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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono (JP 2010265991 A), in view of Cox (GB 2138917 A) and Clements (US 20160123503 A1), hereafter known as Ono, Cox, and Clements respectively, in further view of either De-Zhan’s article “Lignosulfonate as reinforcement in polyvinyl alcohol film: Mechanical properties and interaction analysis, hereafter known as De-Zhan, or alternatively Fong’s article “The Impact of Plasticizer and Degree of Hydrolysis on Free Volume of Poly(vinyl alcohol) Films”, hereafter known Fong.
Regarding claim 1 Ono discloses marine hose (paragraph 0002, Ono), comprising:
an inner reinforcing layer group (paragraph 0002, Ono), a release layer (paragraph 0021, fig 3b release layer 11, Ono), and an outer reinforcing layer group layered in order from an inner circumferential side between an inner surface rubber layer and a cover layer (fig 3b, outer reinforcing layer group 12-5 is in order from inner rubber layer 12 to outer cover layer 5, Ono);
a communication pipe extending to a hose longitudinal end portion (not disclosed) and configured to communicate with a gap to be formed between the inner reinforcing layer group and the release layer (paragraph 0020, fig 3b, gap 14 forms between inner and outer layer groups and extends to leak detector 3 at one longitudinal end portion of hose 1, Ono.);
and a leak detector connected to the communication pipe at the hose longitudinal end portion and disposed on a hose surface (fig 1, paragraph 0020, leak detector 3, Ono);
the release layer (paragraph 0020, fig 3b, layer 11 releases upon breaking of inner layers, Ono) being composed mainly of PVA and having a water dissolution temperature of 50°C or higher (not disclosed, layer 11 of Ono is polyethylene).
Ono does not disclose a communication pipe. However, Cox teaches a communication pipe extending to a hose longitudinal end portion configured to communicate with a gap to be formed between the inner reinforcing layer group and the release layer (fig 1, page 1 lines 88-94, fluid leaks from carcass 1 and is retained by carcass 2 and then in to tube 9, thus a gap must form between the two carcasses that communicates with tube 9, Cox). Cox describes a flexible double carcass hose with leak detection, a field closely related to the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a time of file to incorporate the teachings of Cox into Ono and add use tube 9 of Cox to guide the fluid between the carcasses of Ono to leak detector 3 of Ono. The tube provides a direct path to the leak detector, allowing leaks to be noticed more quickly.
Ono in view of Cox does not disclose the release layer being comprised mainly of PVA. However, Clements teaches a release layer comprised of PVA (fig 3, sacrificial layer 310; para 0036 and 0045, sacrificial layer can be made of PVA; paragraphs 0124 and 0126, sacrificial layer can be dissolved by water breaching the outer sheath, Clements). Clements describes a polyvinyl alcohol release layer that is used in offshore oil pipes, a field closely related to Ono, Cox, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a time of file to incorporate the teachings of Clements into Ono in view of Cox and make the release layer 11 of Ono in view of Cox out of PVA. In addition to serving as the release layer, the PVA layer of Clements can contain a dye that is released into the water to locate the breach (para 0126, Clements).
Ono in view of Cox and Clements does not disclose the specifications of the PVA layer, such as its water dissolution temperature. However, De-Zhan teaches a PVA film that was created by dissolving PVA within water at 95 C (page 210, section 2.2, De-Zhan). De-Zhan is an article about improvements for PVA film layers, a field related to Ono, Cox, Clements, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a time of file to incorporate the teachings of De-Zhan into Ono in view of Cox and Clements and build the PVA film with the 5% eucalyptus lignosulfonate calcium (HLS) particles and 95% pure PVA film of De-Zhan. The addition of 5% HLS particles results in significantly increased tensile strength of the PVA film with only a slight decrease in elongation at break (fig 7, page 214, section 3.6, De-Zhan), improving the durability of the release layer.
Alternatively, Fong teaches a PVA film that was created by dissolving PVA within water at 75 C (page 3, section 2.2, PVA was dissolved in water heated to 75 degrees C, Fong). Fong is an article about PVA film layers, a field related to Ono, Cox, Clements, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art a time of file to incorporate the teachings of Fong into Ono in view of Cox and Clements and make the PVA layer of Ono in view of Cox and Clements have a dissolution temperature of 75 degrees C. Adjusting the dissolution temperature of PVA in water is very well known in the art, and the higher water dissolution time prevents premature dissolving of the PVA layer before a possible breach.
Regarding claim 2, Ono in view of Cox, Clements, and De-Zhan discloses the claimed invention except for the release layer has a layer thickness of 20 μm to 40 μm inclusive. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the layer thickness to be within the claimed range, 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).
Regarding claim 3, Ono in view of Cox, Clements, and De-Zhan discloses the marine hose according to claim 1, wherein the release layer has an elongation at break of 150% to 400% inclusive (page 214, section 3.6, De-Zhan, the elongation at break of the PVA is 202.7%)
Regarding claim 4 Ono in view of Cox, Clements, and De-Zhan discloses the marine hose according to claim 1,wherein the release layer has a tensile strength of 25 MPa to 80 MPa inclusive (page 214, section 3.6, De-Zhan, the tensile strength of the PVA is 68.7 MPa.)
Regarding claim 5, Ono in view of Cox, Clements, and De-Zhan discloses the marine hose according to claim 2, wherein the release layer has an elongation at break of 150% to 400% inclusive (page 214, section 3.6, De-Zhan, the elongation at break of the PVA is 202.7%).
Regarding claim 6, Ono in view of Cox, Clements, and De-Zhan discloses the marine hose according to claim 2, wherein the release layer has a tensile strength of 25 MPa to 80 MPa inclusive (page 214, section 3.6, De-Zhan, the tensile strength of the PVA is 68.7 MPa.)
Regarding claim 7, Ono in view of Cox, Clements, and De-Zhan discloses the marine hose according to claim 3, wherein the release layer has a tensile strength of 25 MPa to 80 MPa inclusive. (page 214, section 3.6, De-Zhan, the tensile strength of the PVA is 68.7 MPa.)
Regarding claim 8, Ono in view of Cox, Clements, and Fong discloses the marine hose according to claim 1, wherein the release layer has a water dissolution temperature of 80 C or less (page 3, section 2.2, PVA was dissolved in water heated to 75 degrees C, Fong).
Regarding claim 9 Ono in view of Cox, Clements, and De-Zhan discloses the marine hose according to claim 1, wherein the water dissolution temperature is grasped by putting a PVA film test piece having a size of 10 mm x 10 mm x 30 pm thick into 500 mL of water at different temperatures at intervals of 5°C, and measuring the time required for the entire test piece to dissolve, and the highest water temperature at which the entire test piece dissolves within 60 seconds is defined as the water dissolution temperature of the test piece (page 210, section 2.2, De-Zhan, the PVA of De-Zhan dissolved within water at 95 C, thus it would be reasonable that the PVA will still dissolve at above 50 degrees C using the claimed testing method.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shibutani (US 20120041118 A1) discloses a PVOH composition that can be used for tube making.
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