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 Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05 December 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1 & 12 have been amended, and no claims have been cancelled or added. Claims 2 & 13 were cancelled by previous amendments. Thus, claims 1, 3-12 & 14-20 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 & 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 & 12 have been amended to recite “wherein the inner liner layer is selected from the group consisting of an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), medium density polyethylene (MDPE), polyethylene of raised temperature (PE-RT), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyamide (PA), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyketone (POK), and combinations thereof.”
As best understood, this was likely intended to mean that the inner liner layer is formed from (i.e., made from, or otherwise includes / comprises) a material selected from the recited group (see, e.g., para. 13 of applicant’s specification). However, the limitations only recite that the inner liner layer “is” those materials, rather than is formed from / comprises such materials, which may cause confusion.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1, 3-12 & 14-20 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.
Claims 1 & 12 have been amended to recite “wherein the inner liner layer is selected from the group consisting of an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), medium density polyethylene (MDPE), polyethylene of raised temperature (PE-RT), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyamide (PA), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyketone (POK), and combinations thereof.”
Applicant’s accompanying remarks filed 05 December 2025 point to paragraphs 12-13 of the specification in support of the new limitation.
A review of the specification as filed, including paragraphs 12 & 13, reveals support for each of the listed materials independently, however, the application as originally filed does not appear to have sufficient written description support for the inner liner layer to be formed from “combinations thereof”.
Paragraph 13 recites the inner liner layer may include “a polymeric material such as a thermoplastic”, and each subsequent material appears to be referenced independently, with no explicit disclosure that these materials may be provided in combination.
While it may be understood now, when viewing this new limitation, that certain of these materials could theoretically be provided together (e.g., as a blended polymer, such as a bimodal polyethylene; or as a layered structure, etc.), “[t]he trouble is that there is no such disclosure, easy though it is to imagine it." In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995, 154 USPQ 118, 123 (CCPA 1967) [see MPEP § 2163.05(II)].
As a result, the claims contain 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 6, 14, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 6 & 16 recite “wherein the hollow inner liner layer comprises a thermoplastic. However, claims 1 & 12 (from which claims 6 & 16 respectively depend) have been amended to recite “wherein the inner liner layer is selected from the group consisting of an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), medium density polyethylene (MDPE), polyethylene of raised temperature (PE-RT), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyamide (PA), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyketone (POK), and combinations thereof.” As described in applicant’s specification (para. 13), each of these materials are thermoplastics. As claims 1 & 12 already require the hollow inner liner layer to comprise a thermoplastic, claims 6 & 16 depending therefrom are improper for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which they depend.
Claim 12 has been amended to recite “a hollow inner liner layer with a thickness in a range of 0.5 mm to 25 mm”. However, claim 14, which depends from claim 12, already recited “wherein the hollow inner liner layer has a thickness from 0.5 mm to 25 mm”. As claim 14 now recites only a limitation which is already recited in claim 12, claim 14 is improper for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12 & 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreau et al. (US 2015/0300537 A1; hereafter Moreau) in view of Hyson (US 2017/0066209 A1), de Rothschild et al. (US 2014/0030459 A1; hereafter de Rothschild), and Conley et al. (US 2010/0266789 A1; hereafter Conley).
Regarding claim 1, Moreau discloses a method for producing a thermoplastic pipe (e.g., fig 9) comprising:
producing a hollow inner liner layer (“tube 12”; fig. 10A; para. 69, lines 1-3 & para. 71) with a thickness (i.e., a distance between the inner peripheral surface 16 and the outer peripheral surface 14);
winding commingled fibers (26; incl. reinforcing fibers 20 & binding fibers 24; see various embodiments in figs. 2-6) over the hollow inner liner layer at a designated angle (see fig. 9; fibers are wound over the hollow inner liner at one of two angles to form a braided structure; see also para. 73: “The commingled braid 26 is typically disposed about the outer peripheral surface 14 of the tube 12 via braiding, helically winding, knitting, twisting, or wrapping”; helical winding would also be understood to read on “winding over the hollow inner liner layer at a designated angle” as claimed) to produce a core layer (18; “reinforcing layer”), the commingled fibers comprising at least one thermoplastic fiber (24; see paras. 43-45: the fibers may be a semi-crystalline or amorphous polymer such as polyethylene, polypropylene, PET [polyethylene terephthalate], or polyamide, among others) and at least one reinforcing fiber (20; “reinforcing fibers 20”; see para. 42);
covering the core layer (18) in a wrap (28; “silicone rubber jacket 28”; see also para. 61: “The hose assembly 10 can include one or more additional protective layers. The protective layer can comprise a reinforcing layer, a coating layer, and/or a jacket layer”);
heating one or more of the hollow inner liner layer (12), the core layer (18), and the wrap (28) to produce a consolidated core layer (see fig. 13B), with a thermoplastic polymer matrix (22) organized along the at least one reinforcing fiber (see para. 74: “…the binding fibers 24 melt to form the binder 22 when the reinforced tube is heated and the reinforcing fibers 20 do not melt or soften thereby maintaining their structural integrity”; see paras 76 & 77; fig 11B [prior to heating] vs fig. 11c [after heating and cooling]); and
wherein the heating comprises heating the core layer to a temperature greater than the melting point of the at least one thermoplastic fiber and less than the melting point of the inner liner layer (see para. 85, lines 18-21 & para. 86: “FIG. 13B is an end view of the hose assembly 10 that does not have the reinforcing layer 18 and the fibers embedded in the outer peripheral surface of the tube 12. In this embodiment, the polymeric material, which defines the outer peripheral surface 14 of the tube 12, typically has a peak melting temperature up to 100°C greater than the peak melting temperature of the binding fibers 24. In one embodiment…the outer peripheral surface 14 of the tube 12 has a peak melting temperature from 15 to 100°C greater that a peak melting temperature of the binding fibers 24”);
wherein the inner liner layer is selected from the group consisting of an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), medium density polyethylene (MDPE), polyethylene of raised temperature (PE-RT), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyamide (PA), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyketone (POK), and combinations thereof (see paras. 35-38: Moreau discloses that the inner liner layer may be formed from one or more polymeric materials including at least polyamide [PA; e.g., PA11, PA12, etc.], and further suggests polyethylene and fluoropolymers, among others).
Moreau does not explicitly disclose the hollow inner liner layer thickness to be within a range of 0.5 mm to 25 mm, however, Moreau discloses that the thermoplastic pipe as a whole has an inner diameter, an outer diameter, and a length which “can vary depending on the intended use” (para. 68).
Moreau does not explicitly disclose the wrap covering the core layer to be a heat shrinkable wrap.
Moreau does not explicitly disclose that step of heating one or more of the hollow inner liner layer, the core layer, and the [heat shrinkable] wrap produces a “semi-consolidated core layer comprising a first degree of consolidation”, however, it is noted that Moreau discloses that the heating step is intended to “at least partially melt the binding fibers” (see abstract, para. 6, 7, 69, 76-78, 87, etc.), which may reasonably suggest to one skilled in the art that full consolidation is not necessary (e.g., at least partial consolidation may be sufficient within the disclosed scope). Nevertheless, to promote compact prosecution, additional teachings regarding this limitation are provided below.
Moreau also does not explicitly disclose a step of post-heating the semi-consolidated core layer to produce a final semi-consolidated core layer comprising a final degree of consolidation, wherein the first degree of consolidation is less than the final degree of consolidation; or the additional limitations wherein the heating and the post-heating comprise heating the core layer to a temperature greater than the melting point of the at least one thermoplastic fiber and less than the melting point of the heat shrinkable wrap.
Hyson teaches (figs. 1-6) a method for producing a thermoplastic pipe (10) comprising:
producing a hollow inner liner layer (11; “a region 11 of 100% thermoplastic material that defines the bore of the pipe…”, para 32, lines 4-7; fig. 2), with a thickness in a range from 0.25 mm to 0.75 mm or thicker (para. 39);
winding commingled fibers (“14” in fig. 3) over the hollow inner liner layer at a designated angle to produce a core layer (12), the commingled fibers comprising at least one thermoplastic fiber and at least one reinforcing fiber (para. 41: “A fiber reinforced thermoplastic circumferential zone 12 of the pipe 10 is manufactured by braiding a plurality of tows…of co-mingled thermoplastic filament and reinforcing fibers or filaments… The tows 14 may comprise a blend of typically 60% to 80% by volume of continuous lengths of carbon fibers…”);
covering the core layer (12) in a heat shrinkable wrap (13; labeled as tape “16” in fig. 4; see para. 43: “when a sufficient thickness layer 12 of fiber reinforced braids have been formed on the first layer 11…the outer circumferences is covered by a layer of heat-shrink material 13 using a conventional filament-winding machine similar to that shown…in FIG. 2, except that…we use a tape 16 that is made of a heat-shrink material as shown in fig. 4”);
heating one or more of the hollow inner liner layer (11), the core layer (12), and the heat shrinkable wrap (13) to produce a consolidated core layer.
Hyson also suggests that the inner liner layer may be formed from thermoplastic materials, including polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), among others (para. 47).
Hyson teaches (para. 45) that, during manufacture, the pipe (including the core layer) is heated to a temperature which causes the thermoplastic material to melt, and the heat shrinkable wrap outer layer to shrink onto the outer surface of the core layer and compress the underlying molten thermoplastic. Hyson suggests that this compression helps to embed the reinforcing fibers into the thermoplastic matrix during melting and consolidation.
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 method of producing a thermoplastic pipe of Moreau such that the wrap layer covering the core layer is provided as a heat shrinkable wrap, in view of the teachings of Hyson, as the use of a known technique (providing such a wrap layer positioned around a commingled thermoplastic fiber and reinforcing fiber layer as a heat shrinkable wrap, as in Hyson) to improve a similar method (the method of Moreau for producing a thermoplastic pipe having such a commingled thermoplastic fiber / reinforcing fiber core layer) in the same way (e.g., utilizing the heat-shrink properties of the material of the wrap to compress the thermoplastic material of the core layer during heating containing the molten thermoplastic and embedding the reinforcing fibers into the resulting thermoplastic matrix during consolidation, as suggested by Hyson).
Hyson further teaches that the initial steps of forming a thermoplastic pipe (10) comprising a hollow inner liner layer (11), a core layer of commingled fibers (12) and a heat shrinkable wrap (13) and heating the pipe via oven 21 to consolidate the core layer and shrink the heat shrinkable wrap (as set forth above) results in a “semi-rigid unfinished ‘green state’ pipe that is self-supporting”, and further teaches (para. 34 & para. 52-54) that this “green state” pipe may then be additionally heated (see fig. 5) and bent (e.g., via a multi-axis CNC pipe bending machine) to produce a finished pipe (fig. 6).
As explained in para. 54: “The heating zone 24 is used to heat pipe 10 to a temperature below that used to make the pipe 10, but high enough to soften the pipe without losing its rigidity. This enables the pipe 10 to be bent in the pipe-bending machine”.
De Rothschild is generally directed to methods of manufacturing composite products comprising commingled fibers (6; see figs. 1B-1D) including thermoplastic fibers (4) and reinforcing fibers (2).
De Rothschild teaches (e.g., para. 38) that such commingled fibers may be originally provided in an unconsolidated form (FIG. 1B) but, upon partial heating, the thermoplastic fibers begin to melt, flow, and adhere to the reinforcement fibers, wherein control of heat and pressure enables the melting thermoplastic fibers to form a bonding matrix.
De Rothschild further teaches (para. 38) that the above process can produce a “semi-consolidated” material (FIG. 1C) or a “fully consolidated” material (FIG. 1D).
De Rothschild suggests (para. 38) that “control of the degree, location, direction/orientation of the melt or consolidation of the matrix fibers allows for tailoring properties including, but not limited to flex, permeability, hardness, stiffness, toughness and impact resistance. Such control is possible over small areas and/or large areas of the same part while using the same fibers”.
De Rothschild further explains (para. 9) that, unlike certain cited prior art references, they have recognized that unconsolidated and semi-consolidated phases of commingled fiber materials “offer significant utility without further processing”. As can be seen from at least published claims 1, 3 & 12, de Rothschild teaches that a finished article may include such a semi-consolidated material.
De Rothschild suggests that the techniques and teachings therein are to be regarded as new “tools” that can “be applied broadly across the composites fields, especially within the self-reinforced composites fields” (para. 37). However, among the non-limiting examples provided, de Rothschild suggests such the teachings as applicable for forming elongate members such as cables (fig. 13, para. 52) and for forming “a fluid handling apparatus selected from a filter, heat exchanger and solar panel” (published claim 20).
De Rothschild further teaches (fig. 4; para. 42) that an initially provided thermoplastic composite material (at step 40) may be initially processed (at step 42) to be at least partially consolidated, whereupon this intermediate partially-consolidated component may be formed to the final article of manufacture or, may be joined with other intermediate components, whereupon the method may also include “possibly further heating and selective material consolidation. In the latter event, a final process block 46 before yielding a final product at 48 may include a cooling step”.
In other words, De Rothschild teaches or reasonably suggests that a method for producing a semi-consolidated component may include an initial step of heating / partial consolidation to yield an intermediate form, and may further include additional heating and consolidation when forming the final product.
De Rothschild also teaches (para. 8) that it is generally known in the prior art to form a semi-consolidated composite material as an intermediate component which, prior to De Rothschild’s disclosed use of a semi-consolidated material in a final product, would conventionally have been further consolidated to form the final product.
As set forth in MPEP § 2141.03(I), "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
In view of the above, 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 method of producing a thermoplastic pipe of Moreau such that the step of heating one or more of the hollow inner liner layer, core layer, and the heat shrinkable wrap produces a semi-consolidated core layer comprising a first degree of consolidation, and to further include a step of post-heating the semi-consolidated core layer to produce a final semi-consolidated core layer comprising a final degree of consolidation, wherein the first degree of consolidation is less than the final degree of consolidation, in view of the combined teachings of Hyson and de Rothschild, to enable a flexible / customizable manufacturing method whereby the initial production and first partial consolidation via heating results in an intermediate (i.e. “green-state”) pipe with a semi-consolidated core layer having a relatively lower first degree of consolidation providing a relatively higher degree of flexibility while still having enough rigidity to facilitate further processing (i.e., akin to the self-supporting semi-rigid unfinished ‘green state’ pipe of Hyson and the semi-consolidated intermediate component forms suggested by de Rothschild), wherein, during the later step of post-heating the semi-consolidated core layer to produce a final semi-consolidated core layer, the process can be adjusted to provide a final degree of consolidation tailored to achieve mechanical properties for the final thermoplastic pipe suited to the particular application in which the pipe will be employed (e.g., in view of the teachings of De Rothschild that “control of the degree, location, direction/orientation of the melt or consolidation of the matrix fibers allows for tailoring properties including, but not limited to flex, permeability, hardness, stiffness, toughness and impact resistance”; and in view of the teachings of Hyson that a method of producing a thermoplastic pipe may be performed in two phases, with an initial phase [as above] producing a “semi-rigid unfinished ‘green state” pipe, and a second phase [including further heat treatment] producing the finished pipe); whereby the resulting method may further enable a manufacturer or user to maintain a stock of intermediate “green-state” pipe to be customized for a particular application when needed.
Regarding the limitation wherein the heating and the post-heating comprise heating the core layer to a temperature greater than the melting point of the at least one thermoplastic fiber and less than the melting point of the heat shrinkable wrap, Hyson teaches (para. 45) that the pipe (including the core layer) is heated to a temperature which causes the thermoplastic fiber material to melt, and the heat shrink tape to shrink onto the outer surface of the core layer and compress the molten thermoplastic. Also see abstract of Hyson, lines 15-22.
Since Hyson explicitly teaches that the heating temperature causes the thermoplastic of the core layer to melt, such a temperature is readily understood as being a “temperature greater than the melting point of the at least one thermoplastic fiber”.
Further, the temperature utilized is also reasonably understood as being a temperature “less than the melting point of the heat shrinkable wrap” since heating the wrap to or beyond its own melting point would cause the heat shrinkable wrap itself to melt (and thus lose structural integrity) rather than to shrink and compress the commingled fiber layer in the manner as taught.
To further promote compact prosecution, it is also noted that Moreau discloses that the polymeric material used to form the inner liner layer may have a peak melting temperature of up to 100° C, or otherwise from 15° to 100° C, greater than the thermoplastic fiber material of the core layer intended to be at least partially melted during manufacture / consolidation (e.g., see paras. 82, 86, etc.).
When modifying the method for producing a thermoplastic pipe of Moreau such that the wrap covering the core layer is a heat shrinkable wrap, as suggested by Hyson above, it would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select appropriate materials such that the thermoplastic fibers of the core layer have a melting temperature which is at least some reasonable value below the melting temperature of the heat shrinkable wrap (in view of Moreau), whereby the heating and post-heating steps comprise heating the core layer to a temperature greater than the melting point of the at least one thermoplastic fiber and less than the melting point of the heat shrinkable wrap, in view of the combined teachings of Moreau and Hyson, to ensure that, during the heating and post-heating steps which require heating the thermoplastic fibers to a temperature at or above the melting temperature of the thermoplastic fibers to enable further (partial) consolidation, the heat shrinkable wrap continues to maintain sufficient structural integrity to provide the required compression.
Regarding the remaining limitation wherein the hollow inner liner layer has a thickness in a range of 0.5 mm to 25 mm, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), it has been generally held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
See also MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent") & In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Nevertheless, to promote compact prosecution, the following additional teachings are provided.
Conley teaches (figs. 1-11) a reinforced pipe comprising a thermoplastic inner liner layer (10; see para. 21: “can be made of any suitable polymer, such as a thermoplastic or an elastomer. Suitable materials, for example, may include one or more of…nylon [i.e., polyamide], cross-linked polyethylene(PEX), polypropylene, … high-density polyethylene (HDPE), … etc.”), a core layer comprising reinforcements wound over the inner liner layer (12, 14; see para. 34), and an outer layer (20) covering the core layer.
Conley explains that “flexible pipes need to meet certain performance requirements, such as having sufficient strength to contain the high pressure fluid the pipe may be transporting” (para. 3).
Conley explains (para. 34) that the inner liner layer “is not required to withstand all of the internal pressure imposed by pressurized fluid passing through the pipe 1. Rather, the inner layer 10 can resist diffusion of the fluid through the wall of inner layer 10” while the reinforcing core layer (i.e., 12 & 14) acts “to contain the internal pressure imposed on the pipe 1 by pressurized fluid passing through it.”.
In para. 35, Conley further explains that the reinforcing core layer “can act to counteract the majority, if not all, of the radial and axial loads imposed on the pipe 1 including the internal pressure of the pressurized fluid passing through the pipe and tensile loading of the pipe. While the inner layer 10 does not need to be strong enough to withstand the pressure imposed on the pipe 1 by the pressurized fluid passing through the pipe 1, the inner layer 10 is typically made sufficiently strong to withstand the loads placed on it by the winding process where metal cords are wound around the inner layer 10 to form the first reinforcing layer 12 and the second reinforcing layer 14, as well as loads placed on it by the application of the outer layer 20, installation of the pipe 1, handling of the pipe 1, etc.”.
Table I of Conley sets forth an example construction of a reinforced thermoplastic pipe. As shown therein, the inner liner layer (“Inner Tubular Lining”) is disclosed to have an inner diameter of 2.995 inches [76 mm] and an outer diameter of 3.375 inches [85.7 mm]. As can be readily calculated, these dimensions would result in a wall thickness of 0.19 inches [4.8 mm].
As such, 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 thermoplastic pipe of Moreau (and associated method of producing the same) such that the hollow inner liner layer has a thickness in a range from 0.5 mm to 25 mm (e.g., 4.8mm [0.19 inches]), in view of the teachings of Conley, as the use of a known technique (e.g., providing a hollow inner liner layer having dimensions in the claimed range, e.g., a thickness of 4.8mm, as in Conley) to improve a similar device (i.e., the thermoplastic pipe of Moreau) in the same way (e.g., providing for a hollow inner liner layer which is sufficiently thick to withstand diffusion of the internal fluid, and made sufficiently strong to withstand the loads placed on it by the winding process, as well as loads placed on it by the application of the outer layer, installation of the pipe, handling of the pipe 1, etc., as suggested by Conley).
As a result, all of the limitations of claim 1 are met, or are otherwise rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 3, the method of Moreau, as modified above, renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the final degree of consolidation of the final semi-consolidated core layer is between about 0.01% and about 99.99%.
As set forth in the grounds of rejection for claim 1 above, de Rothschild explicitly suggests that controlling the degree of consolidation of such commingled fiber materials during manufacturing allows for tailoring of properties including flex, permeability, hardness, stiffness, toughness, and impact resistance, and otherwise suggests that such materials may remain in such a semi-consolidated state in a final article.
Moreover, de Rothschild further suggests (FIG. 2 & corresponding para. 39) that such commingled fiber materials may be broadly categorized into five “phases” of consolidation exhibiting different mechanical properties:
Phase I: unconsolidated (no pressure / heat above the melting point has been applied) material which remains “soft and pliable”;
Phase II: a “low melt stage” exhibiting 80%-98% of the void space relative to the unconsolidated material [i.e., 2% to 20% consolidated], which becomes “semi-permeable” but begins to achieve some shape memory while remaining highly bendable;
Phase III: wherein the melted thermoplastic begins partially encapsulating the reinforcing fibers throughout the cross section forming a stable matrix, exhibiting about 50% to about 80% of the original void space [i.e., 20% to 50% consolidated], which achieves a “semi-rigid definitive shape memory” and adhesive properties for bonding to adjacent parts, while being stable enough to maintain desirable fiber alignment;
Phase IV: wherein the thermoplastic matrix has become an “intentional web of bridges with a controlled void space content which is bordering on a semi-solid composite”, exhibiting about 15% to 40% of the original void space [i.e., 60% to 85% consolidated], which allows for more advanced molding of features or shaping by tooling, and begins to appear more like a resin or plastic material;
Phase V: a full or nearly full consolidation, wherein the thermoplastic matrix fibers have “liquified and behave similar to most conventional thermoplastic composites”, exhibiting 0% to 15% of the original void space [i.e., 85% to 100% consolidated], having material properties “similar for what would be expected from the blend…once consolidated by conventional techniques”.
See also published claims 3-8.
Thus, de Rothschild is reasonably seen as categorizing materials with less than 2% consolidation as unconsolidated (or nearly unconsolidated), materials with greater than 85% consolidation as “fully consolidated” (or nearly consolidated), and thus reasonably seen as categorizing materials with between 2% and 85% consolidation as being “semi-consolidated”.
As a result, when the method of Moreau is modified in view of de Rothschild as set forth in the grounds of rejection for claim 1 above such that the step of post-heating is controlled so as to produce a final semi-consolidated core layer, the resulting method is reasonably seen as reading on the additional limitation wherein the final degree of consolidation of the final semi-consolidated core layer is between about 0.01% and about 99.99% (e.g., between 2% and 85%).
Alternatively, to promote compact prosecution, when modifying the method of Moreau in view of the teachings of de Rothschild above, it would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize a degree of consolidation falling within the range of 20% to 50% (i.e., “phase III” as taught by de Rothschild; within the claimed range of “between about 0.01% and about 99.99%”) in order to provide a core layer material which has a balance of flexibility and stability, as de Rothschild suggests that phase III materials falling within this consolidation range exhibit “a semi-rigid definitive shape memory” and have a matrix which has “stabilized enough to effectively maintain desirable fiber alignment”, and otherwise possess adhesive properties available for bonding to adjacent parts.
Regarding claim 4, the method of Moreau, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the method further comprises post-heating one or more of the hollow inner liner layer and the heat shrinkable wrap.
In particular, Moreau discloses that a step of heating the core layer is performed as a step of heating the entire pipe (including at least the core layer and the hollow inner liner layer). In one embodiment (e.g., fig. 13A), the inner liner layer is selected to have a melting point similar to that of the thermoplastic fibers so that the thermoplastic polymer matrix at least partly bonds with the inner liner layer. In another embodiment, as previously described (e.g., fig. 13B), the inner liner layer is selected to have a higher melting point so that the inner liner layer does not melt when heating the pipe for melting the thermoplastic fibers. In one instance, Moreau explicitly references the use of an “oven” (para. 88).
Similarly, in Hyson, the first heating step (shown in fig. 3) includes heating means (21) which may be “an oven” which causes the thermoplastic fibers of the core layer to melt and causes the heat shrinkable tape to shrink (para. 45), thus at least the core layer and the heat shrinkable wrap are both heated.
In the post-heating step (fig. 5), additional heating means (24) are used, which Hyson suggests may be provided in a variety of forms, including radiant heaters or infrared heaters, among others (para. 34).
At least when provided as an oven, or otherwise as an infrared or radiant heater, the step of post-heating would reasonably be seen to read on the additional limitation wherein the method further comprises post-heating one or more of the hollow inner liner layer and the heat shrinkable wrap (i.e., as at least one of these layers covering the core layer would be heated, at least incidentally, in order to heat the core layer as required.
Thus, if not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the method of Moreau (as modified above) such that the step of post-heating the semi-consolidated core layer is performed such that the entire pipe (including the inner liner layer and the heat shrinkable wrap) is heated, whereby the method further comprises post-heating one or more of the hollow inner liner layer and the heat shrinkable wrap, in view of the combined teachings of Moreau and Hyson, as the use of a known technique (e.g., performing a consolidation / heating step using an oven, as in Moreau and Hyson, or using other forms of infrared or radiant heating means, as in Hyson; each of which would result in post-heating one or more of the hollow inner liner layer and the heat shrinkable wrap when post-heating the semi-consolidated core layer) to improve a similar method (i.e., the method of Moreau, as modified) in the same way (e.g., utilizing conventional and predictable heating means as typically used in thermoplastic pipe production; utilizing means which can heat the core layer when the reinforcing means are not suitable for induction heating [e.g., when glass fibers are used, rather than carbon fibers, etc.]).
Moreover, even if an alternative form of heating was used (e.g., induction heating) which generates heat by excitation of the reinforcing fibers (e.g., carbon fibers; see para. 34 of Hyson), the resulting heating and melting of the thermoplastic fibers in the core layer would reasonably be expected to transfer the heat to the heat shrinkable wrap and/or inner liner layer which cover the core layer (e.g., via conduction), such that the resulting method would still be reasonably seen to further comprise post-heating one or more of the hollow inner liner layer and the heat shrinkable wrap (i.e. during the step of post-heating the semi-consolidated core layer).
Regarding claim 5, Moreau discloses the additional limitation wherein the thermoplastic fiber comprises at least one polymer selected from the group consisting of: polyvinylidene fluoride, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyamide, polyphenylene sulfide, polyethylene terephthalate, and a combination thereof.
In particular, Moreau discloses (para. 44) examples of thermoplastic polymers suitable for use as the thermoplastic binding fibers which include polyethylene, polypropylene, polyamide, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET), among others (including embodiments wherein the polymer may comprise a fluoropolymer).
To promote compact prosecution, it is noted that Hyson otherwise teaches polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), among others (para. 47); and de Rothschild teaches the use of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and polypropylene (“PP Black”) (see table on pg. 1).
Examination Note: while Moreau does not explicitly disclose polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), as noted above, the reference does disclose that suitable fluoropolymers may be used. While not relied upon in this action, to further promote compact prosecution, it is noted that US 2015/0292651 A1 to Moreau et al., US 2011/0174410 A1 to Li et al., and US 2020/0031071 A1 to Al-Zubaidy et al. each disclose polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) as a suitable fluoropolymer.
Regarding claim 6, Moreau discloses the additional limitation wherein the hollow inner liner layer (12) comprises a thermoplastic.
In particular, Moreau discloses (para. 35) that the inner liner layer (12) may comprise, e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinylchloride, PET, and polyamides, among others, each of which is a thermoplastic. In fact, Moreau later specifically states that “the material of the outer peripheral surface 14 of the tube 12 is typically a semi-crystalline or amorphous thermoplastic polymer” (para. 38).
Regarding claim 7, Moreau discloses the additional limitation wherein the at least one reinforcing fiber (20) comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of: carbon fiber, glass fiber, aramid fiber, and basalt fiber.
In particular, Moreau discloses (para. 42) that the reinforcing fibers (20) may comprise a glass fiber (e.g., E-glass, S2 glass, C glass, R glass, silica, quartz, etc.), aramid fiber (“e.g. NOMEX® and KEVLAR® fiber”), and/or basalt fiber.
To promote compact prosecution, it is also noted that de Rothschild and Hyson each also teach the use of glass, aramid and carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 8, Moreau discloses the additional limitation wherein the fiber volume fraction of the thermoplastic fibers in the core layer is in the range from 1% to 75%.
In particular Moreau discloses (para. 50) that the commingled fibers used to form the core layer may comprise a thermoplastic fiber volume fraction from 5% to 45%, or otherwise from 15% to 45%, each of which lies within the broader claimed range of from 1% to 75%.
It is noted that Hyson also teaches a fiber volume fraction for a commingled core layer in the range of 20% to 40% (i.e., via teaching a 60% to 80% volume fraction of reinforcing carbon fibers; para. 41).
Regarding claim 9, with respect to the limitation wherein the winding is performed at an angle measured from a pipe axis in the range from 1 to 89 degrees in a clockwise or a counter-clockwise direction, as set forth in the grounds of rejection for claim 1 above, Moreau reasonably shows (e.g. in fig. 9) that fibers are wound over the hollow inner liner at one of two angles to form a braided structure, and the angles shown in the figure are reasonably seen as being an angle measured from the pipe axis in the range from 1 to 90 degrees (one set being a wound in a clockwise direction and the other being wound in a counter-clockwise direction).
Furthermore, when the commingled fibers are helically wound (as described in para. 73) rather than braided, a person having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage embodiments wherein the winding is performed at an angle measured from a pipe axis in the range from 1 to 89 degrees in a clockwise or a counter-clockwise direction (e.g., such as a simple 45° or the commonly used 55° winding angle well-known in the art to balance tensile and radial loads in many applications, etc.), especially because the claimed range of from 1 to 89 degrees would encompass any substantially any helical winding which is neither substantially perpendicular to the pipe axis (i.e. within 1°) nor substantially parallel to the pipe axis (i.e. within 1°), and further considering that the figures of Moreau clearly depict other embodiments (e.g., the braided embodiment in fig. 9) wherein the fibers are wound at such an angle between 1 and 80 degrees.
However, to promote compact prosecution, the following additional teaching is provided:
As described for claim 1 above, Conley teaches (figs. 1-11) a reinforced pipe comprising a thermoplastic inner liner layer (10), a core layer comprising reinforcements wound over the inner liner layer (12, 14; see para. 34), and an outer layer (20) covering the core layer.
Conley further teaches that the reinforcements of the core layer may be wound at an angle (α) measured from a pipe axis (see fig. 1) in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction (see figs. 1 & 8, etc.; see para. 26:”the one or more metal cores of the first reinforcing layer 12 can be wound in a first direction, for example either clockwise or counterclockwise”).
Conley explains (para. 36) that the winding angle of the helical reinforcements are “selected to compromise between the various loads and conditions to which the product will be exposed during processing and during the use of the pipe 1, including durability and pressure containment, while providing desired flexibility. Winding angles a, relative to the longitudinal axis of the pipe, of between 8° and 86° can be used. Generally, a greater winding angle allows the pipe 1 to withstand greater radial loading, such as from internal pressure caused by the pressurized fluid, while a smaller angle of winding will allow the pipe 1 to withstand more axial loading of the pipe 1. In many cases, a pipe 1 according to the presently illustrated embodiment is used to contain pressurized fluid with the prominent condition being internal pressure containment, therefore the pipe 1 will have winding angles chosen to withstand more force in the radial tensile direction. Other factors such as installation pull force (axial loading) and loads from spooling and unspooling for transport and installation in the field can also be taken into account. In one aspect, winding angles of between 40°. and 70°. are used, with a narrower range, in some embodiments, of winding angles being between 50 ° and 60° being suitable”.
If not already seen as such, 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 method of Moreau such that the winding is performed at an angle measured from a pipe axis in the range from 1 to 89 degrees (e.g., between 8° and 86°) in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction, in view of the teachings of Conley, especially considering that Conley explicitly teaches that such a winding angle of a helical reinforcement is selected so as to provide a compromise between the various loads and conditions to which the product will be exposed during processing and during the use of the pipe, with usable winding angles relative to the longitudinal axis of the pipe being between 8° and 86°, wherein smaller angles within the range enable greater axial loading (e.g., from installation loads) and larger angles within the range enable greater radial loading (e.g., from internal fluid pressures).
Regarding claim 10, Moreau discloses the additional limitation wherein the producing the hollow inner liner layer comprises: extruding the hollow inner liner layer (see para. 69, lines 1-3: “A method of forming a hose assembly 10 is disclosed. The method includes the steps of extruding the tube 12…”; para. 71, lines 1-4: “As set forth above, the method includes the step of extruding the tube 12. The tube 12 is just as described above. The tube 12 is extruded to the desired dimensions using melt, paste, or any other extrusion technique known in the art”).
Regarding claim 12, Moreau discloses (e.g., fig. 9) a thermoplastic pipe comprising:
a hollow inner liner layer (12; “tube 12”) with a thickness (i.e., a distance between the inner peripheral surface 16 and the outer peripheral surface 14);
a core layer (18; “reinforcing layer”) comprising commingled fibers (26; incl. reinforcing fibers 20 & binding fibers 24; see various embodiments in figs. 2-6) that are wound around the hollow inner liner layer (see fig. 9; see also para. 73: “The commingled braid 26 is typically disposed about the outer peripheral surface 14 of the tube 12 via braiding, helically winding, knitting, twisting, or wrapping”) and heated (see para. 74: “…the binding fibers 24 melt to form the binder 22 when the reinforced tube is heated and the reinforcing fibers 20 do not melt or soften thereby maintaining their structural integrity”); and
an outer layer (28) over the core layer (see also para. 61: “The hose assembly 10 can include one or more additional protective layers. The protective layer can comprise a reinforcing layer, a coating layer, and/or a jacket layer”),
wherein the commingled fibers (26) comprise at least one thermoplastic fiber (24; see paras. 43-45: the fibers may be a semi-crystalline or amorphous polymer such as polyethylene, polypropylene, PET [polyethylene terephthalate], or polyamide, among others) and at least one reinforcing fiber (20; “reinforcing fibers 20”; see para. 42),
wherein the core layer comprises a thermoplastic polymer matrix (22) that is organized along the at least one reinforcing fiber (i.e., as noted above with reference to para. 74; see also para. 6: “Upon cooling, the melted binding fibers solidify to form the binder about the reinforcing fibers, thereby forming a reinforced braid and binding the reinforced braid to the outer peripheral surface of the tube to form the reinforcing layer”; and paras 76 & 77; see fig 11B [prior to heating] vs fig. 11c [after heating and cooling]);
wherein the inner liner layer is selected from the group consisting of an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), medium density polyethylene (MDPE), polyethylene of raised temperature (PE-RT), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyamide (PA), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), polyketone (POK), and combinations thereof (see paras. 35-38: Moreau discloses that the inner liner layer may be formed from one or more polymeric materials including at least polyamide [PA; e.g., PA11, PA12, etc.], and further suggests polyethylene and fluoropolymers, among others).
Moreau does not explicitly disclose the hollow inner liner layer thickness to be within a range of 0.5 mm to 25 mm, however, Moreau discloses that the thermoplastic pipe as a whole has an inner diameter, an outer diameter, and a length which “can vary depending on the intended use” (para. 68).
Moreau does not explicitly disclose the core layer to be a “semi-consolidated” core layer, however, it is noted that Moreau discloses that the production method includes a heating step intended to “at least partially melt the binding fibers” (see abstract, para. 6, 7, 69, 76-78, 87, etc.), which may reasonably suggest to one skilled in the art that full consolidation is not necessary (e.g., a semi-consolidated core layer may be sufficient within the disclosed scope). Nevertheless, to promote compact prosecution, additional teachings regarding this limitation are provided below.
Moreau does not explicitly disclose the outer layer over the core layer to be a shrink wrap outer layer.
Hyson teaches a thermoplastic pipe (10; figs. 1 & 6) and an associated method of producing the same (figs. 2-5), wherein the thermoplastic pipe comprises:
a hollow inner liner layer (11; “a region 11 of 100% thermoplastic material that defines the bore of the pipe…”, para 32, lines 4-7; fig. 2) with a thickness in a range from 0.25 mm to 0.75 mm or thicker (para. 39);
a consolidated core layer (12) comprising commingled fibers (“14” in fig. 3) that are wound around the hollow inner liner layer (see fig. 3; para. 41: “A fiber reinforced thermoplastic circumferential zone 12 of the pipe 10 is manufactured by braiding a plurality of tows…of co-mingled thermoplastic filament and reinforcing fibers or filaments”) and heated (see para. 45); and
a shrink wrap outer layer (13) over the consolidated core layer (para. 43; “16” in fig. 4),
wherein the commingled fibers comprise at least one thermoplastic fiber and at least one reinforcing fiber (as noted above; see para. 41), and
wherein the consolidated core layer comprises a thermoplastic polymer matrix that is organized along the at least one reinforcing fiber (see para. 45).
Hyson also suggests that the inner liner layer may be formed from thermoplastic materials, including polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), among others (para. 47).
As noted in the grounds of rejection for claim 1, Hyson teaches (para. 45) that, during manufacture, the pipe (including the core layer) is heated to a temperature which causes the thermoplastic fiber material to melt, and the heat shrink tape to shrink onto the outer surface of the core layer and compress the molten thermoplastic.
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 thermoplastic pipe of Moreau such that the outer layer covering the core layer is provided as a shrink wrap outer layer (i.e., a heat shrink wrap), in view of the teachings of Hyson, as the use of a known technique (providing such an outer layer positioned around a commingled thermoplastic fiber and reinforcing fiber layer as a shrink wrap layer, as in Hyson) to improve a similar device (the thermoplastic pipe of Moreau having such a commingled thermoplastic fiber / reinforcing fiber core layer) and associated method of producing such a device in the same way (e.g., utilizing the heat-shrink properties of the material of the outer layer to compress the thermoplastic material of the core layer during heating containing the molten thermoplastic and embedding the reinforcement fibers into the resulting thermoplastic matrix during consolidation, as suggested by Hyson).
De Rothschild is generally directed to thermoplastic composite products comprising commingled fibers (6; see figs. 1B-1D) including thermoplastic fibers (4) and reinforcing fibers (2), and associated methods of manufacturing such products.
De Rothschild teaches (e.g., para. 38) that such commingled fibers may be originally provided in an unconsolidated form (FIG. 1B) but, upon partial heating, the thermoplastic fibers begin to melt, flow, and adhere to the reinforcement fibers, wherein control of heat and pressure enables the melting thermoplastic fibers to form a bonding matrix.
De Rothschild further teaches (para. 38) that the above process can produce a “semi-consolidated” material (FIG. 1C) or a “fully consolidated” material (FIG. 1D).
De Rothschild suggests (para. 38) that “control of the degree, location, direction/orientation of the melt or consolidation of the matrix fibers allows for tailoring properties including, but not limited to flex, permeability, hardness, stiffness, toughness and impact resistance. Such control is possible over small areas and/or large areas of the same part while using the same fibers”.
De Rothschild further explains (para. 9) that, unlike certain cited prior art references, they have recognized that unconsolidated and semi-consolidated phases of commingled fiber materials “offer significant utility without further processing”. As can be seen from at least published claims 1, 3 & 12, de Rothschild teaches that a finished article may include such a semi-consolidated material.
Finally, De Rothschild suggests that the techniques and teachings therein are to be regarded as new “tools” that can “be applied broadly across the composites fields, especially within the self-reinforced composites fields” (para. 37). However, among the non-limiting examples provided, de Rothschild suggests such the teachings as applicable for forming elongate members such as cables (fig. 13, para. 52) and for forming “a fluid handling apparatus selected from a filter, heat exchanger and solar panel” (published claim 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 thermoplastic pipe of Moreau (as otherwise modified above) such that the core layer comprising the commingled fibers is provided as a semi-consolidated core layer comprising a thermoplastic polymer matrix organized along the at least one reinforcement fiber, in view of the teachings of de Rothschild, to obtain a pipe having tailored mechanical properties (e.g., flex, hardness, stiffness, toughness, impact resistance, etc.) between those of a pipe having an unconsolidated core layer and those of a pipe having a fully consolidated core layer, especially considering that de Rothschild explicitly suggests that controlling the degree of consolidation of such commingled fiber materials during manufacturing allows for tailoring of properties including flex, permeability, hardness, stiffness, toughness, and impact resistance, and otherwise suggests that such materials may remain in a semi-consolidated state in a final article.
Regarding the remaining limitation wherein the hollow inner liner layer has a thickness in a range of 0.5 mm to 25 mm, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), it has been generally held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
See also MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent") & In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Nevertheless, to promote compact prosecution, the following additional teachings are provided.
Conley teaches (figs. 1-11) a reinforced pipe comprising a thermoplastic inner liner layer (10; see para. 21: “can be made of any suitable polymer, such as a thermoplastic or an elastomer. Suitable materials, for example, may include one or more of…nylon [i.e., polyamide], cross-linked polyethylene(PEX), polypropylene, … high-density polyethylene (HDPE), … etc.”), a core layer comprising reinforcements wound over the inner liner layer (12, 14; see para. 34), and an outer layer (20) covering the core layer.
Conley explains that “flexible pipes need to meet certain performance requirements, such as having sufficient strength to contain the high pressure fluid the pipe may be transporting” (para. 3).
Conley explains (para. 34) that the inner liner layer “is not required to withstand all of the internal pressure imposed by pressurized fluid passing through the pipe 1. Rather, the inner layer 10 can resist diffusion of the fluid through the wall of inner layer 10” while the reinforcing core layer (i.e., 12 & 14) acts “to contain the internal pressure imposed on the pipe 1 by pressurized fluid passing through it.”.
In para. 35, Conley further explains that the reinforcing core layer “can act to counteract the majority, if not all, of the radial and axial loads imposed on the pipe 1 including the internal pressure of the pressurized fluid passing through the pipe and tensile loading of the pipe. While the inner layer 10 does not need to be strong enough to withstand the pressure imposed on the pipe 1 by the pressurized fluid passing through the pipe 1, the inner layer 10 is typically made sufficiently strong to withstand the loads placed on it by the winding process where metal cords are wound around the inner layer 10 to form the first reinforcing layer 12 and the second reinforcing layer 14, as well as loads placed on it by the application of the outer layer 20, installation of the pipe 1, handling of the pipe 1, etc.”.
Table I of Conley sets forth an example construction of a reinforced thermoplastic pipe. As shown therein, the inner liner layer (“Inner Tubular Lining”) is disclosed to have an inner diameter of 2.995 inches [76 mm] and an outer diameter of 3.375 inches [85.7 mm]. As can be readily calculated, these dimensions would result in a wall thickness of 0.19 inches [4.8 mm].
As such, 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 thermoplastic pipe of Moreau such that the hollow inner liner layer has a thickness in a range from 0.5 mm to 25 mm (e.g., 4.8mm [0.19 inches]), in view of the teachings of Conley, as the use of a known technique (e.g., providing a hollow inner liner layer having dimensions in the claimed range, e.g., a thickness of 4.8mm, as in Conley) to improve a similar device (i.e., the thermoplastic pipe of Moreau) in the same way (e.g., providing for a hollow inner liner layer which is sufficiently thick to withstand diffusion of the internal fluid, and made sufficiently strong to withstand the loads placed on it by the winding process, as well as loads placed on it by the application of the outer layer, installation of the pipe, handling of the pipe 1, etc., as suggested by Conley).
As a result, all of the limitations of claim 12 are met, or are otherwise rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 14, the thermoplastic pipe of Moreau, as modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the hollow inner liner layer has a thickness from 0.5 mm to 25 mm (e.g., having a thickness of 4.8mm in view of the teachings of Conley) which, as noted in the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), is already required by claim 12.
Regarding claim 15, with respect to the limitation wherein the hollow inner liner layer has an outer diameter from 1 inch to 24 inches, the inner liner layer (12) of the thermoplastic pipe of Moreau has an outer diameter (i.e., the diameter at outer peripheral surface 14).
Moreau does not explicitly disclose the outer diameter to be from 1 inch to 24 inches, however, Moreau discloses that the thermoplastic pipe as a whole has an inner diameter, an outer diameter, and a length which “can vary depending on the intended use” (para. 68). In one example, Moreau suggests that the pipe can have an inner diameter of “two inches for use in applications that require transfer of greater volumes of fluid” (para. 68). At least when the inner diameter is two inches, and the hollow inner liner layer has a thickness from 0.5 mm [0.019 in] to 25 mm [0.98 in], e.g. 4.8 mm [0.19 in] as in Conley, the outer diameter of the liner layer would fall within the claimed range of 1 inch to 24 inches (e.g., with an inner diameter of 2 in [50.8 mm] and a thickness of 0.19 in [4.8 mm], the outer diameter of the liner layer would be approximately 2.38 in [60.4 mm]).
Furthermore, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), it has been generally held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
See also MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent") & In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Nevertheless, to promote compact prosecution, the following additional teachings are provided.
As set forth for claim 12 above, Conley teaches (figs. 1-11) a reinforced pipe comprising a thermoplastic inner liner layer (10), a core layer comprising reinforcements wound over the inner liner layer (12, 14; see para. 34), and an outer layer (20) covering the core layer, and explains that “flexible pipes need to meet certain performance requirements, such as having sufficient strength to contain the high pressure fluid the pipe may be transporting” (para. 3).
Conley explains (para. 34) that the inner liner layer “is not required to withstand all of the internal pressure imposed by pressurized fluid passing through the pipe 1. Rather, the inner layer 10 can resist diffusion of the fluid through the wall of inner layer 10” while the reinforcing core layer (i.e., 12 & 14) acts “to contain the internal pressure imposed on the pipe 1 by pressurized fluid passing through it.”.
In para. 35, Conley further explains that the reinforcing core layer “can act to counteract the majority, if not all, of the radial and axial loads imposed on the pipe 1 including the internal pressure of the pressurized fluid passing through the pipe and tensile loading of the pipe. While the inner layer 10 does not need to be strong enough to withstand the pressure imposed on the pipe 1 by the pressurized fluid passing through the pipe 1, the inner layer 10 is typically made sufficiently strong to withstand the loads placed on it by the winding process where metal cords are wound around the inner layer 10 to form the first reinforcing layer 12 and the second reinforcing layer 14, as well as loads placed on it by the application of the outer layer 20, installation of the pipe 1, handling of the pipe 1, etc.”.
As previously mentioned, Table I of Conley sets forth an example construction of a reinforced thermoplastic pipe. As shown therein, the inner liner layer (“Inner Tubular Lining”) is disclosed to have an inner diameter of 2.995 inches [76 mm] and an outer diameter of 3.375 inches [85.7 mm]. As can be readily calculated, these dimensions would result in a wall thickness of 0.19 inches [4.8 mm].
As such, 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 thermoplastic pipe of Moreau such that the hollow inner liner layer has an outer diameter from 1 inch to 24 inches (e.g., 3.375 inches), in view of the teachings of Conley, as the use of a known technique (e.g., providing a hollow inner liner layer having dimensions in the claimed ranges, e.g., a thickness of 4.8mm and an outer diameter of 3.375 inches, as in Conley) to improve a similar device (i.e., the thermoplastic pipe of Moreau) in the same way (e.g., providing for a hollow inner liner layer which is sufficiently thick to withstand diffusion of the internal fluid, and made sufficiently strong to withstand the loads placed on it by the winding process, as well as loads placed on it by the application of the outer layer, installation of the pipe, handling of the pipe, etc., as suggested by Conley).
Regarding claim 16, Moreau discloses the additional limitation wherein the hollow inner liner layer (12) comprises a thermoplastic.
In particular, Moreau discloses (para. 35) that the inner liner layer (12) may comprise, e.g., polyethylene, polypropylene, polyvinylchloride, PET, and polyamides, each of which is a thermoplastic. In fact, Moreau later specifically states that “the material of the outer peripheral surface 14 of the tube 12 is typically a semi-crystalline or amorphous thermoplastic polymer” (para. 38).
Regarding claim 17, Moreau discloses the additional limitation wherein the at least one reinforcing fiber (20) comprises at least one material selected from the group consisting of: carbon fiber, glass fiber, aramid fiber, and basalt fiber.
In particular, Moreau discloses (para. 42) that the reinforcing fibers (20) may comprise a glass fiber (e.g., E-glass, S2 glass, C glass, R glass, silica, quartz, etc.), aramid fiber (“e.g. NOMEX® and KEVLAR® fiber”), and/or basalt fiber.
To promote compact prosecution, it is also noted that de Rothschild and Hyson each also teach the use of glass, aramid and carbon fibers.
Regarding claim 18, Moreau discloses the additional limitation wherein the fiber volume fraction of the thermoplastic fibers in the semi-consolidated core layer is in the range from 1% to 75%.
In particular Moreau discloses (para. 50) that the commingled fibers used to form the core layer may comprise a thermoplastic fiber volume fraction from 5% to 45%, or otherwise from 15% to 45%, each of which lies within the broader claimed range of from 1% to 75%.
It is noted that Hyson also teaches a fiber volume fraction for a commingled core layer in the range of 20% to 40% (i.e., via teaching a 60% to 80% volume fraction of reinforcing carbon fibers; para. 41).
Regarding claim 19, with respect to the limitation wherein the commingled fibers are wound around the hollow inner liner layer at an angle from 1 to 89 degrees in a clockwise or a counter-clockwise direction measured from a pipe axis, , as set forth in the grounds of rejection for claims 1 & 12 above, Moreau reasonably shows (e.g. in fig. 9) that the commingled fibers are wound over the hollow inner liner at one of two angles to form a braided structure, and the angles shown in the figure are reasonably seen as being an angle measured from the pipe axis in the range from 1 to 90 degrees (one set being a wound in a clockwise direction and the other being wound in a counter-clockwise direction).
Furthermore, when the commingled fibers are helically wound (as described in para. 73) rather than braided, a person having ordinary skill in the art would at once envisage embodiments wherein the winding is performed at an angle measured from a pipe axis in the range from 1 to 89 degrees in a clockwise or a counter-clockwise direction (e.g., such as a simple 45° or the commonly used 55° winding angle well-known in the art to balance tensile and radial loads in many applications, etc.), especially because the claimed range of from 1 to 89 degrees would encompass any substantially any helical winding which is neither substantially perpendicular to the pipe axis (i.e. within 1°) nor substantially parallel to the pipe axis (i.e. within 1°), and further considering that the figures of Moreau clearly depict other embodiments (e.g., the braided embodiment in fig. 9) wherein the fibers are wound at such an angle between 1 and 80 degrees.
However, to promote compact prosecution, the following additional teaching is provided:
As described for claim 12 above, Conley teaches (figs. 1-11) a reinforced pipe comprising a thermoplastic inner liner layer (10), a core layer comprising reinforcements wound over the inner liner layer (12, 14; see para. 34), and an outer layer (20) covering the core layer.
Conley further teaches that the reinforcements of the core layer may be wound at an angle (α) measured from a pipe axis (see fig. 1) in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction (see figs. 1 & 8, etc.; see para. 26:”the one or more metal cores of the first reinforcing layer 12 can be wound in a first direction, for example either clockwise or counterclockwise”).
Conley explains (para. 36) that the winding angle of the helical reinforcements are “selected to compromise between the various loads and conditions to which the product will be exposed during processing and during the use of the pipe 1, including durability and pressure containment, while providing desired flexibility. Winding angles a, relative to the longitudinal axis of the pipe, of between 8° and 86° can be used. Generally, a greater winding angle allows the pipe 1 to withstand greater radial loading, such as from internal pressure caused by the pressurized fluid, while a smaller angle of winding will allow the pipe 1 to withstand more axial loading of the pipe 1. In many cases, a pipe 1 according to the presently illustrated embodiment is used to contain pressurized fluid with the prominent condition being internal pressure containment, therefore the pipe 1 will have winding angles chosen to withstand more force in the radial tensile direction. Other factors such as installation pull force (axial loading) and loads from spooling and unspooling for transport and installation in the field can also be taken into account. In one aspect, winding angles of between 40°. and 70°. are used, with a narrower range, in some embodiments, of winding angles being between 50 ° and 60° being suitable”.
If not already seen as such, 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 thermoplastic pipe of Moreau such that the commingled fibers (including the reinforcing fibers) are wound around the hollow inner liner layer at an angle from 1 to 89 degrees (e.g., between 8° and 86°) in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction measured from a pipe axis, in view of the teachings of Conley, especially considering that Conley explicitly teaches that a winding angle of a helical reinforcement is selected so as to provide a compromise between the various loads and conditions to which the product will be exposed during processing and during the use of the pipe, with usable winding angles relative to the longitudinal axis of the pipe being between 8° and 86°, wherein smaller angles within the range enable greater axial loading (e.g., from installation loads) and larger angles within the range enable greater radial loading (e.g., from internal fluid pressures).
Regarding claim 20, Moreau discloses the additional limitation wherein the at least one thermoplastic fiber comprises at least one polymer selected from the group consisting of: polyvinylidene fluoride, polyethylene, polypropylene, polyamide, polyethylene terephthalate, and a combination thereof.
In particular, Moreau discloses (para. 44) examples of thermoplastic polymers suitable for use as the thermoplastic binding fibers which include polyethylene, polypropylene, polyamide, and polyethylene terephthalate (PET), among others (including embodiments wherein the polymer may comprise a fluoropolymer).
To promote compact prosecution, it is noted that de Rothschild also teaches the use of PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and polypropylene (“PP Black”) (see table on pg. 1).
Examination Note: while Moreau does not explicitly disclose polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), as noted above, the reference does disclose that suitable fluoropolymers may be used. While not relied upon in this action, to further promote compact prosecution, it is noted that US 2015/0292651 A1 to Moreau et al., US 2011/0174410 A1 to Li et al., and US 2020/0031071 A1 to Al-Zubaidy et al. each disclose polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) as a suitable fluoropolymer.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moreau in view of Hyson, de Rothschild, and Conley as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Goodman (US 2002/0134448 A1).
Regarding claim 11, with respect to the limitation wherein “wherein extruding comprises passing a molten thermoplastic through a cylindrical die and subsequently pulling the molten thermoplastic”, it is noted that one common and accepted definition of “extrusion” in this context is “a process used to create objects of a fixed cross-sectional profile by pushing material through a die of the desired cross-section”.
In view of the above, the method of Moreau, which explicitly utilizes extrusion of “melt, paste, or any other extrusion technique known in the art” (para. 71) reasonably reads on the additional limitation wherein the extruding comprises passing a molten thermoplastic (i.e. the melt or paste) through a cylindrical die (i.e., a die corresponding to the desired cross-section).
As noted, Moreau already suggests that thermoplastic for the inner liner may be extruded as a “melt” or “paste”. As would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art, during extrusion, the thermoplastic must be molten enough to pass through the die and assume the desired shape, but must also be strong enough to maintain the shape imparted by the die, and not simply melt into a structureless liquid after passing through the die.
While Moreau does not explicitly disclose a cylindrical die, Moreau discloses the hollow inner liner layer to have a desired cylindrical cross-section and, as would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art at least in view of the common definition of “extrusion”, an extrusion die has a shape corresponding to the desired cross-section. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have readily inferred that the extrusion step disclosed by Moreau for forming the cylindrical hollow inner liner layer would involve passing a molten thermoplastic through a cylindrical die, as claimed.
Moreau does not explicitly disclose that the step of extruding, after passing the molten thermoplastic through the cylindrical die, further comprises “subsequently pulling the molten thermoplastic”.
Goodman is directed to a thermoplastic (e.g., polyethylene) pipe (15; fig. 1), an extrusion apparatus (45; fig. 2) for producing such a pipe, and an associated method.
Goodman teaches that the apparatus comprises an extruder (50) which “heats, melts, and further mixes [the thermoplastic]… and conveys the molten material through a pipe extrusion die 52” (para. 36), “Pipe extrusion die 52 then distributes the molten material around a solid mandrel, which forms the material into a cylindrical shape for solid wall pipe” (para. 37).
Goodman explains that the extruded material is then “drawn through a sizing tube or sleeve 54 while the surface of pipe 15 is cooled enough to maintain proper dimensions and its circular form”, and “Pipe 15 is then pulled through [a] cooling bath (58) by a puller 60” (para. 38). Goodman further teaches that “the rate at which puller 60 pulls pipe 15 through cooling tank 58, in conjunction with the screw speed [of the extruder], determines a thickness of a pipe wall. For example, reducing the pull rate at a constant screw speed increases the thickness of the pipe wall. Conversely, increasing the pull rate at a constant screw speed decreases the thickness of the pipe wall”.
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 method of producing a thermoplastic pipe of Moreau such that the extruding comprises, after passing a molten thermoplastic through a cylindrical die, subsequently pulling the molten thermoplastic, in view of the teachings of Goodman, to enable the extruded material to be pulled through a cooling tank to maintain the proper dimensions and form, and to enable a further means to control the final wall thickness by varying the pulling speed vs the extrusion speed, as suggested by Goodman.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments directed to the limitation wherein the inner liner layer has a thickness in a range of 0.5 mm to 25 mm, it is noted that this limitation was already presented in claim 14, and correspondingly rejected in the previous action.
Applicant argues that “Conley provides no thickness range for the inner liner”, but Conley does provide, in table I [para. 58], an example construction of an inner liner layer (“Inner Tubular Lining”) with an inner diameter of 2.995 inches [76 mm] and an outer diameter of 3.375 inches [85.7 mm]. As can be readily calculated, these dimensions would result in a wall thickness of 0.19 inches [4.8 mm].
Furthermore, while no explicit range is provided, Conley provides technical guidance for designing / optimizing the inner liner layer. In particular, Conley explains (para. 34) that the inner liner layer “is not required to withstand all of the internal pressure imposed by pressurized fluid passing through the pipe 1. Rather, the inner layer 10 can resist diffusion of the fluid through the wall of inner layer 10” while the reinforcing core layer (i.e., 12 & 14) acts “to contain the internal pressure imposed on the pipe 1 by pressurized fluid passing through it.”. In para. 35, Conley further explains that the reinforcing core layer “can act to counteract the majority, if not all, of the radial and axial loads imposed on the pipe 1 including the internal pressure of the pressurized fluid passing through the pipe and tensile loading of the pipe. While the inner layer 10 does not need to be strong enough to withstand the pressure imposed on the pipe 1 by the pressurized fluid passing through the pipe 1, the inner layer 10 is typically made sufficiently strong to withstand the loads placed on it by the winding process where metal cords are wound around the inner layer 10 to form the first reinforcing layer 12 and the second reinforcing layer 14, as well as loads placed on it by the application of the outer layer 20, installation of the pipe 1, handling of the pipe 1, etc.”.
Applicant further argues that Hyson discloses only a significantly thinner (between 0.05 to 0.1 mm) inner tape material. While Hyson is not currently relied on for teaching the inner liner thickness, this argument is not found to be persuasive. While Hyson discloses that the tape used to form in the inner layer may be, e.g. from 50 microns to 100 microns [0.05 mm to 0.1 mm], Hyson further discloses winding the tape to build up the inner liner layer. That is, the thickness of the tape itself is not the final thickness of the inner liner layer. Instead, Hyson discloses winding such a tape “to build up a first layer on the mandrel that is approximately 0.25 mm to 0.75 mm or thicker” (para. 39). As can be seen, this disclosed range overlaps with the claimed range.
Additionally, beyond the prior art teachings already noted, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(A), it has been generally held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.
See also MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A): Smith v. Nichols, 88 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1874) (a change in form, proportions, or degree "will not sustain a patent") & In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438, 4 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1929) ("It is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions.").
Regarding the new limitation of claims 1 & 12 wherein the inner liner layer is selected from the group consisting of an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), high density polyethylene (HDPE), medium density polyethylene (MDPE), polyethylene of raised temperature (PE-RT), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polyamide (PA), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS),polyketone (POK), and combinations thereof, it is first noted that the original specification does not appear to provide sufficient support for “combinations thereof”.
Moreover, the prior art already of record is seen as disclosing or otherwise rendering obvious this limitation and applicant’s arguments regarding this new limitation are not found to be persuasive, as explained below.
Applicant argues that Moreau does not disclose the materials required by amended claims 1 & 12. However, Moreau does disclose that the inner liner layer may be formed from polyamide (PA)(see para. 35 & 38), which is one of the claimed materials. Furthermore, while Moreau does not explicitly disclose UHMWPE, HDPE, MDPE, or PE-RT, Moreau does disclose that the inner liner layer may be made from polyethylene, generally. Similarly, while Moreau does not explicitly disclose PVDF, Moreau does disclose that the inner liner later may be made from fluoropolymers, generally.
Hyson also suggests that the inner liner layer may be formed from thermoplastic materials, including polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), among others (para. 47).
Applicant’s remarks recognize that Conley mentions the inner liner may be made of HDPE, but it is noted that Conley also discloses that the inner liner may be formed from nylon (i.e., polyamide), as well as “higher temperature engineered polymers”, generally (para. 21).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new or amended 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 Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753