heated hose structure.
Conclusion
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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