DETAILED ACTION
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/23/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent Number 12,072,062; Patent Number 12,158,239; any patent granted on Application Number 17/758,738; and any patent granted on Application Number 17/792,548 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-8, 11, 13-14, 16-20, 22, and 24 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of copending Application No. 18/573,626. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims and the copending claims overlap in scope and/or encompass various patentably indistinct combinations of claim limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 13:
Copending claim 1 discloses a multilayer structure configured for transporting, distributing, or storing hydrogen comprising a “leaktightness layer” consisting of a composition comprising at an aliphatic polyamide, up to 30% by weight of impact modifier, up to 1.5% by weight of plasticizer, and said composition being devoid of nucleating agent. Copending claim 11 discloses a method of preparing the multilayer structure of claim 1. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
The copending claims are silent with regard to the test for contaminants as presently claimed. The examiner submits those compositions within the scope of the copending claims that contain the claimed components in the claimed amounts would satisfy the claimed test for contaminants because these compositions comprise the same materials as presently claimed and do not comprise the use of any components in amounts greater than the claimed range that may form the contaminants measured according to the claimed standard.
Regarding claim 11:
See copending claim 5.
Regarding claim 14:
Copending ‘626 defines the term “multilayer structure” as referring to a tank (copending specification at lines 17+ of p6). Copending claim 1 discloses an outer composite reinforcement layer.
Regarding claim 16:
Copending claim 1 discloses “at least one leaktightness layer” consisting of the composition. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the same type of polyamide for each of the sealing layers because the same polyamide would satisfy the claimed requirements of each sealing layer.
Regarding claim 17:
See copending claim 3.
Regarding claim 18:
See the rejections of claims 16 and 17.
Regarding claim 19:
See copending claim 4.
Regarding claim 20:
See copending claim 9.
Regarding claims 22 and 24:
See copending claim 11 and 12.
Claims 1-8, 11, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-27 of copending Application No. 18/695,922. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims and the copending claims overlap in scope and/or encompass various patentably indistinct combinations of claim limitations.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claims 1-8 and 13:
Copending claim 1 discloses a multilayer structure for transporting hydrogen comprising an internal layer comprising an aliphatic polyamide and 0 to 1.5% by weight of plasticizer, wherein the content of extractables is equal to or less than 3% by weight as presently claimed. Claim 20 further discloses an impact modifier. Although the copending claims do not disclose a method comprising the step of preparing the multilayer structure, the disclose of the multilayer structure (i.e., article) sufficiently anticipates the broadly described present method.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the amounts of polyamide, impact modifier, and plasticizer, including over amounts presently claimed, to provide a multilayer structure in accordance with the copending claims, and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11:
Copending claim 1 discloses polyamides A through C, which have mean numbers of carbon atoms of 4 to 18. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a PA6, PA11, PA12, PA1010, etc. as polyamides to satisfy the requirements the copending claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, 13, 16, 22, and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (US 2018/0274700) in view of Ochiai et al. (US 2021/0246307).
Regarding claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, and 13:
Matsuyama discloses a hose for transporting hydrogen gas [abstract; 0001; 0036]. The hose comprises a resin layer and one or more other layers [0033; 0041]. The resin layer comprises an aliphatic polyamide, such as PA6, PA11, PA610, etc. [0026]. Another resin may be used with the polyamide, including an elastomer [0025]. The resin comprises no plasticizer at all or up to 3% by mass of plasticizer [0014]. Although the reference teaches other components, such as stabilizers, “may” be used, they are not required [0032]. Matsuyama teaches extruding the resin layer (i.e., preparing the multilayer structure) [0016].
Matsuyama is silent with regard to an impact modifier.
Such components were known to have utility in the art. For example, Ochiai discloses a polyamide composition intended to be exposed to high-pressure hydrogen gas, including in pipes and hoses [abstract; 0001; 0066]. In addition to a polyamide, the composition comprises an impact modifier in amounts of 1-30 parts by weight to provide improved toughness while maintaining gas barrier properties [0026-0027; 0041]. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add an impact modifier, including in amounts presently claimed, to provide improved toughness as known in the art.
The examiner submits those prior art compositions containing the claimed components in the claimed amounts would satisfy the claimed test for contaminants because the prior art compositions comprise the same materials as presently claimed and prior art compositions do not disclose the use of any components in amounts greater than the claimed range that may form the contaminants measured according to the claimed standard.
Regarding claims 5 and 25:
Matsuyama teaches other known components can be used, including antioxidant, a colorant, a filler, an antistatic, a thermostabilizer and a flame retardant.
Matsuyama is silent with regard to an amount of additives of 0.1-5% by weight.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include one or more of these known components, including in amounts presently claimed, to adjust the properties of the hose to a desired degree.
Regarding claim 16:
Matsuyama’s hose with a single resin layer meets the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 22:
Matsuyama teaches extruding the resin layer [0016].
Regarding claim 24:
Matsuyama teaches a method of winding a reinforcing layer comprising a fiber around the resin layer [0045].
Claim(s) 14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (US 2018/0274700) in view of Ochiai et al. (US 2021/0246307) as applied above, and further in view of Bzducha et al. (US 2015/0285438).
Regarding claim 14:
Matsuyama in view of Ochiai discloses a hose as previously explained. Ochiai teaches such polyamide compositions can be molded not only as a pipe, but as a hollow shape, including as a tank or tank liner for hydrogen gas [0060; 0066].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the composition of Matsuyama in view of Ochiai to the related field of a hydrogen tank or tank liner because it was known in the art that such compositions would find utility in this adjacent field.
Matsuyama in view of Ochiai are silent with regard to a tank having a reinforcement layer.
Such constructions were known in the art to have utility. Bzducha discloses a gas storage tank for hydrogen comprising a liner comprising a polyamide composition [abstract; 0002]. The liner has low permeability to hydrogen (i.e., a sealing layer) [0011]. Bzducha teaches a composite reinforcement layer comprising polymer and reinforcing fibers [0004; 0122]
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a composite reinforcement layer with the tank suggested by Matsuyama in view of Ochiai to provide improved reinforcement as known in the art.
Regarding claim 16:
Bzducha teaches the liner can be a monolayer, and thus meets the claimed limitation [0031].
Regarding claim 17:
Bzducha teaches a composite reinforcement layer comprising polymer and reinforcing fibers, and thus meets the claimed limitation [0004; 0122]
Regarding claims 18-19:
See the rejections of claims 16 and 17.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (US 2018/0274700) in view of Ochiai et al. (US 2021/0246307) as applied above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (US 2017/0299119).
Regarding claim 20:
Matsuyama in view of Ochiai discloses a hose as previously explained. Matsuyama teaches a reinforcement layer comprising a polymer and glass [0041-0045].
The references are silent with regard to continuous fibers or transparent polymers.
Zhao teaches such features were known in the art. The reference discloses pressure vessels used for transport or storage of pressurized fluids [0002]. The vessels comprise fiber-reinforced polymer layers made from fibers selected from carbon or glass, and from polymers selected from polyester, polyamide, etc. [0009-0010]. The layers comprise continuous fibers [0022; 0024-0025; 0059].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use continuous fibers to provide reinforcing properties as recognized in the art. Additionally, polyester is intrinsically a transparent and amorphous polymer.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (US 2018/0274700) in view of Ochiai et al. (US 2021/0246307) as applied above, and further in view of Argersinger et al. (US 5,803,506).
Regarding claim 21:
Matsuyama in view of Ochiai discloses a hose as previously explained. Matsuyama teaches a reinforcement layer comprising a polymer and metal [0041-0045].
The references are silent with regard to a metal braid layer.
Such layers were known in the art. For example, Argersinger teaches the use of a metal braid to protect a polymer-based hose (4:30+).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a metal braid to provide protection to the hose.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuyama (US 2018/0274700) in view of Ochiai et al. (US 2021/0246307) as applied to above, and further in view of Kloosterman et al. (US 2001/0047075).
Regarding claim 23:
Matsuyama in view of Ochiai discloses a hose as previously explained
The references are silent with regard to an initial step of washing the polyamide.
Such steps were known in the art. For example, Kloosterman teaches a production process for polyamide [0001+]. The process includes a step of washing the polyamide with a polar solvent, such as water or methanol, to extract low-molecular residues to minimal levels [0016; 0026].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a step of washing the polyamide prior to extrusion to further remove contaminants as known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In view of the Terminal Disclaimer filed 12/23/2025 noted above, the nonstatutory double patenting rejections based on US 12,072,062; US 12,158,239; Application No. 17/758,738; and Application No. 17/792,548 have been withdrawn.
Regarding the provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections based on Application No. 18/573,626 and Application No. 18/695,922, Applicant argues these rejections should be withdrawn because the present application is in conditions for allowance and is the earlier-filed application (p2-3).
In response, the examiner maintains the double patenting rejections because the present application is not presently in condition for allowance, and so the double patenting rejections are not the sole remaining rejections in the application.
Regarding obviousness rejections based on Matsuyama in view of Ochiai, Applicant argues one skilled in the art would not have sought to combine the teachings of the references because they address different problems and products (p4). In particular, Applicant argues Matsuyama focuses on mechanical performance of hoses at cryogenic temperatures whereas Ochiai focuses on extrusion processing stability of storage tanks (p4). In view of these different teachings, Applicant argues the rejection relies on impermissible hindsight and only demonstrates missing features in the references were known without establishing sufficient motivation to combine them (p5-6).
The examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments, but respectfully maintains the rejections. While Ochiai does disclose storage tanks, the reference more broadly teaches “Examples of the extrusion-molded article exposed to hydrogen gas include a hose for high-pressure hydrogen gas…a pipe for high-pressure hydrogen gas…[and] a tube for high-pressure hydrogen gas” [0066]. Therefore, Ochiai makes clear its disclosed invention relates to hoses and tubes similar to Matsuyama’s hoses. Furthermore, Ochiai demonstrates one of ordinary skill in the art knew that impact modifiers could be added to polyamide compositions intended for use in such hoses to provide improved toughness while maintaining gas barrier properties [0026-0027; 0041]. Thus, the rejections do not only state impact modifiers were known materials, but instead relies on Ochiai’s teaching of their utility for adjusting the toughness of a hose as desired. Applicant’s arguments that impact modifiers would be expected to reduce breaking strength/modulus, increase gas permeability, and soften the tube appears to run counter to the teachings of Ochiai that such materials could be suitably chosen over a range of amounts in a manner that would not impair its use in a hose for high-pressure hydrogen gas. Therefore, the examiner maintains the rejections of record.
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 JOHN D FREEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3469. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11-8PM 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, Callie Shosho can be reached at 571-272-1123. 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.
/JOHN D FREEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1787