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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment/Arguments
Claims 1-12, 14-20, and 22-25 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. Claims 24-25 are added.
Applicant's amendments and arguments, and the Rule 1.132 Declaration by Dr. John Campanelli with respect to the rejection of present claims 1-2, 4-17 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sbriglia (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0212612) in view of Chudzlinkski et al. (U.S. 6,837,890; “Chudzlinkski”) have been fully considered, and are persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly discovered references, as discussed in details below in the body of the rejection below.
Any rejections and/or objections, made in the previous Office Action, and not repeated in the present Office Action, are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-12, 14-17 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachariades (U.S. 4,655,769) in view of Smith et al. (U.S. 8,003,752; “Smith”).
Regarding Claim 1 and claims 6-7, Zachariades teaches a tube (col. 1, lines 11-30, Fig. 3, suitable for forming into tube, col. 10, lines 23-30) comprising Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) (col., 9, lines 31-35, col. 10, lines 23-30, Fig. 3, the tube 48 is of UHMWPE). Zachariades teaches its UHMWPE tube is unstretched (col., 9, lines 31-35, col. 10, lines 23-30, Fig. 3, and see the method of making the tube/tubular profile of Zachariades in claim 15 of Zachariades on col. 12 of Zachariades, which process does not include or suggest that any process step of stretching is required, and thus meeting the claimed limitations of being unstretched).
PNG
media_image1.png
244
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Zachariades teaches a tube of Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) (col., 9, lines 31-35, col. 10, lines 23-30, Fig. 3) and is considered as meeting the claimed limitations.
The transitional phrase “consisting essentially of” of claim 1 limits the scope of a claim to the specified materials or steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novel characteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising”. MPEP 2111.03 (III). Thus, In the present case, the Examiner treated the “consisting essentially of” language as an equivalent to “comprising” and rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C 102. If an applicant contends that additional steps or materials in the prior art are excluded by the recitation of ‘consisting essentially of, applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or components would materially change the characteristics of Applicant's invention.
Further, the instant claim 1 recites “…optionally, one or more particulate fillers and/or one or more additional polymer materials and/or one or more additives selected from antioxidants, antimicrobials, processing aids, slip aids, and colorants…”. In the present case, the examiner considers the instant claim 1 does not require the presence of any of those optional elements.
Zachariades does not specifically teach the average wall thickness of its tube as instantly claimed. However, Zachariades teaches the wall thickness of its tube is a result effective variable and can be adjustable as desired (col., 9, lines 39-41, see claims 15, 19, 27, 31 of Zachariades).
Absent a showing of criticality with respect to the wall thickness of its tube (a result effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the wall thickness of its tube through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired properties (i.e., durability, flexibility, stiffness, etc.) of the tube once produced, which would have arrived at a workable average wall thickness of its tube that falls within the broad ranges as instantly claimed, i.e., 0.2 mm or less as in claim 1, 0.1 mm or less as in claim 6, or 0.005 mm to 0.1 mm as in claim 7. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). MPEP 2144.05.
Modified Zachariades does not specifically teach the tensile stress at break of its tube as instantly claimed.
In the same field of UHMWPE resin and articles made by UHMWPE resin, Smith teaches articles/products made by its UHMWPE resins having increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress (abstract, col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15). Smith teaches its UHMWPE resins is suitable for making various articles/products including tube, hollow component, pipe, vessel, etc. (col. 10, lines 30-65). Smith teaches the method of making articles/products of UHMWPE resins and the method does not require or suggest any stretching process. Smith teaches articles/products made by its UHMWPE resins having tensile stress at break of at least 40 MPa, or at least 60 MPa (col. 10, lines 19-22), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range of greater than 40 MPa. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified Zachariades in view the teachings of Smith, to select and use the UHMWPE resin taught by Smith, to provide a tube with increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress as taught by Smith (col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) tube that is the same as instantly claimed, as in claims 1 and 6-7. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 2, it should be noted that the recitation of “the UHMWPE tube is prepared via extrusion of a billet comprising lubricant and UHMWPE resin through an annular die…” of claim 2 is considered as product-by-process limitations. It is the examiner’s position that the recited process does not result in a patentably distinctive structural difference in the resultant tube. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) . Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. In the present case, it is noted Sbriglia teaches using extrusion process (para [0033]).
Regarding Claims 4-5, it should be noted that the recitation of “the UHMWPE tube is prepared via extrusion over a metallic or non-metallic wire or mandrel” of claims 4-5 is considered as product-by-process limitations. It is the examiner’s position that the recited process does not result in a patentably distinctive structural difference in the resultant tube. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. [E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”, In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Further, “although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product”, In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218 USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir.1983). See MPEP 2113. In the present case, it is noted Sbriglia teaches using extrusion process (para [0033]).
Regarding Claim 8, Zachariades teaches a tube of Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) (col., 9, lines 31-35, col. 10, lines 23-30, Fig. 3).
Because the UHMWPE tube of the modified Zachariades and the instantly claimed UHMWPE tube are identical or substantially identical in composition and have the same or similar tube thickness (as discussed above), one would expect that the UHMWPE tube of modified Zachariades would possess the same or similar properties as that of the instantly claimed tube, such as having a change in storage modulus in the range as instantly claimed. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. 01. Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding Claims 9-12, Zachariades teaches a tube of Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) (col., 9, lines 31-35, col. 10, lines 23-30, Fig. 3).
Because the UHMWPE tube of the modified Zachariades and the instantly claimed UHMWPE tube are identical or substantially identical in composition and have the same or similar tube thickness (as discussed above), one would expect that the UHMWPE tube of modified Zachariades would possess the same or similar properties as that of the instantly claimed tube, such as of having coefficient of friction of the inner surface of the tube as instantly claimed in claims 9-12. "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. See MPEP 2112. 01. Once a reference teaching product appearing to be substantially identical is made the basis of a rejection, and the examiner presents evidence or reasoning tending to show inherency, the burden shifts to the applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2112.
Regarding Claims 14-15, the claimed filler amount includes 0%. Zachariades teaches a tube of Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) (col., 9, lines 31-35, col. 10, lines 23-30, Fig. 3) and is considered as meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Zachariades teaches a tube of the UHMWPE resin (taught by Smith), as discussed above in rejection to claim 1. Smith teaches its UHMWPE resins is suitable for making various articles/products including tube, hollow component, pipe, vessel, etc. (col. 10, lines 30-65). Smith teaches articles/products made by its UHMWPE resins having increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress (abstract, col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15). Smith teaches its UHMWPE resins includes suitable additives including suitable fillers, lubricant/processing aids (col. 9, lines 55-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified Zachariades in view the teachings of Smith, to select and use the UHMWPE resin with the suitable fillers taught by Smith, to provide a tube with increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress as taught by Smith (col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) tube that is the same as instantly claimed. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 17, modified Zachariades teaches a tube of the UHMWPE resin (taught by Smith), as discussed above in rejection to claim 1. Smith teaches its UHMWPE resins is suitable for making various articles/products including tube, hollow component, pipe, vessel, etc. (col. 10, lines 30-65). Smith teaches articles/products made by its UHMWPE resins having increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress (abstract, col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15). Smith teaches its UHMWPE resins includes suitable additives including suitable fillers, colorant, and lubricant/processing aids (col. 9, lines 55-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified Zachariades in view the teachings of Smith, to select and use the UHMWPE resin with the suitable lubricant/processing aids taught by Smith, to provide a tube with increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress as taught by Smith (col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) tube that is the same as instantly claimed. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 23, modified Zachariades teaches a tube of the UHMWPE resin (taught by Smith), as discussed above in rejection to claim 1. Zachariades does not specifically teach a catheter liner.
In the same field of UHMWPE resin and articles made by UHMWPE resin, Smith teaches articles/products made by its UHMWPE resins having increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress (abstract, col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15). It is noted that Smith teaches the method of making articles/products of UHMWPE resins and the method does not require or suggest any stretching process. Smith teaches its UHMWPE resins is suitable for making various articles/products including liner/catheter liner (col. 10, lines 30-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified Zachariades in view the teachings of Smith, to select and use the UHMWPE resin as taught by Smith to make a liner/catheter liner as taught by Smith (col. 10, lines 30-65), to provide a liner/catheter liner with increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress as taught by Smith (col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) liner/catheter liner that is the same as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 24, modified Zachariades teaches a tube of the UHMWPE resin (taught by Smith), as discussed above in rejection to claim 1. In the same field of UHMWPE resin and articles made by UHMWPE resin, Smith teaches articles/products made by its UHMWPE resins having increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress (abstract, col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15). It is noted that Smith teaches the method of making articles/products of UHMWPE resins and the method does not require or suggest any stretching process. Smith teaches its UHMWPE resins is suitable for making various articles/products including dense component, i.e., nonporous tube, pipe, vessel, (col. 10, lines 30-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified Zachariades in view the teachings of Smith, to select and use the UHMWPE resin taught by Smith and the method of manufacturing as taught by Smith, to provide a dense tube (i.e., nonporous tube) with increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress as taught by Smith (col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) tube that is the same as instantly claimed, i.e., nonporous tube.
Regarding claim 25, modified Zachariades teaches a tube of the UHMWPE resin (taught by Smith), as discussed above in rejection to claim 1. In the same field of UHMWPE resin and articles made by UHMWPE resin, Smith teaches articles/products made by its UHMWPE resins having increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress (abstract, col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15). It is noted that Smith teaches the method of making articles/products of UHMWPE resins and the method does not require or suggest any stretching process. Smith teaches its UHMWPE resins is suitable for making various articles/products including tube, pipe, liner, extruded profile, mono or multilayer (col. 10, lines 30-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified Zachariades in view the teachings of Smith, to select and use the UHMWPE resin taught by Smith to provide a multilayer tube as taught by Smith (col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15), to provide a multilayer tube with increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress as taught by Smith (col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) tube that is the same as instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachariades in view of Smith as applied to claims 1-2 above, further in view of Yang et al. (U.S. Pub. 2004/0106723, “Yang”).
The limitations of claims 1-2 are taught by Zachariades in view of Smith as discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, modified Zachariades teaches a tube of the UHMWPE resin (taught by Smith), as discussed above in rejection to claim 1. Smith teaches its UHMWPE resins is suitable for making various articles/products including tube, hollow component, pipe, vessel, etc. (col. 10, lines 30-65). Smith teaches articles/products made by its UHMWPE resins having increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress (abstract, col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15). Smith teaches its UHMWPE resins includes suitable additives including suitable fillers, colorant, and lubricant/processing aids (col. 9, lines 55-67). Modified Zachariades does not specifically teach the inclusion of the specific lubricant as instantly claimed, such as Isopar G.
Yang teaches a polyolefin pipe (paragraph 0193) and Yang teaches the inclusion of various additive including lubricant to the resin for obtaining enhanced performance properties (para [0193] [0217]). Yang teaches it is known in the art to use commercially available Isopar G (Table 1, para [0067]) for the purpose enhanced performance properties (para [0193]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified Zachariades in view the teachings of Yang, to select and include suitable lubricant such as Isopar G in UHMWPE resin as taught by Yang (Table 1, para [0067]), to provide a UHMWPE resin tube with enhanced performance properties, which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) tube that is the same as instantly claimed. One of ordinary skill would have understood how to modify and choose suitable additives for intended use. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.05.
Claim(s) 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachariades in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Tam et al. (US 2010/0178503; “Tam”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Zachariades in view of Smith as discussed above.
Regarding Claims 18-19, modified Zachariades teaches a tube of the UHMWPE resin (taught by Smith), as discussed above in rejection to claim 1. Smith teaches its UHMWPE resins is suitable for making various articles/products including tube, hollow component, pipe, vessel, etc. (col. 10, lines 30-65). Smith teaches articles/products made by its UHMWPE resins having increased strength and wear resistance and high tensile stress (abstract, col. 2, lines 8-20, col. 2, lines 23-31, col. 10, lines 1-15). Modified Zachariades does not specifically teach the inclusion of additional polymers in the manner as instantly claimed.
Tam teaches a UHMWPE blend the includes UHMWPE and further comprising HDPE/additional polymer in amounts of less than about 50% by weight that provides a suitable UHMWPE blend allows the materials to have desirable handling properties and melt processability (para [0014]-[0016] [0024]), which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range additional polymer in amounts of less than 50% of instant claim 18, and which range overlaps with the instantly claimed range additional polymer in amounts of less than 20% of instant claim 19. 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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified Zachariades in view the teachings of Tam, to include in addition to UHMWPE, less than about 50% by weight HDPE/additional polymer as taught by Tam, to provide a suitable UHMWPE blend allows the materials to have desirable handling properties and melt processability as taught by Tam (para [0014]-[0016] [0024]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) tube that is the same as instantly claimed, in claims 18-19 and 21.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachariades in view of Smith as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 108047998; “Zhang”).
The limitations of claim 1 are taught by Zachariades in view of Smith as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 20, modified Zachariades does not specifically teach the inclusion of additional polymers as instantly claimed.
Zhang relates to UHMWPE products and preparation (paragraph [0001] [0010]). Zhang teaches the addition of ethylene vinyl acetate in the form of dispersion to UHMWPE products for improved bonding (paragraph [0010]-[0014], paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified Zachariades in view the teachings of Zhang, to include in addition to UHMWPE, the ethylene vinyl acetate as taught by Zhang, to provide UHMWPE tube with improved bonding as taught by Zhang (paragraph [0007] [0010]-[0014]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) tube that is the same as instantly claimed.
Claim(s) 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zachariades in view of Smith and Tam as applied to claim 18 above, further in view of Zhang et al. (CN 108047998; “Zhang”).
The limitations of claim 1 and claim 18 are taught by Zachariades in view of Smith and Tam as discussed above.
Regarding Claim 22, modified Zachariades does not specifically teach the inclusion of additional polymers as instantly claimed.
Zhang relates to UHMWPE products and preparation (paragraph [0001] [0010]). Zhang teaches the addition of ethylene vinyl acetate in the form of dispersion to UHMWPE products for improved bonding (paragraph [0010]-[0014], paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified Zachariades in view the teachings of Zhang, to include in addition to UHMWPE, the ethylene vinyl acetate as taught by Zhang, to provide UHMWPE tube with improved bonding as taught by Zhang (paragraph [0007] [0010]-[0014]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) tube that is the same as instantly claimed.
Zhang relates to UHMWPE products and preparation (paragraph [0001] [0010]). Zhang teaches the addition of ethylene vinyl acetate in the form of dispersion to UHMWPE products for improved bonding (paragraph [0010]-[0014], paragraph [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the modified Zachariades in view the teachings of Zhang, to include in addition to UHMWPE, the ethylene vinyl acetate as taught by Zhang, to provide UHMWPE tube with improved bonding as taught by Zhang (paragraph [0007] [0010]-[0014]), which would have predictably arrived at a satisfactory Ultra High Molecular Weight Poly(ethylene) (UHMWPE) tube that is the same as instantly claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAN LAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3687. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7AM-4PM.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 5712728935. 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.
/YAN LAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights