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 .
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.
Claims 1, 4-10 and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,890,278.
Claims 2-3 and 11-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 or 10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,890,278 in view of Ragner (US20030098084A1).
Claims 2 and 11: ‘278 does not disclose that said flexible outer tube is constructed from a metal. However, Ragner teaches a flexible outer tube (32/32b; Examiner noting that the outer tube could be viewed broadly to also include spring 36/36b) constructed from a metal (note the previous claim’s discussion about the outer tube additionally comprising element 36 which could be made from metal, as per paragraph 60). It would have been obvious before the invention was made to utilizes metal so as to prevent the tubing from expanding beyond design specifications and rupturing.
Claims 3 and 12: ‘278 and Ragner teach the previous limitations. Ragner further discloses the metal being stainless steel, galvanized steel, non-stainless steel, aluminum, nickel, or copper (note paragraph 79, “spring 236 may comprise…spring steel”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Ragner (US20030098084A1).
Claim 1: Ragner discloses a hose (Figs. 1-19) comprising a flexible outer tube (32/32b; Examiner noting that the outer tube could be viewed broadly to also include spring 36/36b) having a first end and a second end (Figs. 1-2), said flexible outer tube having a substantially hollow interior (Figs. 1-3), said flexible outer tube having a maximal length (Fig. 1); a flexible inner tube (34/34b) having a first end and a second end (Figs. 1-2) and constructed from an elastic material (paragraph 56), said flexible inner tube having a substantially hollow interior (Figs. 1-3), said flexible inner tube having a relaxed length when said flexible inner tube is not in an extended condition (Figs. 1A and 2A), said relaxed length of said flexible inner tube being less than said maximal length of said flexible outer tube (as can be appreciated from Fig. 3C, in which the outer tube traverses a longer extent than the inner tube); a first coupler (20/26/106) secured to said first end of said flexible inner tube and said flexible outer tube (see Figs. 1-2, 9), said first coupler adapted to couple said hose to a conventional faucet thereby providing pressurized water paragraphs 54 and 86, “water faucet”; Fig. 9A); a second coupler (note 22 or coupler at/near 27 or 108) secured to said second end of said flexible inner tube and said flexible outer tube (Figs. 1-2, 9), said flexible inner tube secured to said flexible outer tube at said first and second ends (see, e.g., Fig. 18, note exemplary end which shows how inner/outer tube are to secured at a respective end 238; note also paragraphs 79-80, 89); and a flow restrictor (Fig. 18; 238) adapted to couple to said second coupler (Fig. 19; paragraph 79), whereby upon introduction of a flow of pressurized water through said first coupler into said flexible inner tube and operation of said flow restrictor to at least partially block said flow of pressurized water from exiting said flexible inner tube (paragraph 79), said flexible inner tube fills with pressurized water resulting in an increase in water pressure within said interior of said flexible inner tube (paragraph 79), said increase in water pressure expands said inner tube longitudinally along a length of said flexible inner tube and laterally across a width of said flexible inner tube thereby expanding said hose to an expanded condition (Figs. 1-2, Examiner noting that, e.g., the inner tube portions between the metal springs in Fig. 3C will necessarily stretch longitudinally and bulge out radially not unlike the corresponding portions in Fig. 3A to accommodate the increased water pressure), and whereby stopping said flow of pressurized water into said first coupler and releasing said pressurized water out of said second coupler results in said hose contracting to a contracted condition as a result of an automatic contraction of said flexible inner tube (Figs. 1-2; as can also be appreciated from paragraph 79-80, 89).
Claim 2: Ragner further discloses that said flexible outer tube is constructed from a metal (note the previous claim’s discussion about the outer tube additionally comprising element 36 which could be made from metal, as per paragraph 60).
Claim 3: Ragner further discloses the metal being stainless steel, galvanized steel, non-stainless steel, aluminum, nickel, or copper (note paragraph 79, “spring 236 may comprise…spring steel”).
Claim 4: Ragner further discloses that said elastic material has an elongation ratio of up to three to one and wherein said flexible inner tube can expand up to three times said relaxed length (see Figs. 1-2, 5-6, paragraphs 63-64).
Claim 5: Ragner further discloses that said flexible inner tube and said flexible outer tube are made from flexible materials which will not kink or become entangled upon themselves when said hose is in said expanded condition (see Figs. 1-2, 3A; paragraphs 56-58).
Claim 6: Ragner further discloses that said flow restrictor is integrally formed with said second coupler (Fig. 18, note integral nature of 238 with coupler 242).
Claim 8: Ragner further discloses that said hose is a garden hose (paragraph 86, “garden hose”).
Claim 9: Ragner further discloses that said flexible inner tube and said flexible outer tube are made from flexible materials which will not kink when said hose is in said contracted condition (see Figs. 1-2, 3B/C; paragraphs 56-58).
Claim 10: Ragner discloses a method of transporting water through a hose (Figs. 1-19) comprising forming a hose (Figs. 1-2), said hose including a flexible outer tube (32/32b; Examiner noting that the outer tube could be viewed broadly to also include spring 36/36b) having a first end and a second end (Figs. 1-2), said flexible outer tube having a substantially hollow interior (Figs. 1-3), said hose including a flexible inner tube (34/34b) having a first end and a second end (Figs. 1-2) and constructed from an elastic material (paragraph 56), said flexible inner tube being substantially hollow (Figs. 1-2), said flexible inner tube positioned within said substantially hollow interior of said flexible outer tube (Figs. 1-2); securing a first coupler (20/26/106) to said first end of said elastic inner and said flexible outer tube see Figs. 1-2, 9); securing a second coupler (note 22 or coupler at/near 27 or 108) to said second end of said flexible inner tube and said flexible outer tubes (Figs. 1-2, 9), said flexible inner tube and said flexible outer tube being secured to each other at said first and said second ends (see, e.g., Fig. 18, note exemplary end which shows how inner/outer tube are to secured at a respective end 238; note also paragraphs 79-80, 89); connecting said first coupler to a source of pressurized water (see Figs. 1-2, 9), said first coupler adapted to couple said hose to a conventional faucet thereby providing pressurized water paragraphs 54 and 86, “water faucet”; Fig. 9A); connecting said second coupler to a flow restrictor (Fig. 18; 238); introducing a flow of pressurized water into said hose through said first coupler (paragraph 79); restricting said flow of pressurized water exiting the hose, resulting in an increase in water pressure within said hose between said first and second couplers causing said flexible inner tube to expand longitudinally along a length of said flexible inner tube and laterally across a width of said flexible inner tube thereby increasing a length and width of said hose to an expanded condition (paragraph 79); and automatically contracting said hose to a decreased length and width by removing said flow of pressurized water into said hose and removing the increase in water pressure within said hose between said first coupler and said second coupler (paragraph 79).
Claim 11: Ragner further discloses that said flexible outer tube is constructed from a metal (note the previous claim’s discussion about the outer tube additionally comprising element 36 which could be made from metal, as per paragraph 60).
Claim 12: Ragner further discloses the metal being stainless steel, galvanized steel, non-stainless steel, aluminum, nickel, or copper (note paragraph 79, “spring 236 may comprise…spring steel”).
Claim 13: Ragner further discloses that said elastic material has an elongation ratio of up to three to one and wherein said flexible inner tube can expand up to three times said relaxed length (see Figs. 1-2, 5-6, paragraphs 63-64).
Claim 14: Ragner further discloses that said flexible inner tube and said flexible outer tube are made from flexible materials which will not kink or become entangled upon themselves when said hose is in said expanded condition (see Figs. 1-2, 3A; paragraphs 56-58).
Claim 15: Ragner further discloses that said flow restrictor is integrally formed with said second coupler (Fig. 18, note integral nature of 238 with coupler 242).
Claim 17: Ragner further discloses that said flexible inner tube and said flexible outer tube are made from flexible materials which will not kink when said hose is in said contracted condition (see Figs. 1-2, 3B/C; paragraphs 56-58).
Claim 18: Ragner also discloses that said flexible outer tube constrains a radial expansion and a longitudinal expansion of said flexible inner tube upon an increase of said water pressure between said first coupler and said second coupler within said hose (see Figs. 1-2).
Claim 19: Ragner further discloses that said hose is a garden hose (paragraph 86, “garden hose”).
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) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragner (US20030098084A1).
Claims 7 and 16: Ragner also discloses said flow restrictor being a nozzle but is not explicit about it being removably secured to said hose. However, such omission is immaterial as it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the restrictor removable, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177,179.
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