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 with respect to claims 1-11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley (US 20190203856 A1), hereafter known as McCauley, in view of Rober (US 5474822 A), hereafter known as Rober, in further view of Berger (EP 3345749 A1), hereafter known as Berger.
Regarding claim 1, McCauley discloses a composite tubing comprising:
- an inner liner of a thermoplastic material (paragraph 0036 and fig 1, inner layer 106, which can be a thermoplastic polymer as stated in para 0037, McCauley), and
- a reinforcing laminate surrounding the inner liner (para 0029, in between layers 110 form the reinforcing laminate, McCauley),
wherein the reinforcing laminate comprises at least two layers (para 0029, layers 110 can be comprised of first type layers 202 and second type layers 204, including at least two layers as per para 0032, McCauley):
- at least one layer (L1), which is free of reinforcing fibers, and has a thickness ranging from 30 to 140 μm (not disclosed), such layer comprising a vinylidene fluoride polymer (para 0044, second type layers 204 can be comprised of PVDF which is a vinylidene fluoride polymer, McCauley), and
- at least one layer (L2) comprising a vinylidene fluoride polymer (para 0044, first type layers 202 can be comprised of PVDF which is a vinylidene fluoride polymer, McCauley) and continuous reinforcing fibers (not disclosed, although para 0045 of McCauley discloses carbon fibers as a filler material).
- wherein the vinylidene fluoride polymers of the at least one layer (L1) and of the at least one layer (L2) are semi-crystalline (para 0044, McCauley, first type layers 202 and second type layer 204 can be comprised of PVDF, which is inherently a semi-crystalline polymer, “Introduction to Fluoropolymers, Materials, Technology and Applications 2013”, Page 81, section 6.8.7.)
McCauley does not disclose at least one layer L1 to have a thickness ranging from 30 to 140 μm. However, Rober teaches a tube with a PVDF layer that is 0.1mm, or 100μm thick (col 7, lines 45-52, layer V can be 0.1mm, or 100μm thick, and col 11, table 1, layer V can be PVDF, Rober). Rober describes a tube for petrochemical fuel, a field closely related to McCauley and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Rober into McCauley and made the innermost layer of L1 100μm thick, as a PVDF layer of the disclosed thickness can provide good barrier action against fuel and solvent diffusion (col 7, lines 53-59, col 11, table 1, Rober). Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the thickness of the layers of McCauley, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. 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).
McCauley in view of Rober does not disclose at least one layer of vinylidene fluoride polymer having continuous reinforcing fibers. However, Berger teaches a layer of vinylidene fluoride polymer with continuous carbon fiber reinforcements (page 11, para 2, with page 9, para 1, layer of polymer B has continuous carbon fiber reinforcements; page 12, last paragraph, polymer B can be PVDF, a vinylidene fluoride polymer, Berger). Berger describes a composite tube for fluid transport, a field related to McCauley and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Berger into McCauley in view of Rober and add the continuous carbon fiber reinforcements of Berger to the first type layers 202 of McCauley in view of Rober. Reinforcement fibers for composite tubes are well known in the art, and can increase the strength of the tube of McCauley.
Regarding claim 2, McCauley in view of Rober and Berger discloses the composite tubing of claim 1, further comprising an external protective layer surrounding the reinforcing laminate (fig 1, outer layer 108, McCauley).
Regarding claim 3, McCauley in view of Rober and Berger discloses the composite tubing of claim 1, wherein the continuous reinforcing fibers in layer (L2) are selected from the group consisting of carbon fibers, glass fibers and mixture thereof (page 11, para 2, the continuous reinforcing fibers of Berger are carbon fibers.)
Regarding claim 4, McCauley in view of Rober and Berger discloses the composite tubing of claim 1, wherein the continuous reinforcing fibers represent at least 15 % by volume of a total volume of layer (L2) (page 11, para 3, the volume fraction of reinforcing fibers is preferably 15-80%, Berger).
Regarding claim 5, McCauley in view of Rober and Berger discloses the composite tubing of claim 1, wherein the vinylidene fluoride polymer in layer (L1) and/or in layer (L2) is a vinylidene fluoride homopolymer (para 0044, first and second type layers 202 and 204 can be made of PVDF, which is a vinylidene fluoride homopolymer by nature, McCauley).
Regarding claim 6, McCauley in view of Rober and Berger discloses the composite tubing of claim 1, wherein the reinforcing laminate has a total number of layers [(L1) + (L2)] comprised between 5 and 20 (para 0032, the number of layers 110, which is the sum of layers 202 and 204, can be within a variety of ranges, one of which is between 5 and 20, McCauley).
Regarding claim 7, McCauley in view of Rober and Berger discloses the composite tubing of claim 1, wherein the reinforcing laminate has a configuration comprising alternating layers (L1) and layers (L2) (para 0030, layers 202 and 204 can be arranged in an alternating manner, McCauley)
Regarding claim 8, McCauley in view of Rober and Berger discloses the composite tubing of claim 1, wherein the reinforcing laminate comprises one or more contiguous layers (L2), at least 2 contiguous layers (L1) followed by at least 2 alternating layers (L2) and (L1) (para 0033, near the aperture 104 one layer of 202 is followed by 5 layers of 204, then another layer of 202, which is followed near the outer surface by at least 2 alternating layers of 202 and 204, McCauley).
Regarding claim 9, McCauley in view of Rober and Berger discloses the composite tubing of claim 8, wherein the reinforcing laminate comprises 1 to 5 contiguous layers (L2) (para 0033, near the aperture 104 one layer of 202 is followed by 5 layers of 204, McCauley), 2 contiguous layers (L1) (not disclosed, McCauley discloses 5 layers of 204 following the one layer of 202) and 2 to 10 alternating layers (L2) and (L1) (the outer surface has at least 2 alternating layers of 202 and 204, McCauley). McCauley in view of Rober and Berger does not disclose 2 contiguous layers (L1). However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to adjust the number of 204 layers from 5 to 2, since applicant has not placed criticality on the number of contiguous layers of (L1) beyond the fact that configurations containing layers L1 are advantageous to configurations containing only layers L2, and it appears that the invention would perform equally as well with more or less layers, such as one or three contiguous layers of (L1).
Regarding claim 10, McCauley in view of Rober and Berger discloses the composite tubing of claim 1, wherein the reinforcing laminate comprises one or more contiguous layers (L2), at least 2 contiguous layers (L1), one or more contiguous layers (L2), one or more contiguous layers (L1) and one or more contiguous layers (L2) (para 0033, pairs of 202 layers can be spaced apart by two layers of 204, in a tube with at least 10 layers, para 0032, forming the claimed structure, McCauley).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCauley in view of Rober and Berger, in further view of Brainard (US 20200331240 A1), hereafter known as Brainard.
Regarding claim 11, McCauley in view of Rober and Berger discloses the composite tubing of claim 10, and discloses a layer pattern of 202/204/204/202/204/204/202/204/204/202 (para 0033, pairs of 202 layers can be spaced apart by two layers of 204). The reinforcing laminate comprises 1 to 5 contiguous layers (L2) (first layer is 202, McCauley), 2 contiguous layers (L1) (second and third layers are 204, McCauley), 2 contiguous layers (L2) (not disclosed), 2 contiguous layers (L1) (fifth and sixth layers are 204, McCauley), and 2 to 10 contiguous layers (L2) (not disclosed).
McCauley in view of Rober and Berger does not disclose 2 contiguous layers (L1). However, Brainard discloses alternating layer types in which both layers can be stacked contiguously (fig 5, layers of pre-preg composite and rubber are alternately layered, each layer can have N number of contiguously stacked pre-preg composite or rubber, Brainard). Brainard describes a reinforced composite polymer material than can be fashioned into a tube (para 0021), a field related to McCauley, Rober, Berger, and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to have incorporated the teachings of Brainard into McCauley in view of Rober and Berger and stack layers 202 of McCauley in a contiguous manner to have two layers of 202 between each set of 204 layers. Doing so improves the strength of the tube, as layers 202 of McCauley in view of Rober, Berger and Brainard are fiber reinforced.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dashow (WO 8900499 A1) discloses a pipe with laminated PVDF tape layer of 1.5 mil.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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