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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoe (U.S. 5,718,957).
Yokoe teaches laminated fluororesins used to make tubular articles. (Abstract and Column 3 lines 5-20). The laminated plies anticipate the fluororesin film because they are formed as sheets and then plasma treated and then deposited on a thermoplastic or rubber. (Column 7 lines 25-40). Additionally, in the as filed specification Applicant states the film can be any shape. (¶[0033] as-filed specification) Tubular film is a shape.
ETFE (ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene) copolymer is exemplified by Yokue which anticipates Claim 1.
Yokoe teaches multiple plasma treated fluororesins in the example including Example 7 which has a F/C ratio of 1.02 and an O/C ratio of 0.13. There are no other atoms reasonably suggested to be present in these fluororesin layers and, therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the total of atoms on the surface is 100 atom % of F, O and C.
Therefore, the sum of the surface atoms is F + C + O = 100 and dividing through by C gives: F/C + 1 + O/C = 100/C. In Example 7 the F/C ratio is 1.02 and the O/C ratio is 0.13. Solving for C yields ~ 46.5 atom % of C and back solving for F (1.02 * 46.5 = F) F = ~47.43 atom % and O, similarly, is ~ 6.045 atom %. The above demonstrates how the ratios recited can be derived from Yokoe.
Similarly, Example 14 has an F/C ratio of 1.4 and a O/C ratio of 0.13. Using the above analysis, C = 39.53 atomic %, F = 55.33 atomic % and O = 5.13 atomic % which anticipates Claim 1.
The above 0.13 O/C (Example 14) ratio anticipates Claim 2 and Claim 3.
The Example 14 F/C ratio of 1.4 anticipates Claim 1 and Claim 4.
Yokue is silent on the CIE color space values of Claims 7-9, however, every one of Applicant’s example which have the F/C ratios of as indicated above, or in the range of Claims 4-Claim 6, and O/C ratios in the range above have the recited CIE values. Therefore, when tested accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested the plies of Yokue, in particular that of Example 7 and/or Example 14, of Yokue, must have the recited CIE values. This anticipates Claim 7, Claim 8 and Claim 9.
With respect to Claim 10, Yokue teaches adhesion at least 1.2 N/mm (Abstract) and the claimed range is 4.0 N /19 mm or more (which is 0.21 N/mm or more). The testing condition as not detailed as recited, however, as the adhesion value is well beyond the claimed limitation, the fluororesin layers (plies) have the recited F, O and C atom % and are plasma treated similar to Applicant’s plasma treating, one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably suggested when tested appropriately, in particular Example 7 and Example 14, the adhesion under the recited test conditions must be within the recited range. This anticipates Claim 10.
Ply thickness exemplified is 0.25 mm = 250 microns which anticipates Claim 12.
In Column 9 lines 45-55, Yokue teaches the above fluororesin plies can be applied to rubber sheaths molded from a variety of rubbers or thermoplastic. The molded outer plies of rubber or thermoplastic rubber material are sufficiently specific to anticipate the fluororesin being a film or coating on the surface of a molded rubber of Claim 13 and Claim 14’s molded body (Yokue’s fuel hose assembly molded body). See also extrusion molding taught by Yokue for the thermoplastic or rubber ply taught in Column 3 lines 60-65.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 15 and Claim 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoe (U.S. 5,718,957).
Yokoe is applied as above under §102.
In Example 14, Yokoe reads over the fluororesin recited by Claim 15 but for the O/C limitation of 0.08 or less.
Yokoe teaches the O/C is not less than 0.08. (See Abstract and Column 3 lines 24-55)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to practice the invention of Yokoe, in particular that of Example 14, such that the O/C ratio after surface treatment is not less than 0.08. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose O/C of 0.08 for the above modification in order to drive the O/C ratio as low as possible in practicing Yokoe. O/C of 0.08 reads over the range of 0.08 or less recited by Claim 15.
There is no evidence to suggest 0.08 O/C is has significantly different properties than the O/C in the vicinity which Yokoe already teaches.
A prima facie case of obviousness is established when a claimed narrow range is within a broad prior art range or partially overlaps or touches the broad range. In Re Harris, 409 F.3d at 1341; In Re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1329-30
As above in the §102, ETFE (ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene) copolymer is exemplified by Yokue which reads over Claim 11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s claim amendments and remarks filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but are not sufficient to move the application to allowance. Applicant has placed narrow range of F/C ratio into Claim 1 and Claim 4 than previously recited and made Claim 11 dependent on new Claim 15. The grounds of rejection have been modified to address these changes. This was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s remarks filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Yokoe is improperly applied because the claimed ratios are not permitted by the plys Applicant argues are required by Yokoe. This argument is not persuasive. The rejection is specifically directed to Example 14’s plys which are not comparative. Example 14 is considered inventive and, therefore, cannot be considered to compromise the principle of Yokoe. Therefore, Applicant’s remarks to mischaracterize the broader disclosure of Yokoe are not persuasive. Yokoe teaches in Column 3 lines 24-55 layers in which the F/C ratio ois between 0.8 and 1.8 and also O/C is not less than 0.08. This undermines Applicant’s characterization of the reference and their remarks to the rejection compromising the principle of Yokoe. Furthermore, Applicant has not even addressed Example 14 in their remarks.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new 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 CHRISTOPHER M RODD whose telephone number is (571)270-1299. The examiner can normally be reached 7 am - 3:30 pm (Pacific).
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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571) 272-1302. 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.
/Christopher M Rodd/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766