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 .
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “permeation-resistant material” in claims 1,2,4,6-12,17,18,21-25,30,31,34.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In the case of “permeation-resistant material”, it is interpreted as a material from the list of PVDC, polyolefin, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide or nanocomposite metal hybrids, as disclosed in claim 2, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 36,37,46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 36 and 37, the specification does not disclose the tensioning the axial reinforcement fabric material and sealing via thermal weld, nor that the axial reinforcement layer imparts a compressive force on the assembly,
Regarding claim 46, the specification does not disclose the claimed methods of constructing the protective layer.
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 25-48 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.
Regarding claim 25, the claim discloses an optional overlay layer, and then discloses “applying an axial reinforcement layer to the exterior of the overlay”. This makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the overlay layer is optional, since the axial layer seems to require the overlay layer to be applied. For purposes of compact prosecution, the claim is interpreted as “applying an axial reinforcement layer to the exterior of the overlay or sealing layer if the overlay layer is not applied”. Claims 26-48 are dependent on claim 25, and are thus also rejected.
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 1-4,6-26,34,35,44,45,47,48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US 20190162335 A1), hereafter known as Yu, in view of Herrero (US 5645109 A) and Masuda US 20040126523 A1), hereafter known as Herrero and Masuda, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Yu discloses a cannular assembly (fig 1, Yu), comprising from innermost surface to outermost surface:
(a) a sealing layer (fig 1, layer 30, Yu),
(b) an optional overlay fabricated from a permeation-resistant material,
(c) an axial reinforcement layer (fig 1 axial reinforcement layers 34A and 34B, Yu),
(d) one or more hoop reinforcement layers (fig 1, hoop reinforcement layer 32, Yu, but is not on the outside of axial reinforcement layers) , and
(e) a protective layer (fig 1, layer 36, Yu), wherein at least one layer chosen from the sealing layer and the overlay is fabricated from a permeation-resistant material (not disclosed).
Yu does not disclose the hoop reinforcement layer to be exterior to the axial reinforcement layers. However, Herrero teaches a hoop reinforcement layer exterior to axial reinforcement layers (fig 3, col 9 lines 4-20, inner reinforcements 4 and 5 are at angles smaller than 55 degrees to the axis of the pipe, thus acting more as axial reinforcements, outer reinforcements 8 and 9 are at angles greater than 55 degrees to the axis of the pipe, thus acting more as hoop reinforcements, Herrero). Herrero describes a reinforced pipe, a field closely related to Yu and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Herrero into Yu and swap the order of the hoop reinforcement layer 32 and axial reinforcement layers 34A and B of Yu. Having the hoop reinforcement layer on the outside can help prevent the axial layers from separating or unraveling. Additionally it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the relative order of the hoop and axial layers of Yu, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Yu in view of Herrero does not disclose the sealing layer being fabricated from permeation resistant material. However, Masuda teaches a hose with a layers of permeation resistant material (fig 1, layers A and C can be of nylon 11 or nylon 12 (para 0023) with other materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), while layer B can be a combination of nylon 9T and nylon 11 or 12, Masuda). Masuda describes a hydrocarbon carrying pipe, a field closely related to Yu, Herrero, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Masuda into Yu in view of Herrero and replaced layer 30 of Yu with layers A,B, and C of Masuda. The layers of Masuda have excellent barrier properties against hydrocarbon components, as well as heat and chemical resistance (abstract, Masuda), which benefit the hydrocarbon carrying pipe of Yu in view of Herrero when modified.
Regarding claim 2, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein the permeation-resistant material is chosen from PVDC, polyolefin, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide or nanocomposite metal hybrids (fig 1, layers A and C can be of nylon 11 or nylon 12 (para 0023) with other materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), Masuda).
Regarding claim 3, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein sealing layer comprises a material chosen from chosen from ABS, PE, HDPE, UHMWPE, Nylon, PEEK, PET,PSS, PDA, ETFE polycarbonate, and polyurethane (fig 1, layers A and C can be of nylon 11 or nylon 12 (para 0023), while layer B can be a combination of nylon 9T and nylon 11 or 12, Masuda).
Regarding claim 4, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein the cannular assembly comprises an overlay layer fabricated from a permeation-resistant material (fig 1, layer A, which can be the overlay layer over sealing layers B and C, can be of nylon 11 or nylon 12 (para 0023), with other materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), Masuda).
Regarding claim 6, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein the sealing layer is fabricated from a permeation-resistant material. (fig 1, layers A, B, and C, which can be the sealing layer, can be made of nylon 11 or nylon 12 (para 0023) with other materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), Masuda).
Regarding claim 7, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 6, wherein the sealing layer is a coextrusion with a permeation-resistant material (para 0085, 0088, the layers of Masuda can be co-extruded, thus the sealing layer and permeation resistant material can be co-extruded together.)
Regarding claim 8, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 7, wherein the sealing layer coextrusion comprises a permeation-resistant material on the interior of the sealing layer (fig 1, sealing layer which is comprised of A, B, and C, has layer C on the interior, which can comprise materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), Masuda, which are permeation-resistant materials).
Regarding claim 9, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 7, wherein the sealing layer coextrusion comprises a permeation-resistant material on the exterior of the sealing layer (fig 1, sealing layer which is comprised of A, B, and C, has layer A on the exterior, which can comprise materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), Masuda, which are permeation-resistant materials).
Regarding claim 10, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 7, wherein the sealing layer coextrusion comprises permeation-resistant material on both the interior surface and the exterior surface of the sealing layer (fig 1, sealing layer which is comprised of A, B, and C, has layer A on the exterior surface and C on the interior surface, which can both comprise materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), Masuda, which are permeation-resistant materials).
Regarding claim 11, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein the sealing layer comprises:
a first sub-layer, fabricated from a first resin material (fig 1, sealing layer which is comprised of A, B, and C, can have B as a first sub layer, fabricated from nylon 11 or 12 (para 0023 and 0067&0068) which is a resin material, Masuda) , and
a second sub-layer, fabricated from a mixture of a second resin material and a permeation-resistant material (fig 1, A or C can be the second sub-layer, which is fabricated from nylon 11 or 12 (para 0023) which is a resin material, and can comprise materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), which are permeation-resistant materials, Masuda).
Regarding claim 12, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 11, wherein the permeation- resistant material is chosen from PVDC, polyolefin, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide or nanocomposite metal hybrids (fig 1, A or C can comprise materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), Masuda).
Regarding claim 13, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 12, wherein the first resin material and the second resin material are chosen from chosen from ABS, PE, HDPE,UHMWPE, Nylon, PEEK, PET, PSS, PDA, ETFE polycarbonate, and polyurethane, or mixtures thereof (fig 1, layers A ,B, and C can all be from nylon (para 0023, para 0068), Masuda).
Regarding claim 14, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 13, wherein the first resin material and the second resin material are the same (fig 1, layers A and C can both be from nylon 11 or 12 (para 0023), and layer B can also include nylon 11 or 12, paras 0067&0068, thus the first and second resins are the same, Masuda).
Regarding claim 15, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 11, wherein the second sub-layer is located on the interior surface of the sealing layer (fig 1, layer C is on the interior surface of the sealing layer, Masuda).
Regarding claim 16, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 11, wherein the second sub-layer is located on the exterior surface of the sealing layer (fig 1, layer A is on the exterior surface of the sealing layer, Masuda).
Regarding claim 17, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 1, wherein the sealing layer comprises:
a first sub-layer, fabricated from a first resin material (fig 1, layer B can be a first sub layer and can be made from nylon (para 0067), which is a resin material, Masuda)
a second sub-layer, fabricated from a mixture of a second resin material and a permeation-resistant material (fig 1, C can be the second sub-layer, which is fabricated from nylon 11 or 12 (para 0023) which is a resin material, and can comprise materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), which are permeation-resistant materials, Masuda), located on the interior surface of the sealing layer (fig 1, layer C is on the interior surface of the sealing layer, Masuda)., and
a third sub-layer, fabricated from a mixture of the second resin material and a permeation-resistant material (fig 1, A can be the second sub-layer, which is fabricated from nylon 11 or 12 (para 0023) which is a resin material, and can comprise materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), which are permeation-resistant materials, Masuda), located on the exterior surface of the sealing layer (fig 1, layer A is on the exterior surface of the sealing layer, Masuda).
Regarding claim 18, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 17, wherein the permeation- resistant material is chosen from PVDC, polyolefin, titanium oxide, aluminum oxide or nanocomposite metal hybrids (fig 1, A and C can comprise materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), Masuda).
Regarding claim 19, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 18, wherein the first resin material and the second resin material are chosen from chosen from ABS, PE, HDPE,UHMWPE, Nylon, PEEK, PET, PSS, PDA, ETFE polycarbonate, and polyurethane, or mixtures thereof (fig 1, layers A ,B, and C can all be from nylon (para 0023, para 0068), Masuda).
Regarding claim 20, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 19, wherein the first resin material and the second resin material are the same (fig 1, layers A and C can both be from nylon 11 or 12 (para 0023), and layer B can also include nylon 11 or 12, paras 0067&0068, thus the first and second resins are the same, Masuda).
Regarding claims 21-24, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses that the permeation resistant material can be PVDC (para 0025, Masuda). MPEP 2112.01 II, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Since the PVDC disclosed by Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda is also disclosed in the claimed invention, the same material thus should also meet the claimed material property requirements.
Regarding claim 25, Yu discloses a method for manufacturing a cannular assembly, the method comprising the steps of:
forming an innermost sealing layer (fig 1, sealing layer 30 is the innermost layer and must have been formed, Yu);
optionally, applying an overlay to the exterior of the sealing layer;
applying an axial reinforcement layer to the exterior of the overlay (fig 1, para 0022, axial reinforcement 34 is wound exterior to the sealing layer 30, but not directly over, Yu);
applying one or more hoop reinforcement layers to the exterior of the axial reinforcement layer (fig 1, para 0022, hoop reinforcement 32 is wound on to the pipe, but not exterior to axial reinforcement 34, Yu);
and applying a protective layer to the exterior of the hoop reinforcement layer (fig 1, para 0035, protective layer 36 is extruded exterior of the hoop reinforcement layer 32, Yu), wherein at least one layer chosen from the sealing layer and the overlay is fabricated from a permeation-resistant material (not disclosed).
Yu does not disclose the hoop reinforcement layer to be exterior to the axial reinforcement layers. However, Herrero teaches a hoop reinforcement layer exterior to axial reinforcement layers (fig 3, col 9 lines 4-20, inner reinforcements 4 and 5 are at angles smaller than 55 degrees to the axis of the pipe, thus acting more as axial reinforcements, outer reinforcements 8 and 9 are at angles greater than 55 degrees to the axis of the pipe, thus acting more as hoop reinforcements, Herrero). Herrero describes a reinforced pipe, a field closely related to Yu and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Herrero into Yu and swap the order of the hoop reinforcement layer 32 and axial reinforcement layers 34A and B of Yu. Having the hoop reinforcement layer on the outside can help prevent the axial layers from separating or unraveling. Additionally it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adjust the relative order of the hoop and axial layers of Yu, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Yu in view of Herrero does not disclose the sealing layer being fabricated from permeation resistant material. However, Masuda teaches a hose with a layers of permeation resistant material (fig 1, layers A and C can be of nylon 11 or nylon 12 (para 0023) with other materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), while layer B can be a combination of nylon 9T and nylon 11 or 12, Masuda). Masuda describes a hydrocarbon carrying pipe, a field closely related to Yu, Herrero, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Masuda into Yu in view of Herrero and replaced layer 30 of Yu with layers A,B, and C of Masuda. The layers of Masuda have excellent barrier properties against hydrocarbon components, as well as heat and chemical resistance (abstract, Masuda), which benefit the hydrocarbon carrying pipe of Yu in view of Herrero when modified.
Regarding claim 26, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the method as recited in claim 25, wherein the sealing layer is plastic (fig 1, layers A and C can be of nylon 11 or nylon 12 (para 0023), while layer B can be a combination of nylon 9T and nylon 11 or 12, which are all plastics, Masuda).
Regarding claim 34, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the method as recited in claim 25, wherein the sealing layer is fashioned with the steps of:
providing a permeation barrier resin composition comprising a first resin for the sealing layer and a permeation-resistant material (fig 1, layers A, B, and C, which can be the sealing layer, can be made of nylon 11 or nylon 12 (para 0023), which is a resin, combined with other materials such as polypropylene or polyethylene, which are polyolefins, or PVDC (para0025), which are permeation resistant, Masuda).
and coextruding the permeation barrier resin composition with a second resin (para 0085, the layers A,B,C can be co-extruded together, Masuda).
Regarding claim 35, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the method as recited in claim 25, wherein the axial reinforcement layer comprises unidirectional Fiberglas, carbon fiber, Kevlar, or HDPE fabric material (para 0023-0028 the reinforcement layers can be made with carbon fibers and are all in the direction they are wound, Yu).
Regarding claim 44, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the method as recited in claim 25, further comprising the step of fashioning a protective layer on the exterior of the hoop reinforcement layer (para 0035, Yu, protective layer 36 is extruded over exterior of tube assembly, which is the hoop reinforcement in the case of Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda).
Regarding claim 45, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the method as recited in claim 44, wherein the protective layer is chosen from nylon, tear-resistant PTFE, coated Fiberglas fabric, Tyvek, and polyethylene (para 0035, cover layer 36 can be nylon, Yu).
Regarding claim 47, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the method as recited in claim 25, comprising the step of applying an overlay to the exterior of the sealing layer (para 0030, Yu, an adhesive can be used to bond reinforcing layers 32 and 34 to the barrier layer 30. In the case of Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, ePlastics, and Techspanonline, the adhesive is applied to the sealing layer, including the weld of the sealing layer, and is used to bond the reinforcing layers onto the sealing layer).
Regarding claim, 48, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly manufactured by the method of claim 25 (Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the sealing layers of Masuda, hoop and axial reinforcements, as well as protective outer layer of Yu, in the order of axial reinforcement being interior to hoop reinforcement as disclosed in Herrero, together forming the cannular assembly manufactured by the method of claim 25).
Claims 5 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda, in further view of ePlastics’s video “Fabricating Oval Polycarbonate Tube”, hereafter known as ePlastics,
Regarding claim 5, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the cannular assembly as recited in claim 4, but does not disclose wherein the overlay is manufactured from a single sheet of material.
However, ePlastics teaches forming a cylinder from a single sheet of material (title, 0:05-2:23, ePlastics). ePlastics is an instructional video on plastic pipe manufacturing , a field related to Yu, Herrero, and Masuda. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of ePlastics into Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda and construct the sealing layer of Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda out of a single sheet of material in the manner shown in ePlastics. Forming cylindrical tubes from flat sheets is well known in the art, and the method of ePlastics would allow for tubes of custom sizes and shapes, such as one with oval cross section (title, ePlastics), to be made.
Regarding claim 27, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the method as recited in claim 26, but does not disclose wherein the sealing layer is fashioned into a cylinder from flat thermoplastic sheet feedstock.
However, ePlastics teaches forming a cylinder from flat thermoplastic sheet stock (title, 0:05-2:23, ePlastics). ePlastics is an instructional video on plastic pipe manufacturing , a field related to Yu, Herrero, and Masuda. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of ePlastics into Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda and construct the sealing layer of Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda out of flat sheet stock in the manner shown in ePlastics. Forming cylindrical tubes from flat sheets is well known in the art, and the method of ePlastics would allow for tubes of custom sizes and shapes, such as one with oval cross section (title, ePlastics), to be made.
Claims 28,29,33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, and ePlastics, in further view of Techspanonline’s video “Plastic Welding: How To Instructional Video by Techspan”, hereafter known as Techspanonline
Regarding claim 28, Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, and ePlastics discloses the method as recited in claim 27, further comprising the steps of:
pulling a sheet of feedstock onto a forming mandrel (0:21-0:32, sheet is pulled onto mandrel in the mold, ePlastics);
trimming the sheet of feedstock to the desired width (0:05, the stock is pre-cut to the desired dimensions, ePlastics);
forming a bevel on each of the opposing sides of the sheet (not disclosed);
forming the sheet into a cylinder, thus positioning the bevels in proximity to each other, to form a lengthwise seam (0:32-1:08, ePlastics, the sheet is formed into a cylinder, with the edges next to each other in a seam, but the edges are not beveled);
and sealing the seam (1:12-1:40, seam is welded and sealed, ePlastics).
Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, and ePlastics does not disclose forming a bevel at the seam edges. However, Techspanonline teaches forming a bevel at the seam edges ( 1:10-1:17, Techspanonline). Techspanonline is an instruction video on plastic welding, a field related to ePlastics and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Techspanonline into Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, and ePlastics and cut a bevel along the seam of the formed sheet prior to welding. Beveling a seam before welding increases the contact area between the filler and base material ,increasing the strength of the weld.
Regarding claim 29, Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, ePlastics, and Techspanonline discloses the method as recited in claim 28, wherein the step of sealing the seam is accomplished with a process chosen from fusion, UT, and welding (1:12-1:40, seam is welded and sealed, ePlastics).
Regarding claim 33, Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, ePlastics, and Techspanonline discloses the method as recited in claim 28, further comprising the step of applying a material for sealing or adhering to the weld subsequent to formation of the seam (para 0030, Yu, an adhesive can be used to bond reinforcing layers 32 and 34 to the barrier layer 30. In the case of Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, ePlastics, and Techspanonline, the adhesive is applied to the sealing layer, including the weld of the sealing layer, and is used to bond the reinforcing layers onto the sealing layer).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda in further view of Clip Carbono’s product: “Carbon fiber rope - 1mm”, hereafter known as Clip.
Regarding claim 38, Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda discloses the method as recited in claim 25, but does not disclose wherein the hoop reinforcement layer comprises twisted or braided micro-ropes or twisted or braided carbon fiber graphene hybrid micro-ropes.
However, Clip teaches a twisted carbon fiber micro rope (product title, data sheet, the carbon fiber rope has diameter of 1 mm and is twisted, Clip). Clip is a product page for stranded carbon fiber materials, a field related to Yu, Masuda, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Clip into Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda and use the carbon fiber ropes of Clip as the tows of fibers of reinforcement layers 32 and 34 of Yu in view of Herrero and Masuda. The micro ropes of Clip have a tensile strength of 4900 Mpa (data sheet, Clip), which is higher than the strength requirement of 100000 psi (689.5 Mpa) set in para 0029 of Yu, thus the resulting reinforcement layers would be stronger.
Claims 39-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, and Clip, in further view of Chrow (GB 1449753 A), hereafter known as Chrow.
Regarding claim 39, Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, and Clip discloses the method as recited in claim 38, further comprising the steps of:
mounting material for a first hoop reinforcement layer onto a first winding spool (not disclosed, although the material for hoop reinforcement layer 32 of Yu is wound);
propelling a partially constructed tubular assembly enclosed in the axial reinforcement layer (not disclosed);
winding the hoop reinforcement layer from the first winding spool onto the axial reinforcement layer, thereby forming a first hoop reinforcement layer (para 0033, the reinforcement layers 32 and 34 are wound onto the pipe, Yu. In the case of Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, and Clip, the hoop reinforcement layer 32 is wound onto axial reinforcement layer 34, but winding spool is not disclosed).
Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, and Clip does not disclose winding using a spool or propelling the tubular assembly. However, Chrow teaches using a spool to wind reinforcements onto a propelled tube assembly (fig 3, Chrow, the propelled tubular assembly 10 is fed through winding spool 21 which wind the reinforcements onto the tube, Chrow). Chrow describes a reinforced multilayer tubular assembly, a field closely related to Yu, Herrero, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Chrow into Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, and Clip and wound the reinforcements onto the assembly using the spool and propelling system of Chrow. Using spools to wind reinforcements on to a tube in a manufacturing application is well known in the art, and the wrapping method of Chrow would produce consistent and reliable results.
Regarding claim 40, Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, Clip, and Chrow discloses the method as recited in claim 39, wherein the first hoop reinforcement layer imparts a compressive force on the nascent cannular assembly (para 0023 and 0024, Yu, the reinforcement layers are wound under tension, which inherently imparts a compressive force on the tubular assembly).
Regarding claim 41, Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, Clip, and Chrow discloses the method as recited in claim 39, further comprising the steps of:
mounting material for the hoop reinforcement layer onto a second winding spool (fig 3, page 1 lines 53-61, second spool 22 winds a second reinforcement layer in the opposite direction of the first, Chrow. In the case of Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, Clip, and Chrow, the material for the second hoop reinforcement layer 32 of Yu (para 0022, Yu discloses having multiple layers 32 and 34 if needed) is mounted to and winded from the second spool 22 of Chrow); and
winding the hoop reinforcement layer from the second winding spool onto the first hoop reinforcement layer, thereby forming a second hoop reinforcement layer (fig 3, page 1 lines 53-61, second spool 22 winds a second reinforcement layer in the opposite direction of the first, Chrow, in the case of Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, Clip, and Chrow, the material for the second hoop reinforcement layer 32 of Yu is winded from the second spool 22 of Chrow to form a second hoop reinforcement layer).
a
Regarding claim 42, Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, Clip, and Chrow discloses the method as recited in claim 41, wherein the helices of hoop reinforcement layers from the first and second winding spools are of opposite handedness (para 0022, 0024-0026, the reinforcement layers 32 are round in opposing helical directions, Yu).
Regarding claim 43, Yu in view of Herrero, Masuda, Clip, and Chrow discloses the method as recited in claim 41, wherein the second hoop reinforcement layer imparts a compressive force on the nascent cannular assembly (para 0023 and 0024, Yu, the reinforcement layers are wound under tension, which inherently imparts a compressive force on the tubular assembly).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30,31,32 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schuhmann (US 20160016392 A1) discloses a three layer film with PET plastic in between two layers of PET and PVDC plastic mixture.
Daton-Lovett (US 20180371849 A1) discloses a method for making a tube out of flat sheet stock.
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 EST.
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