DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 2005/0067035) in view of Clements (US 2016/0123503 – previously cited) and Rimal (US 2018/0202583 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a fluid line having a pipe which comprises at least two plastics layers (see Fig. 1, see Abstract),
wherein a first plastics layer of the at least two plastics layers comprises hydrolysis-resistant polyamide 6 (PA6) (3, Fig. 1, see paragraphs [0018] which notes the outer layer 3 is made of a polyamide resin, further see paragraph [0020] which notes PA6 is an example of the polyamide resin used),
wherein the first plastics layer extends around a second plastics layer (2, Fig. 1) of the at least two plastics layers, the second plastics laver being a barrier layer with respect to a medium flowing in the fluid line (see at least paragraph [0017] which notes layer 2 is low fuel permeability),
wherein the second plastics laver comprises polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) (see paragraph [0036]). Suzuki does not specifically teach that the second plastics layer comprises polyethylene (PE).
Clements teaches a piping (Clements, Title) which has a barrier layer that is made of PPS and polyethylene (Clements, paragraph [0099]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date to provide Suzuki with a barrier layer made of PPS and PE, as taught by Clements, as Clements nots that PE and PPS are suitable materials to form the barrier layer and are well known in the art (Clements, paragraph [0099]), therefore making it obvious in order to assess the benefits this has on the fluid line.
Suzuki as modified does not teach that the second plastics layer comprises polypropylene (PP). Rimal teaches a multilayered pipe (Rimal, Title) which features using polypropylene as a material as the use of polypropylene is preferable (see Rimal, paragraph [0034], [0054]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Suzuki as modified with a second plastics layer that comprises polypropylene, as taught by Rimal, in order to use a preferable material in the fluid line in order to assess how the use of polypropylene impacts the desired optimization of the fluid line.
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki as modified teaches the fluid line of claim 1, wherein a second plastics layer is free from hydrolysis-resistant polyamide 6 (PA6) (see combination with Clements which teaches the barrier layer made of PPS and PE, Suzuki does not mention the use of PA6 in the layer 2).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki as modified teaches the fluid line of claim 2, wherein the fluid line comprises at least three plastics layers (Suzuki, 1, 2, 3, Fig. 1). Suzuki as modified does not teach that the first plastics layer is arranged between the second plastics layer and a third plastics layer. However, the claimed arrangement is a matter of design choice, as Suzuki as modified teaches the configuration of three plastics layers, but lacks the specifics of how they are layered. Therefore, making it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Suzuki as modified with layering the first plastics layer between the second and third plastics layer, in order to assess how this arrangement effects the desired performance of the fluid line.
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki as modified teaches the fluid line of claim 10, but does not specifically teach that the third plastics layer is free from hydrolysis-resistant polyamide 6 (PA6). Rimal teaches a multilayered pipe (Rimal, Title) which has multiple layers (Rimal, 1-6, Fig 4A) wherein only the barrier layer uses PA6 (Rimal, paragraph [0018]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Suzuki as modified with the third plastics layer is free from hydrolysis-resistant polyamide 6 (PA6), as taught by Rimal, as it would be obvious to try in order to assess how the use of other materials impacts the desired performance of the fluid line.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki as modified teaches the fluid line of claim 1, but does not specifically teach that the first plastics layer in radial direction comprises between 25% and 75%, of a total extent of the at least two plastics layers of the pipe. However, the claimed radial direction of the first plastics layer is merely a result effective variable, the general conditions of which are recognized by the prior art. Specifically, the claim requires a fluid line which has a plastics layer extending in a radial direction of the pipe. Suzuki as modified teaches a pipe with a plastics layer that extends within the pipe, therefore the amount by which it extends in a radial direction is not patentably distinguishable from the prior art. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Suzuki as modified with the first plastics layer in radial direction comprises between 25% and 75%, of a total extent of the at least two plastics layers of the pipe, in order to assess how this effects the desired function of the fluid line.
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki as modified teaches a cooling water system for a vehicle, wherein the cooling water system comprises a cooling device, an element to be cooled and at least one fluid line of claim 1, wherein the at least one fluid line fluidically connects the cooling device and the element to be cooled (the Examiner notes that the claim is drawn to the intended use of the claimed invention of claim 1, which Suzuki as modified is capable of meeting).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki as modified teaches the use of a fluid lineclaim 1 for conveying water in a vehicle (the Examiner notes that the claim is drawn to the intended use of the claimed invention of claim 1, which Suzuki as modified is capable of meeting).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki as modified teaches the fluid line of claim 1, but does not teach the first plastics layer in radial direction comprises between 30% and 70% of a total extent of the at least two plastics layers of the pipe. However, the claimed radial direction of the first plastics layer is merely a result effective variable, the general conditions of which are recognized by the prior art. Specifically, the claim requires a fluid line which has a plastics layer extending in a radial direction of the pipe. Suzuki as modified teaches a pipe with a plastics layer that extends within the pipe, therefore the amount by which it extends in a radial direction is not patentably distinguishable from the prior art. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Suzuki as modified with the first plastics layer in radial direction comprises between 30% and 70% of a total extent of the at least two plastics layers of the pipe, in order to assess how this effects the desired function of the fluid line.
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki as modified teaches the fluid line of claim 1, but does not teach the first plastics layer in radial direction comprises between 40% and 60% of a total extent of the at least two plastics layers of the pipe. However, the claimed radial direction of the first plastics layer is merely a result effective variable, the general conditions of which are recognized by the prior art. Specifically, the claim requires a fluid line which has a plastics layer extending in a radial direction of the pipe. Suzuki as modified teaches a pipe with a plastics layer that extends within the pipe, therefore the amount by which it extends in a radial direction is not patentably distinguishable from the prior art. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to provide Suzuki as modified with the first plastics layer in radial direction comprises between 40% and 60% of a total extent of the at least two plastics layers of the pipe, in order to assess how this effects the desired function of the fluid line.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments begin by addressing the amendment to 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1. Applicant notes that claim 1 now incorporates the features of claim 7. Applicant asserts that applying PE and PP, through Clements and Rimal, into Suzuki would teach away from Suzuki. Applicant further notes Clements teaches a barrier layer composed of PE or PPS that surrounds an inner carcass layer made of metallic elements. Applicant further argues that the combination with Rimal is unnecessary as Rimal comprises PA6 and that there is no reason to include a barrier layer in Rimal unless PA6 is includes in the barrier layer. The Examiner has considered the arguments and respectfully disagrees. The arguments are framed in a way such that any combination to arrive at the composition of second plastics layer would teach away so long as the supporting references comprise of other elements as well. The Examiner disagrees with the assertion that the combination teaches away from Suzuki as both Clements and Rimal provide explicit reasoning to combine. As both Clements and Rimal are within the same field of endeavor, the combinations are valid and do not rely on impermissible hindsight to combine.
Applicant further argues the rejection of claim 2, stating Rimal teaches adding PA6. The Examiner notes that the combination with Rimal does not rely on adding PA6 and therefore the argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant further argues the rejection of claim 10, disagreeing with the assertion. Applicant asserts that the fluid lines cannot be re-arranged in different configurations with different material compositions. The Examiner finds the argument unpersuasive as Suzuki as modified teaches the structure and composition of the three layers, therefore making a modification to rearrange the layers obvious to try per design choice rationale – as the structure and composition are already taught.
Applicant further argues the rejection of claim 16, arguing that the result effective variable rejection is unreasonable. The Examiner has considered the argument but as no real argument is made with respect to the rejection itself, the rejection is upheld.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAEL N BABAA whose telephone number is (571)270-3272. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5 EST.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached on (571)-270-5054. 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.
/NAEL N BABAA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763