DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claims 1,3,6,13,15,16,20 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.
The term “about” in claims 1,3,6,15,16,20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “about” is defined in the specification paragraph 0054 to be from less than or equal to 5% variation to less than or equal to 0.1% variation, thus it is unclear what amount of variation is disclosed in the claimed invention. For purposes of compact prosecution the term will be omitted.
The term “substantially” in claims 3, 13,20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantially” is defined in the specification paragraph 0054 to be from less than or equal to 5% variation to less than or equal to 0.1% variation, thus it is unclear what amount of variation is disclosed in the claimed invention. For purposes of compact prosecution the term will be omitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1,2,4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenburg (US 20170074427 A1) in view of Caviezel (US 20200406590 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rosenburg discloses a multilayer fuel line (title, Rosenburg) comprising:
a liner layer having an inner circumferential surface defining a tubular flowthrough passage extending in an axial direction through the multilayer fuel line (fig 3, liner layer 14 (or alternatively layers 18 and 14) has said inner circumferential surface, Rosenburg), the liner layer comprising polyterephthalamide (not disclosed, although paragraphs 0021 and 0024 state liner layer 14 (or alternatively layers 18 and 14) are polyamide, Rosenburg), the inner circumferential surface of the liner layer having a surface resistivity of less than or equal to about 1x10^6 Ohms per square at 20 degrees Celsius (not disclosed, although paragraph 0021 states inner layer 14 can be electrically conductive, Rosenburg);
a barrier layer circumferentially surrounding the liner layer (fig 3 and para 0022, barrier layer 16, Rosenburg), the barrier layer comprising ethylene vinyl alcohol (fig 3 and para 0022, barrier layer 16 is made of EVOH, Rosenburg);
and a cover layer circumferentially surrounding the barrier layer and defining an outer circumferential surface of the multilayer fuel line (fig 3 and para 0020, outer layer 12, Rosenburg), the cover layer comprising an aliphatic polyamide (fig 3 and para 0020, outer layer 12 can be polyamide 12, which is aliphatic, Rosenburg).
Rosenburg does not disclose the liner layer polyamide to be polyterephthalamide, nor specify the surface resistivity of the liner layer to be less than or equal to 1x10^6 Ohms per square at 20 degrees Celsius. However, Caviezel teaches an inner layer made of polyamide 9t, which is a polyterephthalamide (paragraph 0068, Caviezel), with surface resistance of less than 10 ohms due to 3-8% by weight additive of conductive graphite powder (paragraphs 0074-0076, Caviezel states the surface resistance is less than 10 ohms, and surface resistance measurements are typically reported at 20˚C, according to Iowa State University Center for Nondestructive Evaluation). Caviezel is a patent application for a fuel line with polyamide inner and outer layers with an EVOH barrier layer, a field closely related to Rosenburg and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Caviezel into Rosenburg and make the liner layer 14 (or alternatively layers 18 and 14) of Rosenburg out of polyamide 9t, as well as make layer 14 of Rosenburg have a surface resistance of 10 ohms by adding the graphite powder additive of Caviezel. Polyamide 9t has good thermal stability, and the low surface resistance prevents static buildup, together making the fuel line of Rosenburg more reliable.
Alternatively, Rosenburg embodiment shown in fig 4, hereafter referred to as Rosenburg fig 4, discloses a multilayer fuel line (title, Rosenburg) comprising:
a liner layer having an inner circumferential surface defining a tubular flowthrough passage extending in an axial direction through the multilayer fuel line (fig 4, liner layer 14 has said inner circumferential surface, Rosenburg), the liner layer comprising polyterephthalamide (not disclosed, although paragraph 0027 state liner layer 14 is polyamide 6-12, Rosenburg), the inner circumferential surface of the liner layer having a surface resistivity of less than or equal to about 1x10^6 Ohms per square at 20 degrees Celsius (not disclosed, although paragraph 0026 states inner layer 14 in fig 4 can be electrically conductive as its materials may correspond with inner layer 14 of the fig 3 embodiment , Rosenburg);
a barrier layer circumferentially surrounding the liner layer (fig 4 and para 0025, barrier layer 16, Rosenburg), the barrier layer comprising ethylene vinyl alcohol (fig 4 and para 0025, barrier layer 16 is made of EVOH, Rosenburg);
and a cover layer circumferentially surrounding the barrier layer and defining an outer circumferential surface of the multilayer fuel line (fig 4 and para 0026, outer layer 12, Rosenburg), the cover layer comprising an aliphatic polyamide (fig 4 and para 0026, outer layer 12 can be polyamide 12, which is aliphatic, since it materials may correspond with outer layer 12 of the fig 3 embodiment, Rosenburg).
Rosenburg fig 4 does not disclose the liner layer polyamide to be polyterephthalamide, nor specify the surface resistivity of the liner layer to be less than or equal to 1x10^6 Ohms per square at 20 degrees Celsius. However, Caviezel teaches an inner layer made of polyamide 9t, which is a polyterephthalamide (paragraph 0068, Caviezel), with surface resistance of less than 10 ohms due to 3-8% by weight additive of conductive graphite powder (paragraphs 0074-0076, Caviezel states the surface resistance is less than 10 ohms, and surface resistance measurements are typically reported at 20˚C, according to Iowa State University Center for Nondestructive Evaluation). Caviezel is a patent application for a fuel line with polyamide inner and outer layers with an EVOH barrier layer, a field closely related to Rosenburg fig 4 and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Caviezel into Rosenburg fig 4 and make the liner layer of Rosenburg fig 4 out of polyamide 9t, as well as make layer 14 have a surface resistance of 10 ohms by adding the graphite powder additive of Caviezel. Polyamide 9t has good thermal stability, and the low surface resistance prevents static buildup, together making the fuel line of Rosenburg fig 4 more reliable.
Regarding claim 2, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 1, wherein the liner layer comprises poly(nonamethylene terephthalamide) (paragraph 0068, the inner layer is polyamide 9t, which is poly(nonamethylene terephthalamide), Caviezel).
Regarding claim 4, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses The multilayer fuel line of claim 1, wherein the liner layer comprises: a continuous matrix phase; and a dispersed phase distributed throughout the continuous matrix phase, wherein the continuous matrix phase comprises the polyterephthalamide and the dispersed phase comprises an electrically conductive agent (claim 33, innermost layer comprises PA9T (continuous phase) with conductivity additive (dispersed phase), claim 35 states conductivity additive is electrically conductive, Caviezel).
Regarding claim 5, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 4, wherein the electrically conductive agent comprises carbon (claim 35 Caviezel, the electrical conductivity increasing additive can be conductive graphite powder, which comprises carbon.)
Regarding claim 6, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 4, wherein the continuous matrix phase constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 80% to less than or equal to about 99.8% of the liner layer (para 0069 Caviezel, liner layer 14 of Rosenburg is modified by Caviezel to have 85-98% by weight of polyamide 9T (matrix phase)), and wherein the electrically conductive agent constitutes, by weight, greater than or equal to about 0.2% to less than or equal to about 20% of the liner layer (para 0075 Caviezel, liner layer 14 of Rosenburg is modified by Caviezel to have 3-8% by weight of electrically conductive agent.)
Regarding claim 7, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 1, wherein the liner layer comprises:
an electrically conductive inner layer defining the inner circumferential surface of the liner layer (fig 3, liner layers 18 and 14 has electronically conductive inner layer 14, Rosenburg) and comprising a continuous matrix phase comprising polyterephthalamide and a dispersed phase comprising an electrically conductive agent (claim 33 of Caviezel, innermost layer of Rosenburg modified by Caviezel comprises PA9T (continuous phase) with conductivity additive (dispersed phase), claim 35 of Caviezel states conductivity additive is electrically conductive).
and an electrically insulating outer layer circumferentially surrounding the inner layer (fig 3, liner layers 18 and 14 has electronically nonconductive (insulating) outer layer 18, Rosenburg) the electrically insulating outer layer comprising polyterephthalamide and having a surface resistivity of greater than 1x10^6 Ohms per square at 20 degrees Celsius (fig 3 Rosenburg, layer 18 is modified by Caviezel to be PA9T, which has a surface resistivity greater than 1x10^6 Ohms per square at 20 degrees Celsius).
Regarding claim 8, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 1, further comprising: an intermediate layer circumferentially surrounding the liner layer (fig 3, layer 18 surrounds liner layer 14, Rosenburg) and being disposed between the liner layer and the barrier layer (fig 3, layer 18 is between liner layer 14 and EVOH barrier layer 16, Rosenburg), the intermediate layer comprising an aliphatic polyamide (paragraph 0021 and 0024 Rosenburg, in cases where layer 14 is electrically conductive, layer 18 can be polyamide from the first or second group, which are aliphatic).
Regarding claim 9, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 8, wherein the intermediate layer comprises poly(dodecano-12-lactam) (paragraph 0021 and 0024 Rosenburg, layer 18 can be polyamide 6-12, which comprises polyamide 12, which is poly(dodecano-12-lactam)).
Regarding claim 10, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 8, wherein the intermediate layer is directly physically and chemically bonded to the liner layer without use of an adhesive (fig 3 paragraph 0018, the fuel tube is co-extruded bonding all the layers together; since layers 18 and 14 do not have adhesive between them, they are bonded together without use of adhesive, Rosenburg).
Regarding claim 11, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 1, wherein the barrier layer creates a seal around the tubular flowthrough passage that prevents fuel vapors from permeating through the multilayer fuel line and escaping to an external ambient environment (paragraph 0003, Rosenburg, EVOH is a hydrocarbon barrier for tubes transporting fuel vapors, fig 3 shows EVOH barrier layer 16 around the flowthrough passage, thus the barrier layer seals and prevents fuel vapors from permeating through the multilayer fuel line.)
Regarding claim 12, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 1, wherein the cover layer comprises poly(dodecano-12-lactam), poly(hexamethylene dodecanediamide), or a combination thereof (paragraph 0007, outer layer comprises polyamide 12, which is poly(dodecano-12-lactam), Rosenburg).
Regarding claim 13, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 1, wherein the multilayer fuel line is substantially free of perfluoroalkyl substances, polyfluoroalkyl substances, and combinations thereof (the layers of Rosenburg in view of Caviezel are formed of polyamide and EVOH, and is thus free of the claimed substances)
Regarding claim 14. Rosenburg fig 4 in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 1, further comprising:
a first adhesive layer disposed between the liner layer and the barrier layer that physically bonds the barrier layer to the liner layer (fig 4, adhesive layer 102 is between liner layer 14 and barrier layer 16 of Rosenburg fig 4 and bonds them together);
and a second adhesive layer disposed between the barrier layer and the cover layer that physically bonds the cover layer to the barrier layer (fig 4, adhesive layer 104 is between barrier layer 16 and cover layer 12 of Rosenburg fig 4 and bonds them together);
wherein the first and second adhesive layers each comprise a thermoplastic polymer (paragraph 0027, adhesive layers 102 and 104 are polyamide adhesives, which contain polyamide, a thermoplastic polymer, Rosenburg fig 4).
Regarding 15, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the multilayer fuel line is configured to withstand temperatures in a range of greater than or equal to about −40 degrees Celsius to less than or equal to about 130 degrees Celsius. However, the fuel line of Rosenburg in view of Caviezel is of the same structure and composition as the fuel line of claim 1, and thus should exhibit the claimed properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 16, Rosenburg discloses a multilayer fuel line comprising:
a liner layer having an inner circumferential surface defining a tubular flowthrough passage extending in an axial direction through the multilayer fuel line (fig 3, liner layer 14 has said inner circumferential surface, Rosenburg);
an intermediate layer circumferentially surrounding the liner layer, the intermediate layer comprising an aliphatic polyamide (fig 3, intermediate layer 18 surrounds liner layer 14 and can be made of polyamide from the first or second group, paragraph 0021 and 0024, which is an aliphatic polyamide, Rosenburg);
a barrier layer circumferentially surrounding the intermediate layer (fig 3, barrier layer 16, Rosenburg), the barrier layer comprising ethylene vinyl alcohol (paragraph 0022, layer 16 is EVOH, Rosenburg);
and a cover layer circumferentially surrounding the barrier layer and defining an outer circumferential surface of the multilayer fuel line (fig 3, cover layer 12, Rosenburg), the cover layer comprising an aliphatic polyamide (paragraph 0023, layer 12 is polyamide 12, an aliphatic polyamide, Rosenburg)
wherein the liner layer has a composite structure comprising a continuous matrix phase and a dispersed phase distributed throughout the continuous matrix phase (not disclosed), wherein the continuous matrix phase comprises poly(nonamethylene terephthalamide) (not disclosed, although paragraphs 0021 and 0024 state liner layer 14 is polyamide, Rosenburg) and the dispersed phase comprises an electrically conductive agent (not disclosed, although paragraph 0021 stats layer 14 can be electrically conductive, Rosenburg), and wherein the electrically conductive agent provides the inner circumferential surface of the liner layer with a surface resistivity of less than or equal to about 1x10^6 Ohms per square at 20 degrees Celsius (not disclosed).
Rosenburg does not disclose the liner layer to have a composite structure with a continuous matrix phase and dispersed phase, wherein the matrix comprises polyterephthalamide, nor specify the surface resistivity of the liner layer to be less than or equal to 1x10^6 Ohms per square at 20 degrees Celsius. However, Caviezel teaches an inner layer made of polyamide 9t, which is a polyterephthalamide (paragraph 0068, Caviezel), with surface resistance of less than 10 ohms due to 3-8% by weight additive of conductive graphite powder (paragraphs 0074-0076, Caviezel states the surface resistance is less than 10 ohms, and surface resistance measurements are typically reported at 20˚C, according to Iowa State University Center for Nondestructive Evaluation). Caviezel is a patent application for a fuel line with polyamide inner and outer layers with an EVOH barrier layer, a field closely related to Rosenburg and the claimed invention. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Caviezel into Rosenburg and make the liner layer 14 of Rosenburg out of polyamide 9t, as well as make layer 14 of Rosenburg have a surface resistance of 10 ohms by adding the graphite powder additive of Caviezel. Polyamide 9t has good thermal stability, and the low surface resistance prevents static buildup, together making the fuel line of Rosenburg more reliable.
Regarding claim 17, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 16, wherein the poly(nonamethylene terephthalamide) of the liner layer provides the inner circumferential surface of the liner layer with chemical resistance and low oligomer extraction against volatile liquid fuels (fig 3, liner layer 14 of Rosenburg which has the inner circumferential surface is modified by Caviezel to be made of PA9T, which has inherent chemical resistance and low oligomer extraction against volatile fluids, as seen in Kuraray’s product brochure “High Performance Polyamide PA9T” page 13 and 17, which states PA9T is a suitable material for cable ties, which require chemical resistance, and fuel tubes, which require low oligomer extraction against fuel, which is a volatile liquid.)
Regarding claim 18, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 16, wherein the barrier layer creates a seal that circumferentially surrounds the tubular flowthrough passage and prevents fuel vapors from permeating through the multilayer fuel line and escaping to an external ambient environment. (paragraph 0003, Rosenburg, EVOH is a hydrocarbon barrier for tubes transporting fuel vapors, fig 3 shows EVOH barrier layer 16 around the flowthrough passage, thus the barrier layer seals and prevents fuel vapors from permeating through the multilayer fuel line.)
Regarding claim 19, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 16, wherein the intermediate layer, the barrier layer, and the cover layer are electrically insulating and have surface resistivities of greater than 1 x 10^6 Ohms per square at 20 degrees Celsius (the intermediate, barrier, and cover layers of Rosenburg in view of Caviezel do not contain electrically conductive additives, and therefore have the inherent surface resistivities of PA6-10, EVOH, and PA12, respectively, which are greater than 1 x 10^6 Ohms per square at 20 degrees Celsius.)
Regarding claim 20, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 16, wherein the multilayer fuel line is substantially free of perfluoroalkyl substances, polyfluoroalkyl substances, and combinations thereof (the layers of Rosenburg in view of Caviezel are formed of polyamide and EVOH, and is thus free of the claimed substances), but does not disclose wherein the multilayer fuel line is configured to withstand temperatures in a range of greater than or equal to about −40 degrees Celsius to less than or equal to about 130 degrees Celsius. However, the fuel line of Rosenburg in view of Caviezel is of the same structure and composition as the fuel line of claim 1, and thus should exhibit the claimed properties. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Additionally, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenburg in view of Caviezel in further view of and Iwahara (US 20080081139 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Rosenburg in view of Caviezel discloses the multilayer fuel line of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the liner layer is substantially free of esters and amides having molecular weights of less than or equal to about 2000. However, Iwahara discloses a fuel line made of polyamide free of additives (paragraph 0039, Iwahara). Iwahara describes a multi-layer chemical resistant tube comprising polyamide, a field closely related to Rosenburg and Caviezel. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to incorporate the teachings of Iwahara into Rosenburg in view of Caviezel and make the polyamide layers of the fuel line of Rosenburg in view of Caviezel free of additives, resulting in the liner layer to be only comprised of polyamide 9t, which has a molecular weight greater than 2000. The lack of additives minimizes plastics leaching into the fuel, which can negatively affect the performance of the vehicle.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Banerji (US 20220196188 A1), Zimmer (US 20140246111 A1), and Emad (US 8309193 B2) disclose conductive polyamide with EVOH barrier fuel lines.
Tazaki (US 20170368805 A1) discloses conductive polyamide 9T and EVOH tube for chemical transport.
Schmid (CH 655941 A5) discloses polyamide based composition with no plasticizers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Haotian Lu whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth Rinehart, can be reached at (571) 272-4881. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753