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 filed 10/23/2025 regarding the rejection of claims 1,5-7,13-15 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the term “in a major amount” in claim 1, the disclosure does not define the term; although one of ordinary skill in the art can choose to interpret the term as having a majority of the weight or greater than 50% by weight, the term could also be interpreted as in an amount that is large or significant, or larger than what is typically used, or the largest ingredient by weight, and thus a relative term.
Regarding the term “about” in claims 5-7, 13-15, the specification paragraph 0026 states “when the term such as "about" or "approximate" is used in conjunction with a value, the numerical range may also vary, for example by 1 %, 2%, 5%, or more” the exemplary language and range of possible interpretations from 1% to 5% or more make the term a relative term and thus indefinite.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Li (CN 201884813 U).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The phrase “in a major amount” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in a major amount” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The amount of polyvinyl chloride polymer in relation to the other components in the mixture that makes up the inner and outer layer is rendered indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution in light of applicant’s arguments filed 10/23/2025, the claim will be interpreted such that the percentage of polyvinyl chloride by weight is over 50%.
The term “about” in claims 5-7, 13-15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The percentage of nitrile rubber, as well as the intrinsic viscosity and the K-value are all rendered indefinite. For purposes of compact prosecution, the claims will be interpreted with the term removed.
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 1,2,5,8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN 201884813 U), hereafter referred to as Li, in view of Arterburn (US 4306591 A), hereafter referred to as Arterburn.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a hose for lawn and garden use (page 2 of Li acknowledges rubber and PVC tubes are commonly used in daily life, as well as their invention being an improvement for existing tubes. Daily life encompasses home and garden use. Additionally, statements of intended use are not given patentable weight.), comprising:
an inner tube having a longitudinal length and an inner surface defining a water passage between a first and a second end of the hose (fig 2, tube 1, Li),
the inner tube comprising a polymer composition comprising a first polyvinyl chloride polymer and an elastomer (page 2 Detailed Description, inner tube 1 is made of a blend of PVC and nitrile rubber, an elastomer, Li), wherein the first polyvinyl chloride polymer is present in a major amount by weight based on a total weight of the polymer composition of the inner tube (page 2 Detailed Description, inner tube 1 is made of 100 parts PVC, 10-50 parts nitrile rubber, 30-60 parts plasticizer, 3-5 parts cold resistant agent, therefore the ratio of PVC by weight ranges from 69.9% to 46.5%. 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));
a reinforcement layer bonded to an outer surface of the inner tube (fig 1, reinforcement layer 2 is bonded to outer surface of layer 1, Li), wherein the reinforcement layer comprises
i) a textile layer comprising yarns (page 3, Detailed Description, reinforcement layer can be formed out of fibers or yarns, Li) and
ii) a tie layer comprising a second polyvinyl chloride polymer different than the first polyvinyl chloride polymer (page 3, Detailed Description, reinforcing sleeve 2 is infiltrated with hot melt adhesive as a tie layer, but the material of the adhesive is not disclosed, Li));
an outer layer bonded to an outer surface of the reinforcement layer and comprising a polymer composition comprising a third polyvinyl chloride polymer and an elastomer (page 2 Detailed Description, outer tube 3 is made of a blend of PVC and nitrile rubber, an elastomer, Kozak), wherein the third polyvinyl chloride polymer is present in a major amount by weight based on a total weight of the outer layer polymer composition (page 2 Detailed Description, outer tube 3 is made of 100 parts PVC, 10-50 parts nitrile rubber, 30-60 parts plasticizer, 3-5 parts cold resistant agent, therefore the ratio of PVC by weight ranges from 69.9% to 46.5%. 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)), wherein the third polyvinyl chloride polymer is different than the second polyvinyl chloride polymer (not disclosed, although the PVC of the outer layer would be the same as the PVC of the inner layer, Li); and
i) wherein the second polyvinyl chloride polymer of the reinforcement layer has an intrinsic viscosity less than the intrinsic viscosity of the first polyvinyl chloride polymer and the third polyvinyl chloride polymer (not disclosed), or
ii) wherein the first polyvinyl chloride polymer and the third polyvinyl chloride polymer have a K-value greater than the second polyvinyl chloride polymer (not disclosed), or
iii) wherein the inner tube and the outer layer each have a hardness less than the hardness of the tie layer (not disclosed) or
iv) any combination thereof.
Li does not disclose the tie layer comprising a second polyvinyl chloride, the second polyvinyl chloride being different from the first and third polyvinyl chlorides, nor the inner and outer tubes having a hardness less than the hardness of the tie layer. However, Arterburn teaches using a tie layer of Geon (col 3, lines 61-64, Arterburn), which is polyvinyl chloride emulsified in water (Geon is a trademark name for an emulsion of polyvinyl chloride in water, as per NOAA’s page “Cameo Chemicals”) to adhere reinforcement fibers to polyvinyl chloride or rubber tubes (fig 1, adhesive layers 14 and 18, col 2, lines 31-45 describe the layer of adhesive between reinforcement layer and the inner tube, col 2 line 67- col 3 line 5 describe an additional layer of adhesive between the reinforcement layer and outer tube if needed, Arterburn). Arterburn describes a PVC water hose with fiber reinforcements, a field closely related to Li and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time to filing to incorporate the teachings of Arterburn in to Li and replace the reinforcement and hot melt adhesive layer of Li with the reinforcement and adhesive layer of Arterburn. The adhesive of Arterburn increases the stiffness of the hose to forces that reduce its internal diameter (col 3 lines 13-26), making the hose of Li in view of Arterburn more reliable. The polyvinyl tie layer of Geon does not contain plasticizers nor are mixed with nitrile rubber like the inner and outer layers and thus the inner and outer layers are naturally softer than the tie layer. Additionally, the polyvinyl chloride of the tie layer (the second polyvinyl chloride) is emulsified, making it different than the extruded polyvinyl chloride of the first and third layers.
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Arterburn discloses the hose according to 1, wherein the textile layer is embedded in the tie layer (col 3, lines 6-13 Arterburn, the adhesive of Arterburn impregnates and fills the interstices of the reinforcement fibers, thus the textile layer is embedded in the tie layer), wherein the textile layer does not have direct contact with the inner tube and the outer layer (fig 1, Arterburn, the reinforcement layer is sandwiched between the adhesive layers, and does not directly contact the adjacent tubes.)
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Arterburn discloses the hose according to claim 1, wherein the inner tube elastomer comprises nitrile rubber (page 2 Detailed Description, inner tube 1 is made of a blend of PVC and nitrile rubber, an elastomer, Li), and wherein nitrile rubber is present in an amount from about 40 to less than 100 parts based on 100 parts by weight of the first polyvinyl chloride polymer. (abstract of Li, PVC and nitrile rubber are in the ratio of 100 to 10-50, 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)).
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Arterburn discloses the hose according to any of claim 1, wherein the inner tube and outer layer each comprise a plasticizer (abstract, Li), and wherein the reinforcement layer is free of an elastomer. (reinforcement layer of Li in view of Arterburn is composed of fibers, col 1 lines 25-30 of Arterburn, which is free of elastomer, and Geon adhesive, col 3, lines 61-64 of Arterburn, which is a 51% by mass emulsion of polyvinyl chloride in water, as per NOAA’s page “Cameo Chemicals”, thus also free of elastomer).
Claims 3,4,11,12,13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Arterburn, as applied to claim 1, in further view of “UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE SPECIFICATION FOR HOSE, RUBBER, HIGH PRESSURE, 3/4 INCH WATERWAY”, hereafter referred to as USDA.
Regarding claim 3, Li in view of Arterburn discloses the hose according claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a difference in length of a 25 foot length of the hose, in an unpressurized state or ambient state is less than 25% as compared to the length of the hose in a pressurized state at 80 psi, or less than 20% at 60 psi or less, or less than 15% at 50 psi or less, or less than 10% at 30 psi or less.
However, UDSA teaches a 50 ft length of hose not lengthening more than 2 percent nor shortening by more than 4 percent when pressurized to 600 psi (3.9.2 and 4.6.2.6, USDA), which would meet the claimed performance requirement. UDSA is a testing standard for fiber reinforced rubber hoses, a field related to Li, Arterburn, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time to filing to incorporate the teachings of USDA into Li in view of Arterburn and construct the hose of Li in view of Arterburn to meet the standard of USDA. Doing so yield a stronger hose, and also allow the hose of Li in view of Arterburn to be used in other applications such as firefighting.
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Arterburn and USDA discloses the hose according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein a 50 foot length of the hose pressurized with water at 72.5 psi and allowed to equilibrate for 30 minutes retracts less than 15%.
However, UDSA teaches a 50 ft length of hose not lengthening more than 2 percent nor shortening by more than 4 percent when pressurized to 600 psi (3.9.2 and 4.6.2.6, USDA), which would meet the claimed performance requirement. UDSA is a testing standard for fiber reinforced rubber hoses, a field related to Li, Arterburn, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time to filing to incorporate the teachings of USDA into Li in view of Arterburn and construct the hose of Li in view of Arterburn to meet the standard of USDA. Doing so yield a stronger hose, and also allow the hose of Li in view of Arterburn to be used in other applications such as firefighting.
Regarding claim 11, Li in view of Arterburn discloses the hose according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein a difference in length of a 25 foot length of the hose, in an unpressurized state or ambient state is less than 25% as compared to the length of the hose in a pressurized state at 80 psi, or less than 20% at 60 psi or less, or less than 15% at 50 psi or less, or less than 10% at 30 psi or less.
However, UDSA teaches a 50 ft length of hose not lengthening more than 2 percent nor shortening by more than 4 percent when pressurized to 600 psi (3.9.2 and 4.6.2.6, USDA), which would meet the claimed performance requirement. UDSA is a testing standard for fiber reinforced rubber hoses, a field related to Li, Arterburn, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time to filing to incorporate the teachings of USDA into Li in view of Arterburn and construct the hose of Li in view of Arterburn to meet the standard of USDA. Doing so yield a stronger hose, and also allow the hose of Li in view of Arterburn to be used in other applications such as firefighting.
Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Arterburn and USDA discloses the hose according to claim 11, wherein a 50 foot length of the hose pressurized with water at 72.5 psi and allowed to equilibrate for 30 minutes retracts less than 15%. (3.9.2 and 4.6.2.6, USDA, a 50 ft length of hose does not lengthen by more than 2 percent nor shorten by more than 4 percent when pressurized to 600 psi, which would meet the claimed performance requirement.)
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Arterburn and USDA discloses the hose according to claim 12, wherein the inner tube elastomer comprises nitrile rubber (page 2 Detailed Description, inner tube 1 is made of a blend of PVC and nitrile rubber, an elastomer, Li), and wherein nitrile rubber is present in an amount from about 40 to less than 100 parts based on 100 parts by weight of the first polyvinyl chloride polymer. (abstract of Li, PVC and nitrile rubber are in the ratio of 100 to 10-50, 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)).
Claims 14,15,16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Arterburn and USDA, as applied to claim 11, in further view of Universal Selector’s datasheet “PVC Resin-SG5 Technical DataSheet”, hereafter referred to as Universal Selector.
Regarding claim 14, Li in view of Arterburn and USDA discloses the hose according to claim 13, wherein the first polyvinyl chloride polymer has an intrinsic viscosity that ranges from about 0.68 to about 1.25 and a K-value that ranges from about 57 to about 78 (not disclosed), wherein the second polyvinyl chloride polymer has an intrinsic viscosity that ranges from about 0.50 to about 1.12 and a K-value that ranges from about 50 to about 73 (the Geon polyvinyl chloride has a molecular weight of 60,000 to 150,000 as per NOAA’s page “Cameo Chemicals”; this results in an intrinsic viscosity of 0.71-1.47 and K value of 58-83 when interpolated from Table 3 of “Molecular Weight and Solution Viscosity Characterization of PVC” . 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)), and wherein the third polyvinyl chloride polymer has an intrinsic viscosity that ranges from about 0.68 to about 1.25 and a K-value that ranges from about 57 to about 78 (not disclosed).
Li in view of Arterburn and USDA does not disclose intrinsic viscosity and K values for the first and third polyvinyl chlorides. However, Universal Selector discloses using PVC of K value 66-68 for making hoses (page 1, row 3, Universal Selector), which has an intrinsic viscosity of 1.07-1.18 (page 1, “Viscosity Number” row states the viscosity as 107-117ml/g, when converted to the conventional unit of dl/g, results in 1.07-1.18, Universal Selector); 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). Universal Selector is a datasheet for a type PVC used in hose manufacturing, a field related to Li, Arterburn, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time to filing to incorporate the teachings of Universal Selector into Li in view of Arterburn and USDA and construct inner and outer layers of the hose of Li in view of Arterburn and USDA out of the PVC of Universal Selector. Making a hose out of suitable PVC material is well known in the art, and would make the hose of Li in view of Arterburn, USDA, and Universal Selector more consistent and reliable.
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Arterburn, USDA, and Universal Selector discloses the hose according to claim 14, wherein
the first polyvinyl chloride polymer has an intrinsic viscosity that ranges from about 0.90 to about 1.15 and a K-value that ranges from about 67 to about 73 (page 1, “Viscosity Number” row states the viscosity as 107-117ml/g, when converted to the conventional unit of dl/g, results in 1.07-1.18; page 1, row 3, Universal Selector, K value 66-68. 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))
wherein the second polyvinyl chloride polymer has an intrinsic viscosity that ranges from about 0.60 to about 0.85 and a K-value that ranges from about 52 to about 75 (the Geon polyvinyl chloride has a molecular weight of 60,000 to 150,000 as per NOAA’s page “Cameo Chemicals”; this results in an intrinsic viscosity of 0.71-1.47 and K value of 58-83 when interpolated from Table 3 of “Molecular Weight and Solution Viscosity Characterization of PVC” 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)), and
wherein the third polyvinyl chloride polymer has an intrinsic viscosity that ranges from about 0.90 to about 1.15 and a K-value that ranges from about 67 to about 73 (page 1, “Viscosity Number” row states the viscosity as 107-117ml/g, when converted to the conventional unit of dl/g, results in 1.07-1.18; page 1, row 3, Universal Selector, K value 66-68. 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)).
Regarding claim 16, Li in view of Arterburn, USDA, and Universal Selector discloses the hose according to claim 15, wherein
the inner tube and outer layer each comprise a plasticizer (abstract, Li), and
wherein the reinforcement layer is free of an elastomer. (reinforcement layer of Li in view of Arterburn is composed of fibers, col 1 lines 25-30 of Arterburn, which is free of elastomer, and Geon adhesive, col 3, lines 61-64 of Arterburn, which is a 51% by mass emulsion of polyvinyl chloride in water, as per NOAA’s page “Cameo Chemicals”, thus also free of elastomer).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Arterburn, USDA, and Universal Selector, as applied to claim 14, in further view of in further view of Genplex’s webpage, “Custom PVC Tubing”, hereafter known as Genplex.
Regarding claim 17, Li in view of Arterburn, USDA, and Universal Selector discloses the hose according to claim 16, but does not disclose the first polyvinyl chloride polymer having a hardness that ranges from 40 to 80 Shore A, wherein the second polyvinyl chloride polymer has a hardness that ranges from 70 to 100 Shore A and the third polyvinyl chloride polymer has a hardness than ranges from 40 to 80 Shore A.
However, Genplex teaches PVC tubing with a range of hardness from 40A to 95A, shore hardness (page 1, last paragraph, Genplex). Genplex is a company that manufactures PVC tubes, a field relevant to Li, Arterburn, Universal Selector, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Genplex into Li in view of Arterburn, USDA, and Universal Selector and make the PVC Polymers have the hardness values within the range of Genplex. 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)). The claimed hardness ranges appear to be typical within the art, and building the tube with materials common and well known in the art will reduce materials cost and improve reliability.
Regarding claim 18, Li in view of Arterburn, USDA, Universal Selector, and Genplex discloses the hose according to claim 17, wherein the first polyvinyl chloride polymer has a hardness that ranges from 55 to 70 Shore A, wherein the second polyvinyl chloride polymer has a hardness that ranges from 77 to 84 Shore A and the third polyvinyl chloride polymer has a hardness that ranges from 55 to 75 Shore A. (Page 1, last paragraph, Genplex teaches PVC tubing with a range of shore hardness from 40A to 95A. 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)).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Arterburn, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Universal Selector.
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Arterburn discloses the hose according to claim 1,
wherein the first polyvinyl chloride polymer has an intrinsic viscosity that ranges from about 0.68 to about 1.25 and a K-value that ranges from about 57 to about 78 (not disclosed),
wherein the second polyvinyl chloride polymer has an intrinsic viscosity that ranges from about 0.50 to about 1.12 and a K-value that ranges from about 50 to about 73 (the Geon polyvinyl chloride has a molecular weight of 60,000 to 150,000 as per NOAA’s page “Cameo Chemicals”; this results in an intrinsic viscosity of 0.71-1.47 and K value of 58-83 when interpolated from Table 3 of “Molecular Weight and Solution Viscosity Characterization of PVC” 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)), and
wherein the third polyvinyl chloride polymer has an intrinsic viscosity that ranges from about 0.68 to about 1.25 and a K-value that ranges from about 57 to about 78 (not disclosed).
Li in view of Arterburn does not disclose intrinsic viscosity and K values for the first and third polyvinyl chlorides. However, Universal Selector discloses using PVC of K value 66-68 for making hoses (page 1, row 3, Universal Selector), which has an intrinsic viscosity of 1.07-1.18 (page 1, “Viscosity Number” row states the viscosity as 107-117ml/g, when converted to the conventional unit of dl/g, results in 1.07-1.18, Universal Selector); 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). Universal Selector is a datasheet for a type PVC used in hose manufacturing, a field related to Li, Arterburn, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time to filing to incorporate the teachings of Universal Selector into Li in view of Arterburn and construct inner and outer layers of the hose of Li in view of Arterburn out of the PVC of Universal Selector. Making a hose out of suitable PVC material is well known in the art, and would make the hose of Li in view of Arterburn and Universal Selector more consistent and reliable.
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Arterburn discloses the hose according to claim 1,
wherein the first polyvinyl chloride polymer has an intrinsic viscosity that ranges from about 0.90 to about 1.15 and a K-value that ranges from about 67 to about 73 (not disclosed),
wherein the second polyvinyl chloride polymer has an intrinsic viscosity that ranges from about 0.60 to about 0.85 and a K-value that ranges from about 52 to about 75 (the Geon polyvinyl chloride has a molecular weight of 60,000 to 150,000 as per NOAA’s page “Cameo Chemicals”; this results in an intrinsic viscosity of 0.71-1.47 and K value of 58-83 when interpolated from Table 3 of “Molecular Weight and Solution Viscosity Characterization of PVC” 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)), and
wherein the third polyvinyl chloride polymer has an intrinsic viscosity that ranges from about 0.90 to about 1.15 and a K-value that ranges from about 67 to about 73 (not disclosed).
Li in view of Arterburn does not disclose intrinsic viscosity and K values for the first and third polyvinyl chlorides. However, Universal Selector discloses using PVC of K value 66-68 for making hoses (page 1, row 3, Universal Selector), which has an intrinsic viscosity of 1.07-1.18 (page 1, “Viscosity Number” row states the viscosity as 107-117ml/g, when converted to the conventional unit of dl/g, results in 1.07-1.18, Universal Selector); 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). Universal Selector is a datasheet for a type PVC used in hose manufacturing, a field related to Li, Arterburn, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time to filing to incorporate the teachings of Universal Selector into Li in view of Arterburn and construct inner and outer layers of the hose of Li in view of Arterburn out of the PVC of Universal Selector. Making a hose out of suitable PVC material is well known in the art, and would make the hose of Li in view of Arterburn and Universal Selector more consistent and reliable.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li, in view of Arterburn, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Genplex.
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Arterburn discloses the hose according to claim 1, but does not disclose the first polyvinyl chloride polymer having a hardness that ranges from 40 to 80 Shore A, wherein the second polyvinyl chloride polymer has a hardness that ranges from 70 to 100 Shore A and the third polyvinyl chloride polymer has a hardness than ranges from 40 to 80 Shore A. However, Genplex teaches PVC tubing with a range of hardness from 40A to 95A, shore hardness (page 1, last paragraph, Genplex). Genplex is a company that manufactures PVC tubes, a field relevant to Li, Arterburn, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Genplex into Li in view of Arterburn and make the PVC Polymers have the hardness values within the range of Genplex. 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)). The claimed hardness ranges appear to be typical within the art, and building the tube with materials common and well known in the art will reduce materials cost and improve reliability.
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Arterburn discloses the hose according to claim 1, but does not disclose the first polyvinyl chloride polymer has a hardness that ranges from 55 to 70 Shore A, wherein the second polyvinyl chloride polymer has a hardness that ranges from 77 to 84 Shore A and the third polyvinyl chloride polymer has a hardness that ranges from 55 to 75 Shore A. However, Genplex teaches PVC tubing with a range of hardness from 40A to 95A, shore hardness (page 1, last paragraph, Genplex). Genplex is a company that manufactures PVC tubes, a field relevant to Li, Arterburn, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to incorporate the teachings of Genplex into Li in view of Arterburn and make the PVC Polymers have the hardness values within the range of Genplex. 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)). The claimed hardness ranges appear to be typical within the art, and building the tube with materials common and well known in the art will reduce materials cost and improve reliability.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Arterburn, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Seebold (US 20120145275 A1), hereafter known as Seebold.
Regarding claim 19, Li in view of Arterburn discloses a method for producing the hose according to claim 1, comprising the steps of:
coextruding the inner tube and a first layer of the tie layer, wherein the first layer of the tie layer is present on an outer surface of the inner tube (page 1 and 2, Detailed Description, Li, inner tube 1 is extruded, but adhesive tie layer 14 of Arterburn is not co-extruded, although Arterburn allows for alternate methods of application);
weaving the textile layer on the first layer of the tie layer (fig 2 and col 2 lines 20-30 Arterburn, the reinforcement fibers can be knitted (a type of weaving) onto layer of adhesive 14 (first layer of tie layer)); and
coextruding a second layer of the tie layer onto the textile layer (not disclosed, second adhesive layer is added through dip applicator 42, fig 2, Arterburn, although Arterburn allows for alternate methods of application) and the outer layer onto the second layer of the tie layer to form the hose (page 1 and 2, Detailed Description, Li, outer layer 3 is coextruded onto the reinforcing layer, which in the case of Li in view of Arterburn is the outer adhesive layer).
Li in view of Arterburn does not disclose coextruded adhesive layers. However, Seebold teaches coextruding adhesive layers (para 0054, Seebold). Seebold describes an extruded reinforced rubber hose, a field closely related to Li, Arterburn, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time to filing to incorporate the teachings of Seebold into Li in view of Arterburn and coextrude the adhesive layers of Arterburn instead of dipping them. The method of co-extrusion is well known in the art, and the outer layer of Li in view of Arterburn is co-extruded as well. Co-extruding the first and second adhesive layers will save a manufacturing step, shortening the processing time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ball (US 3913624 A) discloses reinforced hose where the reinforcement fibers do not touch the inner and outer tubes.
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