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 drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the composite tubing of claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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) in view of Berger (EP 3345749 A1).
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, 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).
McCauley 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 and add the continuous carbon fiber reinforcements of Berger to the first type layers 202 of McCauley. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 (US 20190203856 A1) in view of Berger (EP 3345749 A1), in further view of Brainard (US 20200331240 A1).
Regarding claim 11, McCauley in view of 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 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, 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 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 Berger and Brainard are fiber reinforced.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ludlow (US 20200369013 A1) discloses a multiple layer composite tube of PVDF with glass fiber reinforcements.
Kuwajima (US 20200298542 A1) discloses a riser pipe made of PDVF resin with carbon fiber reinforcements.
Quigley (US 20120155813 A1) discloses a spoolable composite tube made of PDVF with carbon fiber reinforcements.
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