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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informality: use of quotes to group the plastics together (line 3). It is unclear whether there is any significance to the use of quotes as this method of writing is not consistent throughout all claims referring to groups. It is suggested the quotes be removed or the significance to quotes be expressed. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claim 7-13, 16 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.
Claims 7-11 recites the limitation "inner layer" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although an inner layer was noted in claim 3, none of these claims depend on claim 3 and is therefore no recitation of the element “inner layer” prior to these claims. Note: the instances of “the inner layer”, if proper antecedent basis was defined, would also be objected for the same reasons as other elements described above.
Claims 8 and 13 recite the limitation “at least areas”, line 2, renders the claim indefinite as the use of “at least” followed by a plural iteration of an element has no indication to what degree the limitation must be met.
Claims 12 and 13 recites the limitation "innermost layer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Although an innermost layer was noted in claim 11, neither of these claims depend on claim 11 and is therefore no recitation of the element “innermost layer” prior to these claims.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
U.S. Patent No. 12420521 – Hackel et. al.
Claims 1-3, and 10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12420521 (Hackel et. al. ‘521) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204).
Regarding claim 1: Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claims 1 and 6, A multilayer motor vehicle pipeline, having at least one barrier layer comprised of at least one material selected from the group of butene diol-vinyl alcohol copolymer (BVOH), polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH), polymer blend with BVOH, polymer blend with PVOH (multilayer pipe which comprises a barrier layer made of a vinyl alcohol plastic [Col. 8, lines 6-14]) and wherein at least one outer layer made of plastic is arranged on the exterior side of the barrier layer (boundary layer enclosing a barrier layer and made of a plastic [Col. 8, lines 38-40]).
While claims 1 and 6 do not include the direct teaching of BVOH and PVOH for the use of the barrier layer material, the claim iterates a broad grouping of vinyl alcohol plastics as suitable material for the barrier. Higuchi et. al. teaches a barrier material comprised of non-gas-permeable resin which includes PVOH and BVOH (Para. 58, lines 1-6). Higuchi et. al. also teaches a mixture of the optional materials to be any combination with each other or other resin (Para. 58, lines 10-13). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize BVOH and PVOH as taught by Higuchi et. al. because they have been taught to be optional polyvinyl alcohol solutions to be included as a barrier material in an application as they are known barrier materials in the art (Para. 56, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 2: Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claims 1 and 6, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the motor vehicle pipeline is a hydrogen transport pipeline (Col. 8, lines 7-9).
Regarding claim 3: Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claims 1 and 6, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one inner layer made of plastic is arranged on the interior side of the barrier layer (separating layer made of a plastic and positioned inside of a barrier layer [Col. 8, lines 16-19]).
Regarding claim 10: Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claims 1 and 6, The pipeline according claim 1, wherein at least one second bonding layer made of plastic is arranged between the barrier layer and the inner layer, wherein the second bonding layer consists of a polyamide (separating layer made of a plastic and positioned in between inner barrier and outer barrier layer [Col. 8, lines 16-19]).
Claims 4, 7, and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12420521 to Hackel et. al. (Hackel et. al. ‘521) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to the rejection of claim 1 above, and in further view of Jadamus et. al. (US 6090459).
Regarding claim 4: Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the outer layer consists essentially of a plastic selected from the group polyamide (outer later comprises one or more polyamides [Col. 8, lines 38-41]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyolefin as an option for the plastic of the outer layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an outer layer which comprises polyamide or polyolefin (Col. 2, lines 18-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyamide of Hackel et. al. ‘521 and Higuchi et. al. with polyolefin, polyamide, polyacetal, polyketone, or polyesters as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 7: Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according claim 1 and the inner layer (inner layer is noted as the supporting layer [Col. 8, lines 19-21]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyolefin, polyamide, or fluoropolymer as an option for the material of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the inner layer of Hackel et. al. ‘521 and Higuchi et. al. with the materials polyamides, polyolefins, polyacetals, polyketones, thermoplastic polyesters or fluoropolymers as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 9: Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1 and the inner layer (inner layer is noted as the supporting layer [Col. 8, lines 19-21]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyamide selected from PA 6, 12, or 612 as an option for the material of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25). Jadamus et. al. further teaches preferred compositions including PA 6, 12, and 612 (Col. 2, lines 26-30).
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12420521 (Hackel et. al. ‘521) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claims 6-8 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the outer layer consists essentially of polyamide 12 and/or polyamide 612 (outer layer expressed as boundary ply [Col. 8, lines 38-40] and material selection include PA 12 and PA 612 [Col. 8, lines 48-49]).
Claim 6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12420521 (Hackel et. al. ‘521) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claims 6 and 7 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one first bonding layer made of plastic is arranged between the barrier layer and the outer layer (boundary layer made of plastic encloses barrier layer [Col. 8, lines 38-41] and the boundary layer is made of a boundary ply and bonding agent ply [Col. 8, lines 42-44]), wherein the first bonding layer consists of a polyamide (noted by the boundary layer, which includes the bonding ply, is made of one or more polyamides [Col. 8, lines 40-41]).
Claim 8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12420521 (Hackel et. al. ‘521) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claims 1 and 16 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least areas of the inner layer are configured to be electrically conductive (outer layer made of plastic arranged on an exterior side of the barrier layer as shown by the outer barrier layer made of plastic [Col. 8, lines 11-12] wherein the barrier is made of vinyl alcohol plastic selected from BVOH, or PVOH [See rejection of claim 1 above]. The inner layer designated as supporting layer [Col. 8, lines 19-21] and is made of conductive materials [Col. 9, lines 1-4]).
Claim 11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12420521 (Hackel et. al. ‘521) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claims 1 and 10 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one innermost layer made of plastic is connected to the interior side of the inner layer, wherein the innermost layer consists essentially of a fluoropolymer (outer layer made of plastic arranged on an exterior side of the barrier layer as shown by the outer barrier layer made of plastic [Col. 8, lines 11-12] wherein the barrier is made of vinyl alcohol plastic selected from BVOH, or PVOH [See rejection of claim 1 above]. The innermost layer designated as the protective layer on the inner side of the supporting layer [Col. 8, lines 54-57] and is made of fluoropolymer [Col. 8, lines 56-57]).
Claim 12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12420521 (Hackel et. al. ‘521) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claims 10 and 12 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the innermost layer consists essentially of ETFE. (outer layer made of plastic arranged on an exterior side of the barrier layer as shown by the outer barrier layer made of plastic [Col. 8, lines 11-12] wherein the barrier is made of vinyl alcohol plastic selected from BVOH, or PVOH [See rejection of claim 1 above]. The innermost layer designated as the protective layer on the inner side of the supporting layer [Col. 8, lines 54-57] and is made of fluoropolymer ETFE [Col. 8, lines 61-62]).
Claim 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12420521 (Hackel et. al. ‘521) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claims 10 and 11 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according claim 1, wherein at least areas of the innermost layer are configured to be electrically conductive. (outer layer made of plastic arranged on an exterior side of the barrier layer as shown by the outer barrier layer made of plastic [Col. 8, lines 11-12] wherein the barrier is made of vinyl alcohol plastic selected from BVOH, or PVOH [See rejection of claim 1 above]. The innermost layer designated as the protective layer on the inner side of the supporting layer [Col. 8, lines 54-57] and is made of additives for conductivity [Col. 8, lines 58-59]).
Claim 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 6 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12420521 (Hackel et. al. ‘521) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claims 6 and 9 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 6, wherein the first bonding layer consists essentially of polyamide 6 (boundary layer, which includes the bonding ply, is made from a selection of polyamides where PA 6 is an option [Col. 8, line 50-53]).
Claim 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12420521 (Hackel et. al. ‘521) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejection of claim 1 above.
Hackel et. al. ‘521 recites in claims 1 and 13 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 10, wherein the second bonding layer consists essentially of polyamide 6 (outer layer made of plastic arranged on an exterior side of the barrier layer as shown by the outer barrier layer made of plastic [Col. 8, lines 11-12] wherein the barrier is made of vinyl alcohol plastic selected from BVOH, or PVOH [See rejection of claim 1 above]. Separating layer made of a plastic and positioned in between inner barrier and outer barrier layer [Col. 8, lines 16-19] wherein the plastic is PA 6 [Col. 8, lines 62-63]).
U.S. Patent No. 9534712 – Zimmer et. al.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 10-11 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9534712 to Zimmer et. al. (Zimmer et. al ‘712) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204).
Regarding claim 1: Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claim 1, A multilayer motor vehicle pipeline, having at least one barrier layer comprised of at least one material selected from the group of butene diol-vinyl alcohol copolymer (BVOH), polyvinyl alcohol (PVOH), polymer blend with BVOH, polymer blend with PVOH (multilayer pipe [Col. 4, line 15] which comprises a barrier layer [Col. 4, line 22]) and wherein at least one outer layer made of plastic is arranged on the exterior side of the barrier layer (outer layer enclosing a barrier layer and made of a plastic [Col. 4, lines 24-27]).
Zimmer et. al. ‘712 claim 1 does not include the direct teaching of BVOH and PVOH for the use of the barrier layer material. Higuchi et. al. teaches a barrier material comprised of non-gas-permeable resin which includes EVOH, PVOH and BVOH (Para. 58, lines 1-6). Higuchi et. al. also teaches a mixture of the optional materials to be any combination with each other or other resin (Para. 58, lines 10-13). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize EVOH, BVOH or PVOH as taught by Higuchi et. al. because they have been taught to be optional polyvinyl alcohol solutions to be included as a barrier material in an application as they are known barrier materials in the art (Para. 56, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 3: Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claim 1, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one inner layer made of plastic is arranged on the interior side of the barrier layer (innermost layer made from a polymer [Col. 4, lines 16-19]).
Regarding claim 6: Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claim 1, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one first bonding layer made of plastic is arranged between the barrier layer and the outer layer (second support layer made of plastic encloses barrier layer and enclosed by an outer later [Col. 4, lines 22-25]) wherein the first bonding layer consists of a polyamide (support layer consists of a polyamide [Col. 4, line 23]).
Regarding claim 10: Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claim 1, The pipeline according claim 1, wherein at least one second bonding layer made of plastic is arranged between the barrier layer and the inner layer, wherein the second bonding layer consists of a polyamide (first support layer between inner and barrier layers consists of polyamide [Col. 4, lines 18-22]).
Regarding claim 11: Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claim 1, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one innermost layer made of plastic is connected to the interior side of the inner layer, wherein the innermost layer consists essentially of a fluoropolymer (an innermost layer made from a polymer which can include fluoropolymer and is placed on the interior side of an inner layer [Col. 4, 18-20]).
Claims 4, 7, 9, and 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 9534712 to Zimmer et. al. (Zimmer et. al. ‘712) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jadamus et. al. (US 6090459).
Regarding claim 4: Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the outer layer consists essentially of a plastic selected from the group polyamide (outer later comprises one or more polyamides [Col. 4, lines 24-26]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyolefin as an option for the plastic of the outer layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an outer layer which comprises polyamide or polyolefin (Col. 2, lines 18-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyamide of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. with polyolefin, polyamide, polyacetal, polyketone, or polyesters as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 7: Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according claim 1, wherein the inner layer consists essentially of a plastic selected from the group fluoropolymer (inner layer made of a group which includes fluoropolymer [Col. 4, lines 18-20]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyolefin or polyamide as an option for the polymer of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the fluoropolymer of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. with polyamides, polyolefins, polyacetals, polyketones, or thermoplastic polyesters as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 9: Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1 and the inner layer (inner layer made of a polymer [Col. 4, lines 18-20]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyamide selected from PA 6, 12, or 612 as an option for the material of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25). Jadamus et. al. further teaches preferred compositions including PA 6, 12, and 612 (Col. 2, lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 12: Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, and the innermost layer. (The innermost layer designated as the protective layer on the inner side of a support layer [Col. 4, lines 18-20] and is made of fluoropolymer [Col. 4, lines 18-19]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of the material of the innermost layer being specifically fluoropolymer. Jadamus et. al. teaches the inner layer made of a fluoropolymer which can be ETFE (Col. 9, lines 23-26).
Claim 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 9534712 to Zimmer et. al. (Zimmer et. al. ‘712) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejections over claim 1 above.
Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claims 1 and 20 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the outer layer consists essentially of polyamide 12 and/or polyamide 612 (outer layer material can include a polyamide such as PA 12 and PA 612 [Col. 5, lines 25-29]).
Claims 8 and 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 9534712 to Hackel et. al. in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejections over claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8: Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claims 1 and 2 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least areas of the inner layer are configured to be electrically conductive (inner layer is designed to be electrically conductive [Col. 4, lines 37-48]).
Regarding claim 13: Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claims 1 and 2 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least areas of the innermost layer are configured to be electrically conductive (inner layer is designed to be electrically conductive [Col. 4, lines 37-48]).
Claim 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9534712 to Hackel et. al. in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejections over claim 1 above.
Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claims 1 and 5 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 6, wherein the first bonding layer consists essentially of polyamide 6 (support layer between the outer and barrier layers consists of PA 6 [Col. 4, lines 45-47]).
Claim 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 9534712 to Hackel et. al. in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejections over claim 1 above.
Zimmer et. al. ‘712 recites in claims 1 and 8 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 10, wherein the second bonding layer consists essentially of polyamide 6 (support layer between the inner and barrier layers consists of PA 6 [Col. 4, lines 54-56]).
U.S. Patent No. 11655920 – Schramowski et. al.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11655920 to Schramowski et. al. in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204).
Regarding claim 1: Schramowski et. al. recites in claim 1, A multilayer motor vehicle pipeline, having at least one barrier layer (multilayer pipe [Col. 8, line 35] which comprises a barrier layer made of a plastic [Col. 8, lines 50-52]) and wherein at least one outer layer made of plastic is arranged on the exterior side of the barrier layer (external layer made of a plastic [Col. 8, lines 42-43]).
Schramowski et. al. claim 1 does not include the direct teaching of BVOH and PVOH for the use of the barrier layer material. Higuchi et. al. teaches a barrier material comprised of non-gas-permeable resin which includes EVOH, PVOH and BVOH (Para. 58, lines 1-6). Higuchi et. al. also teaches a mixture of the optional materials to be any combination with each other or other resin (Para. 58, lines 10-13). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize EVOH, BVOH or PVOH as taught by Higuchi et. al. because they have been taught to be optional polyvinyl alcohol solutions to be included as a barrier material in an application as they are known barrier materials in the art (Para. 56, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 3: Schramowski et. al. recites in claim 1, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one inner layer made of plastic is arranged on the interior side of the barrier layer (internal layer made of thermoplastic [Col. 8, lines 45-46] and the inside of the barrier layer [Col. 8, lines 53-54]).
Claims 4, 7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11655920 to Schramowski et. al. in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jadamus et. al. (US 6090459).
Regarding claim 4: Schramowski et. al. recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the outer layer consists essentially of a plastic selected from the group polyamide (outer later comprises one or more polyamides [Col. 8, lines 42-43]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyolefin as an option for the plastic of the outer layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an outer layer which comprises polyamide or polyolefin (Col. 2, lines 18-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyamide of Schramowski and Higuchi et. al. with polyolefin, polyamide, polyacetal, polyketone, or polyesters as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 7: Schramowski et. al. recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according claim 1, wherein the inner layer consists essentially of a plastic (inner layer made of a group which includes thermoplastic elastomer [Col. 8, lines 45-46]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyolefin, polyamide, or fluoropolymer as an option for the plastic of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the thermoplastic elastomer of Schramowski et. al. and Higuchi et. al. with polyamides, polyolefins, polyacetals, polyketones, thermoplastic polyesters or fluoropolymers as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 9: Schramowski et. al. recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1 and the inner layer (inner layer made of a plastic [Col. 8, lines 45-46]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyamide selected from PA 6, 12, or 612 as an option for the material of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25). Jadamus et. al. further teaches preferred compositions including PA 6, 12, and 612 (Col. 2, lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 11: Schramowski et. al. recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one innermost layer made of plastic is connected to the interior side of the inner layer (The innermost layer designated as the internal on the inner side of the adhesion layer and is made of plastic [Col. 8, lines 44-46]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of the material of the innermost layer being specifically fluoropolymer. Jadamus et. al. teaches the inner layer made of a fluoropolymer (Col. 2, lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 12: Schramowski et. al. recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1 and the innermost layer (The innermost layer designated as the internal on the inner side of the adhesion layer and is made of plastic [Col. 8, lines 44-46]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of the material of the innermost layer being specifically fluoropolymer. Jadamus et. al. teaches the inner layer made of a fluoropolymer which can be ETFE (Col. 9, lines 23-26).
Claims 5-6, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11655920 to Schramowski et. al. in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jadamus et. al. (US 6090459).
Regarding claim 5: Schramowski et. al. recites in claims 1, 6, and 10 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the outer layer consists essentially of polyamide 612 (outer layer material can include a polyamide such as PA 612 [Col. 9, lines 13-15]).
Claim 10 does not recite PA 12 as an option of polyamides. Jadamus et. al. teaches an outer layer which comprises polyamide 12 or 612 (Col. 2, lines 21-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the PA 612 of Schramowski et. al. and Higuchi et. al. with PA 12 as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 6: Schramowski et. al. recites in claims 1, 6, and 10 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one first bonding layer made of plastic is arranged between the barrier layer and the outer layer (bonding layer shown as external layer and is between outer layer and barrier layer [Col. 9, lines 2-4] as the barrier layer is between internal and external layer [Col. 8, lines 52-53]) wherein the first bonding layer consists of a polyamide (external layer consists of a polyamide [Col. 8, lines 42-43]).
Regarding Claim 15: Schramowski et. al. recites in claims 1, 6, and 10 in combination with Higuchi et. al. and Jadamus et. al., The pipeline according to claim 6, wherein the first bonding layer consists essentially of polyamide 6 (Jadamus et. al. PA 6 as a material selection for polyamides [Col. 2, lines 21-25]).
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11655920 to Schramowski et. al. in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejections over claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14: Schramowski et. al. recites in claims 1 and 12 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the barrier layer measures at least 5% of the overall wall thickness of the pipeline (Intermediate layer thickness 10-50% of tube wall thickness which is included in part in some of the at least 5% [Col. 7, lines 40-42]).
However, claims 1 and 12 do not recite the thickness between 5-10%. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different proportions of the thickness of the barrier that would meet standards for budget or efficacy and find that the barrier could be reduced to 5% of total thickness, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 17: Schramowski et. al. recites in claims 1 and 12 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the barrier layer measures at least 10% of the overall wall thickness of the pipeline (Col. 10, lines 1-3).
U.S. Patent No. 11976749 – Hackel, Andre
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11976749 to Hackel (Hackel ‘749) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204).
Regarding claim 1: Hackel ‘749 recites in claim 1, A multilayer motor vehicle pipeline, having at least one barrier layer (multilayer vehicle pipe [Col. 7, line 17] which comprises a barrier, intermediate, layer made of a plastic [Col. 7, line 25]) and wherein at least one outer layer made of plastic is arranged on the exterior side of the barrier layer (outer layer made of a plastic [Col. 7, lines 21-23]).
Hackel ‘749 claim 1 does not include the direct teaching of BVOH and PVOH for the use of the barrier layer material. Higuchi et. al. teaches a barrier material comprised of non-gas-permeable resin which includes EVOH, PVOH and BVOH (Para. 58, lines 1-6). Higuchi et. al. also teaches a mixture of the optional materials to be any combination with each other or other resin (Para. 58, lines 10-13). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize EVOH, BVOH or PVOH as taught by Higuchi et. al. because they have been taught to be optional polyvinyl alcohol solutions to be included as a barrier material in an application as they are known barrier materials in the art (Para. 56, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 3: Hackel ‘749 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one inner layer made of plastic is arranged on the interior side of the barrier layer (inner layer made of plastic [Col. 7, lines 26-27] and the inside of the barrier layer [Col. 7, lines 21-26]).
Claims 4-5, 7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11976749 to Hackel (Hackel ‘749) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jadamus et. al. (US 6090459).
Regarding claim 4: Hackel ‘749 in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the outer layer consists essentially of a plastic selected from polyolefin (outer later made of polyethylene [Col. 7, lines 22-24]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyamide as an option for the plastic of the outer layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an outer layer which comprises polyamide or polyolefin (Col. 2, lines 18-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyolefin of Hackel ‘749 and Higuchi et. al. with polyolefin, polyamide, polyacetal, polyketone, or polyesters as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 5: Hackel ‘749 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1 and the outer layer containing plastic (outer layer material made of plastic material [Col. 7, lines 22-24]).
Claim 1 does not recite PA 12 or 612 as options of polyamides as plastic material for the outer layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an outer layer which comprises polyamide 12 or 612 (Col. 2, lines 21-25 and lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 7: Hackel ‘749 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according claim 1, wherein the inner layer consists essentially of a plastic (inner layer made of a group which includes polyolefin and thermoplastics [Col. 7, lines 26-27]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyamide or fluoropolymer as an option for the plastic of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyolefin or thermoplastic of Hackel ‘749 and Higuchi et. al. with polyamides, polyolefins, polyacetals, polyketones, thermoplastic polyesters or fluoropolymers as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 9: Hackel ‘749 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1 and the inner layer (inner layer made of a plastic [Col. 7, lines 26-27]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyamide selected from PA 6, 12, or 612 as an option for the material of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25). Jadamus et. al. further teaches preferred compositions including PA 6, 12, and 612 (Col. 2, lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 11: Hackel ‘749 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one innermost layer made of plastic is connected to the interior side of the inner layer (The innermost layer designated as the inner layer and is on the inner side of an inner layer, i.e intermediate layer, and is made of plastic [Col. 7, lines 21-26]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of the material of the innermost layer being specifically fluoropolymer. Jadamus et. al. teaches the inner layer made of a fluoropolymer (Col. 2, lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 12: Hackel ‘749 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1 and the innermost layer (The innermost layer designated as the inner layer and is on the inner side of an inner layer, i.e intermediate layer, and is made of plastic [Col. 7, lines 21-26]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of the material of the innermost layer being specifically fluoropolymer. Jadamus et. al. teaches the inner layer made of a fluoropolymer which can be ETFE (Col. 9, lines 23-26).
Claims 6, 10, and 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11976749 to Hackel (Hackel ‘749) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jadamus et. al. (US 6090459).
Regarding claim 6: Hackel ‘749 recites in claims 1, 8 and 14 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one first bonding layer made of plastic is arranged between the barrier layer and the outer layer (adhesion promoting layer between intermediate and outer layer [Col. 8, lines 4-7]) wherein the first bonding layer consists a plastic (first and/or second adhesion promoting layers consists a plastic [Col. 8, lines 23-26]).
Claim 14 does not recite the limitation of polyamide as an option for the plastic of the adhesion promoting layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches a layer that can be made of polyolefin or polyamide (Col. 2, lines 21-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyolefin of Hackel ‘749 and Higuchi et. al. with polyamide as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 10: Hackel ‘749 recites in claims 1, 8 and 14 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according claim 1, wherein at least one second bonding layer made of plastic is arranged between the barrier layer and the inner layer, wherein the second bonding layer consists of a plastic (first and/or second adhesion promoting layers consists a plastic [Col. 8, lines 23-26], where the second adhesion is defined as being interposed between intermediate and inner layer [Col. 8, lines 14-16]).
Claim 14 does not recite the limitation of polyamide as an option for the plastic of the adhesion promoting layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches a layer that can be made of polyolefin or polyamide (Col. 2, lines 21-25).
Regarding Claim 15: Hackel ‘749 recites in claims 1, 8 and 14 in combination with Higuchi et. al. and Jadamus et. al., The pipeline according to claim 6, wherein the first bonding layer consists essentially of polyamide 6 (Jadamus et. al. PA 6 as a material selection for polyamides [Col. 2, lines 21-25]).
Regarding Claim 16: Hackel ‘749 recites in claims 1, 8 and 14 in combination with Higuchi et. al. and Jadamus et. al., The pipeline according to claim 10, wherein the second bonding layer consists essentially of polyamide 6 (Jadamus et. al. PA 6 as a material selection for polyamides [Col. 2, lines 21-25]).
Claims 14 and 17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 11976749 to Hackel (Hackel ‘749) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as taught by the rejections over claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14: Hackel ‘749 recites in claims 1 and 5 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the barrier layer measures at least 5% of the overall wall thickness of the pipeline (Intermediate layer thickness 10-50% of tube wall thickness which is included in part in some of the at least 5% [Col. 7, lines 40-42]).
However, claim 5 does not recite the thickness between 5-10%. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different proportions of the thickness of the barrier that would meet standards for budget or efficacy and find that the barrier could be reduced to 5% of total thickness, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 17: Hackel ‘749 recites in claims 1 and 5 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the barrier layer measures at least 10% of the overall wall thickness of the pipeline (Intermediate layer thickness 10-50% of tube wall thickness [Col. 7, lines 40-42]).
U.S. Patent No. 10948109 – Zimmer et. al.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10948109 to Zimmer et. al. (Zimmer et. al. ‘109) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204).
Regarding claim 1: Zimmer et. al. ‘109 recites in claim 1, A multilayer motor vehicle pipeline, having at least one barrier layer comprised of at least one material selected from a plastic (multilayer pipe which comprises a barrier layer made of a plastic [Col. 6, line 3]) and wherein at least one outer layer made of plastic is arranged on the exterior side of the barrier layer (exterior layer enclosing a barrier layer and made of a plastic [Col. 6, line 1]).
While claim 1 does not include the direct teaching of BVOH and PVOH for the use of the barrier layer material, the claim iterates a plastic, polyamide, as suitable material for the barrier. Higuchi et. al. teaches a barrier material comprised of non-gas-permeable resin which includes PVOH and BVOH (Higuchi et. al. - Para. 58, lines 1-6). Higuchi et. al. also teaches a mixture of the optional materials to be any combination with each other or other resin (Higuchi et. al. - Para. 58, lines 10-13). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize BVOH and PVOH as taught by Higuchi et. al. because they have been taught to be optional polyvinyl alcohol solutions to be included as a barrier material in an application as they are known barrier materials in the art (Para. 56, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 3: Zimmer et. al. ‘109 recites in claim 1, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one inner layer made of plastic is arranged on the interior side of the barrier layer (interior layer made of a plastic and positioned inside of a barrier layer [Col. 6, line 5]).
Claims 4-5, 7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10948109 to Zimmer et. al. (Zimmer et. al. ‘109) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jadamus et. al. (US 6090459).
Regarding claim 4: Zimmer et. al. ‘109 in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the outer layer consists essentially of a plastic selected from polyolefin (exterior later made of polyolefin [Col. 6, line 1]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyamide as an option for the plastic of the outer layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an outer layer which comprises polyamide or polyolefin (Col. 2, lines 18-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyolefin of Zimmer et. al. ‘109 and Higuchi et. al. with polyolefin, polyamide, polyacetal, polyketone, or polyesters as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 5: Zimmer et. al. ‘109 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1 and the outer layer containing plastic (exterior layer material made of plastic material [Col. 6, line 1 and lines 7-9]).
Claim 1 does not recite PA 12 or 612 as options of polyamides as plastic material for the outer layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an outer layer which comprises polyamide or polyolefin as substitutes of each other and possible material selection of polyamides as PA 12 or 612 (Col. 2, lines 21-25 and lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 7: Zimmer et. al. ‘109 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according claim 1, wherein the inner layer consists essentially of a polyolefin (interior layer made of a group which includes polyolefin [Col. 6, line 5]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyamide or fluoropolymer as an option for the plastic of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyolefin or thermoplastic of Zimmer et. al. ‘109 and Higuchi et. al. with polyamides, polyolefins, polyacetals, polyketones, thermoplastic polyesters or fluoropolymers as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 9: Zimmer et. al. ‘109 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1 and the inner layer (inner layer made of a plastic [Col. 6, line 5]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyamide selected from PA 6, 12, or 612 as an option for the material of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25). Jadamus et. al. further teaches preferred compositions including PA 6, 12, and 612 (Col. 2, lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 11: Zimmer et. al. ‘109 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one innermost layer made of plastic is connected to the interior side of the inner layer (The innermost layer designated as the interior layer and is on the inner side of an inner layer, i.e second adhesive or barrier layer, and is made of plastic [Col. 6, lines 3-5]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of the material of the innermost layer being specifically fluoropolymer. Jadamus et. al. teaches the inner layer made of a fluoropolymer and being of use in place of polyolefin (Col. 2, lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 12: Zimmer et. al. ‘109 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1 and the innermost layer (The innermost layer designated as the interior layer and is on the inner side of an inner layer, i.e second adhesive or barrier layer, and is made of plastic [Col. 6, lines 3-5]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of the material of the innermost layer being specifically fluoropolymer. Jadamus et. al. teaches the inner layer made of a fluoropolymer which can be ETFE (Col. 9, lines 23-26).
Claims 6, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10948109 to Zimmer et. al. (Zimmer et. al. ‘109) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jadamus et. al. (US 6090459).
Regarding claim 6: Zimmer et. al. ‘109 recites in claims 1 and 6 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one first bonding layer made of plastic is arranged between the barrier layer and the outer layer (first adhesive layer between barrier and exterior layer [Col. 6, lines 1-3]) wherein the first bonding layer consists a plastic (first bonding layer consists a plastic [Col. 6, lines 20-22]).
Claim 6 does not recite the limitation of polyamide as an option for the plastic of the bonding layer but does recite polyolefin as possible plastic (Zimmer et. al. ‘109 – Col.6, line 21). Jadamus et. al. teaches a layer that can be made of polyolefin or polyamide (Col. 2, lines 21-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyolefin of Zimmer et. al. ‘109 and Higuchi et. al. with polyamide as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding Claim 15: Zimmer et. al. ‘109 recites in claims 1 and 6 in combination with Higuchi et. al. and Jadamus et. al., The pipeline according to claim 6, wherein the first bonding layer consists essentially of polyamide 6 (Jadamus et. al. PA 6 as a material selection for polyamides [Col. 2, lines 21-25]).
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10984109 to Zimmer et. al. (Zimmer et. al. ‘109) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to claim 1 above. Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to claim 1 above.
Zimmer et. al. ‘109 recites in claims 1 and 8 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according claim 1, wherein at least one second bonding layer made of plastic is arranged between the barrier layer and the inner layer, wherein the second bonding layer consists of a plastic (second adhesive layer consists a polyolefin or polyamide [Col. 6, lines 28-30], where the second adhesion is defined as being interposed between barrier and interior layer [Col. 6, lines 3-5]).
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 10984109 to Zimmer et. al. (Zimmer et. al. ‘109) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jadamus et. al. (US 6090459).
Zimmer et. al. ‘109 recites in claims 1 and 8 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 10, wherein the second bonding layer consists essentially of polyamide (second adhesive layer consists a polyolefin or polyamide [Col. 6, lines 28-30]).
Claim 8 does not recite the limitation of PA 6 the plastic of the bonding layer but does recite a polyamide as an option for the polyamide (Zimmer et. al. ‘109 – Col. 6, line 29). Jadamus et. al. PA 6 as a preferred material selection for polyamides (Col. 2, line 29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zimmer et. al. ‘109 and Higuchi et. al. with suitable polyamides as taught by Jadamus et. al. as PA 6 is seen as a preferred alternatives of other polyamide compounds (Col. 2, lines 29-30) in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
U.S. Patent No. 10751969 – Zimmer et. al.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10751969 (Zimmer et. al. ‘969) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204).
Regarding claim 1: Zimmer et. al. ‘969 recites in claim 1, A multilayer motor vehicle pipeline, having at least one barrier layer comprised of at least one material selected from a plastic (multilayer pipe which comprises a central/barrier layer made of a plastic [Col. 6, lines 26-27]) and wherein at least one outer layer made of plastic is arranged on the exterior side of the barrier layer (outer layer enclosing a barrier layer and made of a plastic [Col. 6, line 27-28]).
While claim 1 does not include the direct teaching of BVOH and PVOH for the use of the barrier layer material, the claim iterates a plastic, polyamide, as suitable material for the barrier. Higuchi et. al. teaches a barrier material comprised of non-gas-permeable resin which includes PVOH and BVOH (Higuchi et. al. - Para. 58, lines 1-6). Higuchi et. al. also teaches a mixture of the optional materials to be any combination with each other or other resin (Higuchi et. al. - Para. 58, lines 10-13). It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize BVOH and PVOH as taught by Higuchi et. al. because they have been taught to be optional polyvinyl alcohol solutions to be included as a barrier material in an application as they are known barrier materials in the art (Para. 56, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 3: Zimmer et. al. ‘969 recites in claim 1, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one inner layer made of plastic is arranged on the interior side of the barrier layer (inner layer made of a plastic and positioned inside of a barrier layer [Col. 6, lines 25-26]).
Claims 4-5, 7, 9, and 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10751969 to Zimmer et. al. (Zimmer et. al. ‘969) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Jadamus et. al. (US 6090459).
Regarding claim 4: Zimmer et. al. ‘969 in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the outer layer consists essentially of a plastic selected from polyolefin (outer later made of polyolefin [Col. 6, lines 27-28]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyamide as an option for the plastic of the outer layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an outer layer which comprises polyamide or polyolefin (Col. 2, lines 18-22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyolefin of Zimmer et. al. ‘969 and Higuchi et. al. with polyolefin, polyamide, polyacetal, polyketone, or polyesters as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 5: Zimmer et. al. ‘969 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1 and the outer layer containing plastic (outer layer material made of plastic material [Col. 6, lines 27-28]).
Claim 1 does not recite PA 12 or 612 as options of polyamides as plastic material for the outer layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an outer layer which comprises polyamide or polyolefin as substitutes of each other and possible material selection of polyamides as PA 12 or 612 (Col. 2, lines 21-25 and lines 26-29).
Regarding claim 7: Zimmer et. al. ‘969 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according claim 1, wherein the inner layer consists essentially of a polyolefin (inner layer made of a group which includes polyolefin [Col. 6, lines 25-26]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyamide or fluoropolymer as an option for the plastic of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyolefin or thermoplastic of Zimmer et. al. ‘969 and Higuchi et. al. with polyamides, polyolefins, polyacetals, polyketones, thermoplastic polyesters or fluoropolymers as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 9: Zimmer et. al. ‘969 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1 and the inner layer (inner layer made of a plastic [Col. 6, lines 25-26]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of polyamide selected from PA 6, 12, or 612 as an option for the material of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25). Jadamus et. al. further teaches preferred compositions including PA 6, 12, and 612 (Col. 2, lines 26-30).
Regarding claim 11: Zimmer et. al. ‘969 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one innermost layer made of plastic is connected to the interior side of the inner layer (The innermost layer designated as the inner layer and is on the inner side of an inner layer, i.e central layer is an inner layer with respect to the outer layer, and is made of plastic [Col. 6, lines 25-28]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of the material of the innermost layer being specifically fluoropolymer. Jadamus et. al. teaches the inner layer made of a fluoropolymer and being of use in place of polyolefin (Col. 2, lines 21-25).
Regarding claim 12: Zimmer et. al. ‘969 recites in claim 1 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1 and the innermost layer (The innermost layer designated as the inner layer and is on the inner side of an inner layer, i.e central layer is an inner layer with respect to the outer layer, and is made of plastic [Col. 6, lines 25-28]).
Claim 1 does not recite the limitation of the material of the innermost layer being specifically ETFE. Jadamus et. al. teaches the inner layer made of a fluoropolymer which can be ETFE (Col. 9, lines 23-26).
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 10751969 (Zimmer et. al. ‘969) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204).
Regarding claim 8: Zimmer et. al. ‘969 recites in claims 1 and 3 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least areas of the inner layer are configured to be electrically conductive (inner layer is designed to be electrically conductive [Col. 6, line 36]).
Regarding claim 13: Zimmer et. al. ‘969 recites in claims 1 and 3 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least areas of the innermost layer are configured to be electrically conductive (inner layer is designed to be electrically conductive [Col. 6, line 36]).
Claims 6, 10, and 15-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 10751969 to Zimmer et. al. (Zimmer et. al. ‘969) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Stoppelmann et. al. (US 20050136205).
Regarding claim 6 and 10: Zimmer et. al. ‘969 recites in claims 1 and 2 in combination with Higuchi et. al., The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one first bonding layer arranged between the barrier layer and the outer layer and at least one second bonding layer arranged between the barrier layer and the inner layer (adhesion promoter layer between central and outer layers and adhesion promoter layer between the central and inner layers [Col. 6, lines 31-34]).
Claims 1 and 2 do not recite the limitation of polyamide as an option for the plastic of the adhesion promoting layers. Stoppelmann et. al. teaches an adhesion layer for a multilayer pipe that can be made of a polyamide (Para. 19, lines 6-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the adhesion promoter layer of Zimmer et. al. ‘969 and Higuchi et. al. with adhesion promoting layer having the material polyamide as taught by Stoppelmann et. al. adhesive properties of multi-layered pipes are crucial for functionality in industrial applications utilizing fluoropolymers and polyamides (Para. 4, lines 3-10) and the adhesion layer composed of a polyamide has been shown to be a strong adhesion promoter in this application (Para. 19).
Regarding Claim 15 and 16: Zimmer et. al. ‘969 recites in claims 1 and 2 in combination with Higuchi et. al. and Stoppelmann et. al., The pipeline according to claim 6 and 10, wherein the first and second bonding layer consists essentially of polyamide 6 (Stoppelmann et. al. teaches PA 6 as a material selection for polyamides of the adhesion layers [Para. 28, lines 1-4]).
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zimmer et. al. (US 9534712) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204).
Regarding claim 1: Zimmer et. al. ‘712 teaches, A multilayer motor vehicle pipeline, having at least one barrier layer comprised of at least one material of vinyl alcohol (multilayer pipe [Col. 1, lines 40-42] which comprises a barrier layer [Col. 1, line 47] and the barrier layer is made from a vinyl alcohol [Col. 3, lines 50-51]) and wherein at least one outer layer made of plastic is arranged on the exterior side of the barrier layer (outer layer enclosing a barrier layer and made of a plastic [Col. 4, lines 42-51]).
Zimmer et. al. ‘712 does not teach BVOH and PVOH for the use of the barrier layer material. Higuchi et. al. teaches a barrier material comprised of non-gas-permeable resin which includes EVOH, PVOH and BVOH (Para. 58, lines 1-6). Higuchi et. al. also teaches a mixture of the optional materials to be any combination with each other or other resin (Para. 58, lines 10-13).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize EVOH, BVOH or PVOH as taught by Higuchi et. al. because they have been taught to be optional polyvinyl alcohol solutions to be included as a barrier material in an application as they are known barrier materials in the art (Para. 56, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 2: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. fails to teach, the motor vehicle pipeline is a hydrogen transport pipeline.
While Zimmer et. al. ‘712 does not specify the fuel transported through the pipeline (Col.1, lines 40-42), it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Regarding claim 3: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one inner layer made of plastic is arranged on the interior side of the barrier layer (innermost layer made from a plastic as well as a first support layer made form a plastic [Col. 1, lines 41-47]).
Regarding claim 5: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the outer layer consists essentially of polyamide 12 and/or polyamide 612 (outer layer consists of at least one from a grouping of polyamide which includes PA 12 and PA 612 [Col. 2 and 3, line 67 and lines 1-4 respectively and Claim 20]).
Regarding claim 6: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one first bonding layer made of plastic is arranged between the barrier layer and the outer layer (second support layer made of plastic encloses barrier layer and enclosed by an outer later [Col. 1, lines 47-49]) wherein the first bonding layer consists of a polyamide (support layer consists of a polyamide [Col. 1, line 48]).
Regarding claim 8: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least areas of the inner layer are configured to be electrically conductive (inner layer configured to be electrically conductive [Col. 1, lines 54-55 and claim 2]).
Regarding claim 10: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according claim 1, wherein at least one second bonding layer made of plastic is arranged between the barrier layer and the inner layer, wherein the second bonding layer consists of a polyamide (first support layer between inner and barrier layers consists of polyamide [Col. 1, lines 43-47]).
Regarding claim 11: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least one innermost layer made of plastic is connected to the interior side of the inner layer, wherein the innermost layer consists essentially of a fluoropolymer (an innermost layer made from a polymer which can include fluoropolymer and is placed on the interior side of an inner layer, i.e the first support layer, or second support layer are inward of the outer layer and therefore can be considered inner layers [Col. 1, lines 43-51]).
Regarding claim 12: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the innermost layer consists essentially of ETFE (innermost consists of a fluoropolymer which can be ETFE [Col. 1, lines 61-64]).
Regarding claim 13: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein at least areas of the innermost layer are configured to be electrically conductive (inner layer configured to be electrically conductive [Col. 1, lines 54-55 and claim 2]).
Regarding claim 14: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the barrier layer measures at least 5% of the overall wall thickness of the pipeline (Disclosure includes ranges for the thickness of each layer resulting in barrier layer thickness to be ~6% -28% of overall wall thickness [Para. 12-16]).
Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. fails to teach the specific percentage of thickness down to 5%. However, does not recite the thickness between 5-10%. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the different proportions of the thickness of the barrier that would meet standards for budget or efficacy and find that the barrier could be reduced to 5% of total thickness, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the proportions of components. A change in proportion is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Reese, 129 USPQ 402.
Regarding claim 15: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according to claim 6, wherein the first bonding layer consists essentially of polyamide 6 (second support layer, between barrier and outer layer, consists of PA 6 [Col. 2, lines 29-30]).
Regarding claim 16: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according to claim 10, wherein the second bonding layer consists essentially of polyamide 6 (first support layer, between the barrier and inner layer, consists of PA 6 [Col. 2, lines 14-15]).
Regarding claim 17: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein a thickness of the barrier layer measures at least 10% of the overall wall thickness of the pipeline (Disclosure includes ranges for the thickness of each layer resulting in barrier layer thickness to be ~6% -28% of overall wall thickness [Para. 12-16]).
Claims 4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackel et. al. (US 9534712) in view of Higuchi et. al. (US 20180009204) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jadamus et. al. (US 6090459).
Regarding claim 4: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according to claim 1, wherein the outer layer consists essentially of a plastic selected from the group polyamide (outer later comprises one or more polyamides [Col. 1, lines 49-51]).
Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. fails to teach the limitation of polyolefin as an option for the plastic of the outer layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an outer layer which comprises polyamide or polyolefin (Col. 2, lines 18-22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the polyamide of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. with polyolefin, polyamide, polyacetal, polyketone, or polyesters as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 7: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according claim 1, wherein the inner layer consists essentially of a plastic selected from the group polyamide, fluoropolymer (inner layer made of a polymer chosen from a group which includes polyamide and fluoropolymer [Col. 1, lines 43-45]).
Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. fails to teach the limitation of polyolefin as an option for the polymer of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the fluoropolymer of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. with polyamides, polyolefins, polyacetals, polyketones, or thermoplastic polyesters as taught by Jadamus et. al. as these materials are seen as suitable alternatives of each other in an application of multilayered pipes in transport of chemical materials (Col. 1, 32-55) and known for their resistance to effects of bending, thermoforming and contact with fuel (Col. 1, 32-34).
Regarding claim 9: the combination of Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. teaches, The pipeline according to claim 1 and the inner layer selected from a group of polyamide (inner layer made of a polyamide [Col. 1, lines 43-44]).
Zimmer et. al. ‘712 and Higuchi et. al. fails to teach the limitation of polyamide selected from PA 6, 12, or 612 as an option for the material of the inner layer. Jadamus et. al. teaches an inner layer which comprises polyamide, polyolefin, or fluoropolymers (Col. 2, lines 21-25). Jadamus et. al. further teaches preferred compositions including PA 6, 12, and 612 (Col. 2, lines 26-30).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ries et. al. (US 6680093) teaches a multilayer composite comprised of polyamide and polyolefin plastics (Col. 3, lines 43-45) and a barrier layer made of fluoropolymers, such as ETFE (Col. 5, line 29-31).
Mizutani et. al. (US 20160281886) teaches a multilayer fuel hose comprised of polyamides and variation which can include ETFE, polyolefin, or polyamide or a combination thereof (Abstract and Para. 30, lines 1-10).
Haines (US 20080041484) teaches multilayer hose comprising at least one permeation resistant layers which include materials such as polyolefin, polyamide, EVOH, and thermoplastic fluoropolymers (Abstract and Para. 10 and 11)
Sato (US 20060035043) teaches a multilayer tube utilizing polyamide, EVOH, and/or ETFE (Abstract and Para. 24)
Ainsworth (US 20060226608) teaches a multilayer flexible hose for transporting hydrogen which utilizes polyolefin, polyamide, ETFE, and/or EVOH (Abstract and Para. 16)
Miguel et. al. (US 20030099800) teaches a multilayer motor vehicle fluid hose comprising polyamide, polyolefin, and thermoplastic elastomer (Abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA DENNIS LEARY whose telephone number is (571)272-1685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. If Craig Schneider cannot be reached, please contact Kenneth Rinehart 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.
/JOSHUA D LEARY/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753