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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 5 is 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. Claim 5 recites “or similar material”. However, the claim nor Applicant’s disclosure does not detail the particulars of how one would go about determining what materials are similar enough with respect to polyester, nylon and Kevlar. As such, Examiner believes that such phrasing is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-9, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winter (US 5,145,545).
Claim 1: Winter discloses a flexible tubing for hydraulic and/or hydrodynamic use (Figs. 1-7), said tubing comprising a main flexible tubular body (21) made of thermoplastic material (col. 3, lines 49-50) which extends along an axis of longitudinal extension, the sections of said main tubular body being substantially circular on planes perpendicular to said longitudinal extension axis (Figs. 1-2), said main tubular body (21) being of a corrugated type and thus conformed to define a first plurality of ridges or shoulders (22) arranged in succession and a second plurality of dips or valleys (23) arranged in succession to connect each of two consecutive ridges or shoulders (Figs. 1-5); wherein said main tubular body is housed within a first coating (26) made of thermoplastic elastomer (note “theromoplastic material” ESTANE 5710F1 which is a TPE that can be used for 26 in col. 6, lines 15-28), characterized in that wherein said tubing comprises a spiraling constituted by a plurality of non-braided filaments (27/27A; note “metal wire material” in col. 5, lines 19-20; Fig. 7, col. 5, lines 26-29), each spirally wound on said first coating made of thermoplastic elastomer (col. 5, lines 20-24, “metal wire material is wound in alternating directions”), wherein said tubing comprises a second outer coating (28) made of thermoplastic elastomer (note col. 6, lines 15-28, “thermoplastic material” ESTANE 5710F1 which is a TPE which can be part of 28), and wherein said filaments (27) of said spiraling are embedded in said second outer coating made of thermoplastic elastomer (Fig. 5).
Claim 2: Winter further discloses that the diameter of each of the coils defined by said filaments is either equal to or greater than the maximum outer diameter of said main tubular body, wherein said filaments are arranged outside said valleys of said main tubular body (see Figs. 4 and 7).
Claim 3: Winter further discloses that the outer surface of said first coating is smooth or substantially smooth (Fig. 3).
Claim 4: Winter further discloses that said spiraling comprises a first plurality of filaments (Fig. 7, col. 5, lines 26-29, Examiner noting the plurality of wires in one of the layers that is in one direction) each spirally wound on said first coating according to a first winding direction (Fig. 7), and a second plurality of filaments (Fig. 7, col. 5, lines 26-29, Examiner noting the plurality of wires in the other of the layers that is in the other direction) each spirally wound on said first coating according to a second winding direction opposite to said first winding direction (Fig. 7), wherein said filaments of said first plurality and second plurality are mutually arranged to define a lattice (Fig. 7).
Claim 8: Winter further discloses that said first outer coating (26) is internally substantially cylindrical and of smooth tubular type (Fig. 3), and thus in that wherein the minimum inner diameter of said first coating is either equal to or greater than the maximum outer diameter of said main tubular body (Fig. 3), wherein said first outer coating does not follow the corrugation of said main tubular body (Fig. 3).
Claim 9: Winter further discloses that said first coating (26) is made by over-extrusion on said main tubular body (col. 4, lines 57-62).
Claim 14: Winter further discloses that said first coating substantially fills said valleys of the main tubular body (see, e.g., Figs. 3-4, note filled portions—notated by a speckled filling—of the valleys with material that can be associated broadly with the first coating).
Claim 18: Winter further discloses that the main tubular body, the first coating and the second coating are made of chemically compatible materials so that the first coating and the second coating are welded together and form a cohesive coating of the main tubular body (see col. 5, lines 44-61, 66-68 and col. 6, lines 1-34).
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawrence (US 5,148,836).
Claim 1: Lawrence discloses a flexible tubing for hydraulic and/or hydrodynamic use (Figs. 1-14), said tubing comprising a main flexible tubular body (21) made of thermoplastic material (col. 1, lines 34-35) which extends along an axis of longitudinal extension, the sections of said main tubular body being substantially circular on planes perpendicular to said longitudinal extension axis (Figs. 1-2), said main tubular body (21) being of a corrugated type and thus conformed to define a first plurality of ridges or shoulders (22) arranged in succession and a second plurality of dips or valleys (23) arranged in succession to connect each of two consecutive ridges or shoulders (Figs. 1-5); wherein said main tubular body is housed within a first coating (26/26A/34) made of thermoplastic elastomer (note “theromoplastic material” ESTANE 5710F1 which is a TPE that can be used for 34 in col. 7, lines 53-56), characterized in that wherein said tubing comprises a spiraling constituted by a plurality of non-braided filaments (27/27A; note “metal wire material” in col. 5, lines 15-18; Fig. 8), each spirally wound on said first coating made of thermoplastic elastomer (col. 5, lines 7-18), wherein said tubing comprises a second outer coating (28) made of thermoplastic elastomer (note col. 7, lines 59-61, “thermoplastic material” ESTANE 5710F1 which is a TPE which can be part of 28), and wherein said filaments (27/27A) of said spiraling are embedded in said second outer coating made of thermoplastic elastomer (Fig. 6).
Claim 6: Lawrence further discloses that said second outer coating (28) is internally substantially cylindrical and of smooth tubular type (Fig. 6), wherein the minimum inner diameter of said second outer coating is either equal to or greater than the maximum outer diameter of said main tubular body and said first coating (Fig. 6), wherein said second outer coating (28) does not follow the corrugation of said main tubular body and/or said first coating (Fig. 6).
Claim 7: Lawrence further discloses that said second outer coating (28) is made by over-extrusion on said spiraling wound on said first coating in which said main tubular body is housed (see col. 5, lines 36-40).
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.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter (US 5,145,545) in view of Kahn (US 3,047,026).
Claim 5: Winter is not explicit about said filaments of said spiraling (105) are made of textile material, such as polyester, nylon, Kevlar or similar material. However, Kahn teaches a reinforcing/spiraling filament element (12) for a tubing structure that is made of textile material (see col. 2, lines 43-46, “polypropylene resin”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the material taught by Kahn as the filament material in Winter as it offers high fatigue resistance, is lightweight while also being tough and durable.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter (US 5,145,545) in view of Walsh (US 5,349,988).
Claim 10: Winter discloses the previous limitations. Winter further discloses that said main tubular body (21) is of a double-layer type, wherein said main tubular body comprises a main inner layer (21’) and an outer layer (21”), wherein said first coating (26) consists of said outer layer of said main tubular body (Fig. 3, Examiner noting that the first coating can be viewed broadly as either the outer layer of the tubular body or even comprising the outer layer 21” of the tubular body). Winter is not explicit about
said main tubular body is of the square wave and narrow valley type, and thus in that wherein each of said shoulders is externally delimited by a substantially cylindrical surface. However, Walsh teaches using a main tubular body of the square wave and narrow valley type (Fig. 2, note 22/26) wherein each of said shoulders is externally delimited by a substantially cylindrical surface (Fig. 2). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a square wave tubing as taught by Walsh in place of the Winter’s tubing as it involves mere substitution of one known shaped tubing for another that has a predictable expectation of success (as both tubing shapes are placed among a layered/reinforced structuring).
Claim 11: Winter and Walsh teach the previous limitations. Modified Winter further discloses that said main tubular body is made by simultaneous coextrusion of said main inner layer and outer layer (see col. 4, lines 45-56).
Claim 12: Winter and Walsh teach the previous limitations. Modified Winter further discloses the longitudinal extent of said substantially cylindrical surface of each of said shoulders is either equal to or greater than twice the longitudinal pitch of said coils of said spiraling (as can be appreciated from Fig. 4).
Claim 13: Winter and Walsh teach the previous limitations. Walsh further teaches that the longitudinal extent of said substantially cylindrical surface of each of said shoulders is either equal to or greater than twice the maximum longitudinal distance between two consecutive shoulders (note Fig. 2 note spacing and longitudinal extent of shoulders 20).
Claim 15: Winter and Walsh teach the previous limitations. Walsh further teaches that the thickness of said main tubular body (101) is between 0.4 mm and 0.6 mm and/or an inner diameter of said main tubular body is between 6 mm and 24 mm (col. 5, lines 55-57, Examiner noting that .75 inches amounts to 19 mm).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter (US 5,145,545) in view of Ball (US 3,817,288).
Claims 16-17: Winter discloses the previous limitations. Winters does discuss thicknesses of .06 inches (1.5 mm) for the second coating and .04 inches (1 mm) for the first coating but Winter is not explicit about said first coating has an average thickness comprised between 0.2 mm and 0.3 mm or the thickness of said second outer coating is comprised between 0.5 mm and 1 mm. However, Ball teaches a tubing construction whose reinforcement filament is between layers of polymer that can be constructed down to thicknesses of .015 inches and further down to .003 inches (see col. 4, lines 47-60, Examiner noting that this range from Winters and Ball represents a metric thickness between 1.5 mm to .076 mm, in which range the required thicknesses of the first/second coating can be found). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a reduced thicknesses as taught by Ball into the tubing structure of Winter by utilizing non-woven fabric which requires less polymeric volume to impregnate its associated voids (see col. 4, lines 60-68).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winter (US 5,145,545) in view of Crisman (US 5,622,210).
Claim 19: Winter teaches the previous limitations but is not explicit about the main tubular body is made of polyolefin resin or the first coating and the second coating are made of TPE-V or TPE-S. However, Crisman teaches a tubing construction in which its main tubular body is made of polyolefin resin and that its associated coatings and are made of TPE-V or TPE-S (col. 2, lines 3-17 and col. 4, lines 62-67 through col. 5, lines 1-8). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the materials taught by Crisman into the tubular structures in Winter as they are lightweight, flexible as well as very durable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN C ZOLLINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-7815. The examiner can normally be reached Generally M-F 9-4 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, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. 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.
/NATHAN C ZOLLINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746