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 .
Specification Objection
There is a typo in applicant’s Spec. dated Apr. 26, 2023, (“Spec.”) [0030]. The limitation of “According to various implementations, the plurality of supports 114 are configured to support the gas permeable tubing 104 within the impermeable tubing shield 102 by being periodically positioned to provide support to an exterior of the gas permeable tubing 102 to prevent a pressure spike within the gas permeable tubing from causing an expansion of the gas permeable tubing 102.” Emphasis Added.
The limitation of “gas permeable tubing” is shown in Applicant’s drawing as “104” NOT “102”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation of “such that the plurality of supports provide support to both the gas permeable tubing and the impermeable tubing shield” (emphasis added) in claims 1, 13 and 19 lacks written description. The published Spec. only discloses the plurality of supports 114 configured to support the gas permeable tubing 104, Spec. Fig. 3, [0042]. The published Spec. does not have written description as the plurality of supports 114 provides support the impermeable tubing shield 102.
Claims 2–12, 14–18 and 20 lacks written description because they depend on claim 1, 13 and 19, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–20 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 or 103 because the prior art of record does not teach or suggest the limitation of “the plurality of supports being positioned between the impermeable tubing shield and the gas permeable tubing such that each of the plurality of supports provides support to both the gas permeable tubing and the impermeable tubing shield within the impermeable tubing shield in a fixed position between the first and second couplers and the plurality of supports being equally spaced apart from each other to form a plurality of gaps to facilitate passage of gas from the gas permeable tubing to the at least one vent” as recited in claim 1, 13 and 19.
Claims 2–12, 14–18 and 20 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 or 103 because they depend on claim 1, 13 and 19 respectively.
However, if overcoming the §112(a) requires amending the claims, reassess the amended scope against the prior art before indicating allowability is necessary.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Applicant referring to the published Spec. [0029], [0032] and [0033] to support the statement that “the supports as part of the shield/tubing assembly” and engaging both structures, Applicant Rem. dated Jun. 02, 2026 (“Applicant Rem.”) p. 8.
The examiner does not agree. The Spec. does not have written description supporting the limitation where “the supports provide supports to the tubing shield”. The applicant uses the term “engaging” in the remark rather than “support”, “engaging” and “support” are two different concepts.
Applicant states that support 114 conform with the tube shield 102, Applicant Rem. p. 8. The applicant also states that the outer periphery of the supports 114 conforms to and contacts the impermeable tubing shield, and that the fact the specification emphasizes prevention of tubing expansion as one benefit of the supports 114 does not negate the expressly disclosed shield-side engagement and contact, Id.
Noted here “conform and contact” is not the same as “support”. Additionally, the Spec. [0033] states that “In some implementations, the impermeable tubing shield 102 includes a gas channel 116 whereby gas may enter via the spaces between the supports 114 and be directed toward the vents 110. As depicted, the gas channel 116 may be made up by a linear alignment of gaps in an outer edge of each support 114, for example, between impermeable tubing shield and the disc, at the outer edge of the disc. In some implementations, each gap of the plurality of supports may be aligned with the at least one vent. In some implementations, the gaps may be staggered to calibrate the passage of air from the tubing 104 to the vent(s) 110.” Applicant’s supports 114 is therefore not even required to “contact” the tube shield 102 according to the Spec. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 and 103
The examiner withdraws the current prior art rejection based on the amendment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIANPING HE whose telephone number is (571)272-8385. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30-5:00 M-F.
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, Jennifer Dieterle can be reached on (571) 270-7872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qianping He/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1776
