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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102 and §103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by Gopalan (JP 2020-513516 A), which discloses:
11. A two layer coolant fluid transport tube, comprising:
an inner polyolefin further including a polypropylene layer (18; e.g., para. 0077, claim 9, 16, 17; para. 0025) incorporating a Graphene or Graphene derivative (para. 0071); and
an outer layer containing a thermoplastic vulcanizate (14; claims 8, 9, 16, 17, para. 0025).
12. The coolant tube of claim 11, said polypropylene of said inner polyolefin layer further comprising a heterophasic polypropylene copolymer (the silane-crosslinked polyolefin elastomer can be heterophasic and comprise a primary PP and a cross-linked EPDM; see para. 0034-0055).
Regarding claim 16, the disclosed graphene (para. 0071) is seen to further comprise a Graphene, as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Gopalan discloses the coolant tube of claim 11, said outer thermoplastic vulcanizate layer further comprising a polypropylene as a primary phase and an elastomeric secondary phase (para. 0033-0055).
Regarding claim 18, Gopalan discloses the coolant tube of claim 17, said elastomeric secondary phase further comprising a cross-linked ethylene propylene diene monomer (e.g., para. 0033).
Regarding claim 19, the limitation is being given limited patentable weight because it is directed to a product-by-process limitation that does not result in any structural differences over the prior art.
Claim(s) 13, 15 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopalan.
Regarding claim 13, Gopalan discloses said heterophasic polypropylene copolymer further comprising an (taken as admitted prior art because Applicant did not traverse the prior assertion of official notice). It would have been obvious to use isotactic second phase in order to avoid the added expense of creating the syndiotactic form has to be prepared with specific catalysts (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polypropylene; https:// www. britannica.com/science/industrial-polymer#ref608635).
Regarding claim 15, the claimed composition by weight of Graphene is not disclosed, however it was well-known in the art before the effective filing date to use a composition by weight falling within the claimed range, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Graphene in the claimed composition range in order to obtain the described modulus and tear properties.
Regarding claims 20-21, the use of anhydride modified polypropylene as a middle adhesive layer was well-known in the art before the effective filing date (official notice) and it would have been obvious to use such a middle layer in Gopalan’s tube in order to better hold the distinct layers together.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation is being given limited patentable weight because it is directed to a product-by-process limitation that does not result in any structural differences over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments regarding the Brule relevant are not relevant as the pending claims are rejected over the Gopalan reference.
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 WILLIAM M MCCALISTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 7am to 6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, CRAIG SCHNEIDER, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3607, or 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/WILLIAM M MCCALISTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
5/12/25
Prosecution Insights