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 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would not find it obvious to modify Schramowski with Sato, the cooling line of Schramowski and the fuel line of Sato are not "significantly different' uses as alleged to a degree that it would not be obvious to apply the teachings of one to the other. It has been held the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). While Schramowski is an air conditioning tube and Sato is a fuel tube, both pass through the engine bay and are subject to the high temperatures within, and both would benefit from flame resistance.
Applicant argues the tube of Schramowski is heat resistant across a wide range of temperatures and thus there would be no reason to add the foamed layer of Sato. However, outer layer 14 of Sato features flame resistance, which is different than heat resistance and is not disclosed by Schramowski, thus there would be a benefit and reason to modify Schramowski in view of Sato and add the flame resistant layer of Sato to Schramowski. Additionally, the criteria for analogous arts is not whether the references are analogous to one another, but to the claimed invention. The claimed invention is merely "a multi-layer tube", with no specific use claimed.
Applicant argues Schramowski is seeking weight and cost reduction, and the additional layer of Sato would counter that objective. However, Schramowski does not disclose weight reduction as a goal of its disclosed invention, and even if the Sato modification increased the cost of manufacture, "A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Applicant argues there is no need for such heat resistance to be added to the tube of Schramowski as Schramowski would only be concerned about tube integrity and the temperature of the contents within. However, since the tube carries cooling media to control the temperature of a motor vehicle, changes in media temperature from unwanted heat sources such as through the tube wall affects the performance of the cooling system, and thus Schramowski would be concerned about the temperature of the tube’s contents. Additionally, [0011] of Schramowski states the cooling medium can be an alcohol/water mix or glycol/water mix, both of which can become unstable under extreme temperatures.
Applicant argues diameter differences between Schramowski and Sato, however one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to adjust the sizes, since 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).
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 1,3-7, 9-13, 15, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramowski (US 20210278019 A1) in view of Sato (US 20060174961 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Schramowski discloses a multi-layer tube comprising:
an inner layer comprising a layer of thermoplastic elastomer or polypropylene; (paragraph 0036 states that layers 8 and 6 can be swapped making the layer order 7,4,5,8,6. This makes layer 6, comprising a thermoplastic elastomer, the inner layer, Schramowski)
at least one intermediate layer comprising a polyamide, polyolefin, a thermoplastic elastomer or an adhesive; (fig 1, paragraph 0039, intermediate layer 5 is adhesion promoting, Schramowski).
Schramowski does not disclose an outer layer comprising a cellular polymeric structure in a thermoplastic elastomer. However, Sato discloses an outer layer comprising a cellular polymeric structure (fig 1, paragraph 0023, outer layer 14 is made of foam thermoplastic elastomer, which is cellular, and is of the same structure as the claimed invention, Sato.) Sato describes a heat resistant fuel pipe, a field closely related to Schramowski, as well as the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in that art at time of filing to have incorporated the features of Sato into Schramowski and added layers 14 and 12 of foamed material to be the outermost layers of the pipe. The flame resistant foamed layer 14 prevents the ignition of the heat resistant protective layer 12, and considering they work together, both should be added to achieve the intended effect (paragraph 0023, Sato). The added heat resistance would prevent pipe ignition and failure pipe performance when experiencing the high temperature environment of a motorized vehicle.
With the modification, the outer layer becomes layer 14 of Sato, the inner layer becomes layer 6 of Schramowski, and layers 12 of Sato and 7,4,5,8 of Schramowski are the intermediate layers that satisfy the claimed limitations. Alternatively, any number of adjacent layers within 12,7,4,5,8 can be grouped together and collectively called an intermediate layer, with the numbered layers being layers within an intermediate layer. Therefore in the rejection of claim 11 the intermediate layer is layer 7, in the rejection of claim 12 the intermediate layer is layer 8, and in the rejection of claim 13 the intermediate layer is layer 12.
Regarding claim 3, Schramowski in view of Sato discloses the multi-layer tube of claim 1 wherein the at least one intermediate layer comprises
a polypropylene layer adjacent to said inner layer (paragraphs 0036, 0040, 0041, intermediate polypropylene layer 8 is adjacent to inner layer 6, Schramowski),
an adhesive layer on top of said polypropylene layer (fig 1, paragraphs 0036 and 0039, intermediate adhesive layer 5 is on top of polypropylene layer 8, Schramowski)
and a polyamide layer on top of said adhesive layer. (fig 1, paragraphs 0036 and 0038 intermediate polyamide layer 4 is on top of adhesive layer 5, Schramowski.)
Regarding claim 4, Schramowski in view of Sato discloses the multi-layer tube of claim 1 wherein said at least one intermediate layer comprises a high-density polyethylene or polypropylene layer adjacent to said inner layer and a layer of thermoplastic elastomer on top of said high density polyethylene or polypropylene layer. (fig 1, paragraphs 0036, polypropylene layer 8 is adjacent to inner layer 6, Schramowski. Considering layers 12 and 14 of Sato are added to the exterior of Schramowski during the modification, the thermoplastic elastomer layer 12, paragraph 0023, is on top of polypropylene layer 8, Sato )
Regarding claim 5, Schramowski in view of Sato discloses the multi-layer tube of claim 1 further comprising an adhesive layer between the intermediate layer and the outer layer. (fig 1, paragraphs 0036 and 0039, Schramowski, and fig 1, paragraph 0023, Sato; adhesive layer 5 of Schramowski is between intermediate layer 8 of Schramowski and outer layer 14 of Sato.)
Regarding claim 6, Schramowski in view of Sato discloses the multi-layer tube of claim 1 wherein said adhesive layer is a polypropylene based adhesive. (fig 1, paragraphs 0036 and 0039, adhesive layer 5 is based on polypropylene, Schramowski.)
Regarding claim 7, Schramowski in view of Sato discloses the multi-layer tube of claim 1 wherein the outer layer is an insulation layer. (paragraph 0023, outer layer 14 is heat resistant, and insulates the tube from heat of the engine, Sato.)
Regarding claim 9, Schramowski in view of Sato discloses the multi-layer tube of claim 1 wherein said inner layer comprises a thermoplastic vulcanizate. (paragraphs 0036 and 0040, inner layer 6 consists of a thermoplastic vulcanizate, Schramowski).
Regarding claim 10, Schramowski in view of Sato discloses the multi-layer tube of claim 1 wherein a layer of thermoplastic vulcanizate is under said outer layer. (fig 1, thermoplastic vulcanizate layer 6 of Schramowski is the innermost layer, so it must be under the outer layer 14 of Sato.)
Regarding claim 11, Schramowski in view of Sato discloses the multi-layer tube of claim 3 wherein said polyamide comprises a PA612 nylon. (Fig 1, paragraph 0038 of Schramowski state layer 7 comprises nylon 612, which is the same material as PA612 nylon. Layer 7 of Schramowski is an intermediate layer as layers 12 and 14 of Sato are added over it.)
Regarding claim 12, Schramowski in view of Sato discloses the multi-layer tube of claim 1 wherein said polyolefin comprises polypropylene or high-density polyethylene. (paragraphs 0036, 0040, intermediate layer 8 comprises polypropylene, which is a polyolefin, Schramowski),
Regarding claim 13, Schramowski in view of Sato discloses the multi-layer tube of claim 1 wherein at least one layer within said at least one intermediate layer has been foamed by introduction of a blowing agent or microcellular materials into said at least one intermediate layer. (fig 1, paragraph 0023, intermediate layer 12 is foamed thermoplastic elastomer, which discloses the same structure achieved by the introduction of a blowing agent, Sato)
Regarding claim 15, Schramowski in view of Sato discloses the multi-layer tube of claim 13 wherein said at least one intermediate layer comprises a cellular polymeric. (fig 1, paragraph 0023, intermediate layer 12 is foamed thermoplastic elastomer, which is a cellular polymeric on the basis of being cellular in structure due to the foaming process and a polymer in composition from the thermoplastic elastomer, Sato).
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramowski (US 20210278019 A1) in view of Sato (US 20060174961 A1) in further view of Coran (US 4130535 A).
Regarding claim 2, Schramowski in view of Sato does not disclose the thermoplastic elastomer in said inner layer or said outer layer comprising a foamed thermoplastic vulcanizate.
However, Coran discloses blending thermoplastic elastomer with polyolefin resin to form thermoplastic vulcanizates (col 1, lines 50-57, Coran). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before time of filing to have incorporated the features of Coran into Schramowski in view of Sato and manufacture the foamed layers 12 and 14 of Sato using thermoplastic vulcanizates instead of thermoplastic elastomers. The modified material is still thermoplastic while fully cured, (col 1, lines 57-62, Coran), improving ease of manufacture. The material also has improved physical properties compared to uncured thermoplastic elastomer (col 1, lines 50-57, Coran), which improves the durability of the pipe.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schramowski (US 20210278019 A1) in view of Sato (US 20060174961 A1) in further view of Jacob (US 20070083007 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Schramowski in view of Sato discloses the multi-layer tube of claim 9 wherein said inner layer comprises a thermoplastic vulcanizate (paragraphs 0036 and 0040, inner layer 6 consists of a thermoplastic vulcanizate, Schramowski), but does not disclose the inner layer thermoplastic vulcanizate to be foamed.
However, Jacob discloses foamed thermoplastic vulcanizate (abstract, Jacob). Jacob describes a method to create foamed thermoplastic vulcanizate, a field closely related to Schramowski, Sato, and the claimed invention. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before time of filing to have incorporated the features of Jacob into Schramowski in view of Sato and foam the thermoplastic vulcanizate layer 6 of Schramowski. The foamed thermoplastic vulcanizates have improved low water absorption, compression set, and compression load deflection (paragraph 0012, Jacob), all benefits that would be added to the fuel pipe of Schramowski.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cleveland (US 20050170117 A1) and Yodogawa (US 20180312679 A1) discloses tubes with foamed thermoplastic vulcanizate outer layers.
Thomas (US 20180372260 A1) discloses a hose with inner foamed thermoplastic vulcanizate layer.
Pilone (US 20210364106 A1) discloses a pipe with foamed thermoplastic vulcanizate intermediate layer.
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