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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 6/04/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 11-14,16-18, 20-23 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, FEP is indeed not a copolymer of ethylene and propylene. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of US 6319985 B1.
Claims 11,12,13,16,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumley (US 5507320 A), hereafter known as Plumley, in view of Bruning (US 6319985 B1), hereafter known as Bruning, in further view of Gantrade’s webpages “Ultimate Performance Polyurethanes Based on Polycarbonate Diols”, “FAQ | Polyurethane Curatives & Chain Extenders”, and “Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate (MDI) - Essential Building Blocks for Polyurethanes”, hereafter known as Gantrade, FAQ, and Petrochemical, respectively.
Regarding claim 11, Plumley discloses a fluid conduit for a motor vehicle (title, Plumley) having
a base body (fig 1, layer 17, Plumley) and a chafe layer (not disclosed),
wherein the base body has at least one layer made of plastic (col 3, lines 37-41, layer 17 is nylon 12, a plastic, Plumley),
and the chafe layer forms an outer layer of the fluid conduit (not disclosed),
wherein the chafe layer has a layer thickness of at least 0.1 mm to at most 1.0 mm, is applied to an outer layer of the base body (not disclosed),
wherein the base body comprises polyamide, polypropylene or polyphthalamide (col 3, lines 37-41, layer 17 is polyamide 12, Plumley),
and wherein the chafe layer consists of thermoplastic polyurethane comprising polyol present as polycarbonate polyol, diol as a chain extender and isocyanate (not disclosed),
wherein the thermoplastic polyurethane additionally comprises at least 1 wt.% and at most 3 wt.% of an ethylene- propylene copolymer or an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer as an abrasion improver (not disclosed),
and wherein between the base body and the chafe layer and/or within the chafe layer an additional layer serving to improve flame resistance is arranged (fig 1, col 4 lines 33-39, layer 18 is exterior to layer 17, and is flame resistant, but chafe layer is not disclosed Plumley).
Plumley does not disclose a chafe layer as an outer layer of the fluid conduit, or the dimensions and composition of the chafe layer. However, Bruning teaches a hose or sheath with a abrasion resistant layer of thermoplastic polyurethane (col 6 lines 12-19, the blend of Bruning, which is thermoplastic polyurethane (abstract), can be formed into sheaths or hoses), wherein the thermoplastic polyurethane additionally comprises at least 1 wt.% and at most 3 wt.% of an ethylene- propylene copolymer or an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer as an abrasion improver (col 1, lines 4-9, the weight ratio of EPM to TPU ranges from 6:1 to 100:1, which is 14% to 0.99%. In the case where the claimed ranges "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)). Bruning describes a abrasion resistant thermoplastic polyurethane hose, a field related to Plumley and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Bruning into Plumley and covered the exterior of the fuel hose of Plumley with the sheath of Bruning. The covering of Bruning provides abrasion resistance (col 1, lines 38-42, Bruning), improving the reliability of the fuel line. After modification, the flame resistant layer 18 of Plumley will be between layer 17 of Plumley and cover layer of Bruning.
Plumley in view of Bruning does not disclose the cover layer to be 0.1-1 mm thick, however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the thickness of the cover layer, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Plumley in view of Bruning does not disclose the thermoplastic polyurethane comprising polyol present as polycarbonate polyol. However, Gantrade teaches using polycarbonate diols, which is a type of polycarbonate polyol, to make polyurethanes (title, Gantrade). Gantrade is a blog post about the benefits of polycarbonate diols on polyurethane performance, a field closely related to Plumley, Bruning, and the claimed invention. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Gantrade into Plumley in view of Bruning and use polycarbonate diol in the thermoplastic composition. Polycarbonate diols feature many benefits, inducing low water absorption and high chemical resistance (page 1, bullet points, Gantrade), all of which can be passed on to the fuel line.
Plumley in view of Bruning and Gantrade does not disclose diol as a chain extender. However, FAQ teaches 1,4-Butanediol as a chain extender (page 8, row 1, page 6, BDO, FAQ). FAQ is a informational site about different polyurethane chain extenders, which is closely related to Plumley, Bruning, Gantrade, and the claimed invention. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of FAQ into Plumley in view of Bruning and Gantrade and use 1,4-Butanediol as the polyurethane chain extender. Using 1,4-Butanediol as a chin extender is well known in the art, and it produces urethane with good abrasion and resilience (page 6, BDO, FAQ), which would increase the durability of the fuel line.
Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, and FAQ does not disclose isocyanate. However, Petrochemical teaches using 4,4’-MDI as building blocks for thermoplastic polyurethanes (page 1, first paragraph, page 2 paragraph 3, Petrochemical). Petrochemical is a blog post about how Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate is essential for the formation of polyurethane, which is closely related to Plumley, Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ, and the claimed invention. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Petrochemical into Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, and FAQ and use 4,4’-MDI to form the thermoplastic polyurethane of the fuel line of Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, and FAQ. Using 4,4’-MDI to form polyurethane is well known in the art, and MDI’s are the most produced diisocyanate, which would reduce the material cost of the fuel line.
Regarding 12, Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ , and Petrochemical discloses the fluid conduit according to claim 11, wherein the isocyanate is a diphenyl methane-4,4'-diisocyanate (page 2 paragraph 3, Petrochemical, 4,4’-MDI is diphenyl methane-4,4'-diisocyanate).
Regarding claim 13, Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ , and Petrochemical discloses the fluid conduit according to claim 11, wherein the thermoplastic polyurethane additionally contains at least one of the following substances as an additive: a lubricant, a wax, a phenolic antioxidant, an aminic antioxidant, a thioester- based antioxidant, a phosphite, a UV absorber, a sterically hindered amine, a hydrolysis inhibitor, in particular a carbodiimide, an antistatic agent, and a flame retardant. (col 5, Bruning, lines 39-43, the thermoplastic polyurethane can have a lubricant or flame retardant additive.)
Regarding claim 16, Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ , and Petrochemical discloses a method for producing the fluid conduit according to claim 11 wherein the method comprises the following steps:
a) providing the base body of the fluid conduit (col 6, lines 12-19, the blend of Buning can be extruded as cable sheathing, thus can be extruded over a base body. When used to modify Plumley, the base body is the fluid conduit of Plumley.);
b) applying the chafe layer to the base body by extrusion of an extrusion mixture conduit (col 6, lines 12-19, the blend of Bruning can be extruded as cable sheathing, thus can be extruded over a base body. When used to modify Plumley, the cover layer of Bruning is extruded over the fluid conduit of Plumley); wherein the extrusion mixture contains the thermoplastic polyurethane as a polymeric mixture component (abstract, blend of Bruning contains thermoplastic polyurethane, and since the covering is extruded, the extrusion mixture has at least the same composition).
Regarding claim 17 Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ , and Petrochemical discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein the extrusion mixture comprises an ethylene copolymer as an additive as a further mixture component (abstract, Bruning, theTPU of Bruning contains EPM as a mixture component additive.)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ, and Petrochemical, in further view of Cilleruelo (FR 3014889 A1), hereafter known as Cilleruelo.
Regarding claim 14, Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ , and Petrochemical discloses the fluid conduit according to claim 13, but does not disclose wherein the additive has a proportion of at least 0.05% by weight and/or at most 10% by weight. However, Cilleruelo teaches a lubricant additive of 1-1.5% by mass (page 8, lines 6-8 and last paragraph, Cilleruelo, lubricant additive is of 1-1.5% by mass). Cilleruelo describes a protective cover layer for a fuel transport pipe in a vehicle, a field closely related to Plumley, Bruning, and the claimed invention. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Cilleruelo into Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ, and Petrochemical and add the lubricant additive of 1-1.5% by mass of Cilleruelo into the cover layer. The lubricant additive would protect the pipe and increase abrasion resistance (page 9, lines 1-4, Cilleruelo).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ, and Petrochemical, in further view of Additivesforpolymer’s product page “UV 234, Tiunvin 234, CAS 321-86-7”, hereafter known as Additives.
Regarding claim 20, Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ , and Petrochemical discloses the fluid conduit according to claim 13, but does not disclose wherein the additive is a UV absorber based on benzotriazole or triazine. However, Additives teaches using benzotriazole UV absorber as an additive to prevent polymer degradation (page 1, name and application, Additives). Additives is a product page for a polymer additive, and is closely related to Plumley, Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ , Petrochemical, and the claimed invention. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Petrochemical into Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ, Petrochemical and add the UV absorber of Additives into the fuel line. UV absorbers are well known in the art for their ability to convert UV radiation into heat, preventing degradation of polymers, a feature that would benefit the fuel line.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ, and Petrochemical, in further view of Triiso’s product page “Stabaxol”, hereafter known as Triiso.
Regarding claim 21, Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ , and Petrochemical discloses the fluid conduit according to claim 13, but does not disclose wherein the additive is a hydrolysis inhibitor based on a carbodiimide. However, Triiso teaches using carbodiimide as an additive to prevent hydrolysis (product description, Triiso). Triiso is a product page for a polymer additive, and is closely related to Plumley, Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ , Petrochemical, and the claimed invention. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Petrochemical into Plumley in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ, Petrochemical and add the additive of Triiso into the duel line. Hydrolysis inhibiting additives are well known in the art, and the additive of Triiso increases the durability of the fuel line.
Claims 18,22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cilleruelo in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ, and Petrochemical.
Regarding claim 18, Cilleruelo discloses an outer layer of a fluid conduit (abstract, Cilleruelo, the cover of Cilleruelo covers a fluid conduit, thus is the outer layer of the conduit), the outer layer comprising
a chafe layer (abstract, description first paragraph, Cilleruelo, the cover is abrasion resistant, thus can serve as chafe layer) with a layer thickness of at least 0.1 mm to at most 1.0 mm (page 12, last paragraph, layer is 0.5-1mm thick, Cilleruelo) and consisting of a thermoplastic polyurethane (abstract, Cilleruelo) comprising polyol present as polycarbonate polyol (not disclosed), diol as a chain extender (not disclosed), and isocyanate (not disclosed), wherein the thermoplastic polyurethane additionally comprises at least 1 wt.% and at most 3 wt.% of an ethylene-propylene copolymer or an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer as an abrasion improver (not disclosed).
Cilleruelo does not disclose the thermoplastic polyurethane comprising at least 1 wt.% and at most 3 wt.% of an ethylene-propylene copolymer or an ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer as an abrasion improver (col 1, lines 4-9, the weight ratio of EPM to TPU ranges from 6:1 to 100:1, which is 14% to 0.99%. In the case where the claimed ranges "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)). Bruning describes a abrasion resistant thermoplastic polyurethane hose, a field related to Cilleruelo and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Bruning into Cilleruelo and used the EPM additive of Bruning in the thermoplastic polyurethane of Cilleruelo. The covering of Bruning provides abrasion resistance (col 1, lines 38-42, Bruning), improving the reliability of the fuel line.
Cilleruelo in view of Bruning does not disclose the thermoplastic polyurethane comprising polyol present as polycarbonate polyol. However, Gantrade teaches using polycarbonate diols, which is a type of polycarbonate polyol, to make polyurethanes (title, Gantrade). Gantrade is a blog post about the benefits of polycarbonate diols on polyurethane performance, a field closely related to Cilleruelo, Bruning, and the claimed invention. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Gantrade into Cilleruelo in view of Bruning and use polycarbonate diol in the thermoplastic composition. Polycarbonate diols feature many benefits, inducing low water absorption and high chemical resistance (page 1, bullet points, Gantrade), all of which can be passed on to the fuel line cover of Cilleruelo.
Cilleruelo in view of Bruning and Gantrade does not disclose diol as a chain extender. However, FAQ teaches 1,4-Butanediol as a chain extender (page 8, row 1, page 6, BDO, FAQ). FAQ is an informational site about different polyurethane chain extenders, which is closely related to Cilleruelo, Bruning, Gantrade, and the claimed invention. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of FAQ into Cilleruelo in view of Bruning and Gantrade and use 1,4-Butanediol as the polyurethane chain extender. Using 1,4-Butanediol as a chin extender is well known in the art, and it produces urethane with good abrasion and resilience (page 6, BDO, FAQ), which would increase the durability of the fuel line cover of Cilleruelo.
Cilleruelo in view of Bruning, Gantrade, and FAQ does not disclose isocyanate. However, Petrochemical teaches using 4,4’-MDI as building blocks for thermoplastic polyurethanes (page 1, first paragraph, page 2 paragraph 3, Petrochemical). Petrochemical is a blog post about how Methylene Diphenyl Diisocyanate is essential for the formation of polyurethane, which is closely related to Cilleruelo, Gantrade, FAQ, and the claimed invention. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Petrochemical into Cilleruelo in view of Gantrade and FAQ and use 4,4’-MDI to form the thermoplastic polyurethane of the fuel line cover of Cilleruelo in view of Gantrade and FAQ. Using 4,4’-MDI to form polyurethane is well known in the art, and MDI’s are the most produced diisocyanate (page 1, first paragraph, Petrochemical), which would reduce the material cost of the fuel line cover.
Regarding claim 22, Cilleruelo in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ and Petrochemical discloses the outer layer of claim 18, wherein the chafe layer forms the outer layer of the fluid conduit for a motor vehicle (page 2, description paragraph 1, the coating of Cilleruelo can be applied to the outside of fluid transport pipe in a motor vehicle.)
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cilleruelo in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ, and Petrochemical, in further view of Plumley.
Regarding claim 23, Cilleruelo in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ and Petrochemical discloses the outer layer of claim 22, but does not disclose wherein the outer layer further comprises an additional layer serving to improve flame resistance arranged between a base body of the fluid conduit and the chafe layer and/or within the chafe layer.
However, Plumley teaches a fluid conduit with a base body (fig 1, layers 12,14,15,17, Plumley) and outer layer with flame resistance (fig 1, col 4 lines 33-39, layer 18 is exterior to layer 17, and is flame resistant, Plumley). Plumley describes a polymer vehicle fuel line, a field closely related to Cilleruelo, Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ, Petrochemical, and the claimed invention. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to incorporate the teachings of Plumley into Cilleruelo in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ and Petrochemical and apply the coating of Cilleruelo in view of Bruning, Gantrade, FAQ and Petrochemical over the fuel hose of Plumley. Coating a fuel hose to increase its durability is well known in the art, and the fuel line of Plumley would add flame resistance to the resulting pipe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kleinert (EP 0969236 A2) discloses a hose with thermoplastic polyurethane abrasion resistant layer.
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 HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights