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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 3/11/2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1 and 5 has been amended, claim 2 cancelled, and claims 7-11 have been added. Thus, claims 1 and 3-11 are presently pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the grounds of rejection set forth in the previous action, however, new or otherwise amended grounds of rejection have been applied to the claims in this action, as necessitated by applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments to Drawings and Claims have overcome the grounds of objection and rejection under 112(b) previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action Mailed December 15th, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 3/11/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 and 3-11 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.
Claim 1 has been amended to require “at least one stiffening band has first and second longitudinal reinforcers positioned at the first and second lateral edges, respectively, such that each of the first and second lateral edges has a folded profile forming the longitudinal reinforcer”.
As noted in applicant’s remarks, support for the amendment is found in paragraph 46 and figures 10-12. Figures 10-12 illustrates a band around a pipe including a bead that is shaped to the description as specified in paragraph 42. Paragraph 46 is reasonably understood to suggest that the disclosure covers any adaptation or variation of the exemplary embodiment(s).
Notably, however, the specification illustrates the feature as claimed to be a different species embodiment to the rest of the claim. Support for the reinforcer, as claimed, can be found in paragraph 42 which is prefaced by “according to another embodiment” of a stiffening band made of a metallic or semi-rigid plastic material. The embodiment does not further describe elastic deformation of the stiffening band and there is insufficient description that would indicate the ability for the reinforcers to be incorporated in an embodiment where the band is deformed between a rolled-up state and elongate state as the reinforcer along the longitudinal edges would be unable to function in such a way to deform as claimed, since the main function of the longitudinal reinforcer is to provide rigidity along the stiffening band. Therefore, it is not sufficiently described to indicate or reasonably suggest applicant has the longitudinal reinforcer feature with the deforming elastically stiffening band in a singular embodiment.
The specification as originally filed would not be seen as reasonably conveying to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of an embodiment which features both limitations as described above.
Consequently, claims 1 and 3-11 contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 has been added to require “the pipe as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one stiffening band comprises multiple stiffening bands superposed to one another” and claim 1 has been amended to require “at least one stiffening band has first and second longitudinal reinforcers positioned at the first and second lateral edges, respectively, such that each of the first and second lateral edges has a folded profile forming the longitudinal reinforcer”.
As noted in applicant’s remarks, support for the amendment is found in paragraphs 35-36 and figure 7. Paragraphs 35-36 describe the definition of width as it relates to the stiffening band and the stiffening band having a width equal to or slightly less than half the circumference but is silent on the superposition and varying width of multiple stiffening bands that is depicted in figure 7.
It is noted that support for the superposition of stiffening bands can be found in paragraph 32 for figure 7, however the varying width remains to be only illustrated and not articulated. Furthermore, the combination of the features, reinforcers and superposing of multiple stiffening bands, was never described as the support for reinforcers, paragraph 42, is prefaced by “According to another embodiment”. There was no further mention or depiction of multiple stiffening bands being superposed and thus, no description in which both features are incorporated into a singular embodiment.
As a result, while the specification describes superposing stiffening bands and a stiffening band with reinforcers along the longitudinal edges, the specification as originally filed would not be seen as reasonably conveying to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of an embodiment having a stiffening band with a reinforcer and being superposed onto multiple stiffening bands.
Consequently, claims 10 and 11 contain 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
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 5 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 “evenly” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “evenly” 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 "evenly" as it relates to the distribution of cutouts does not sufficiently describe the degree of which the cutouts are distributed over the surface of the stiffening band and thus it is unclear as to the meaning and its corresponding datum which is necessary to accurately ascertain the scope of the limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 2-5, 7, and 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt et. al. (20210278027) in view of Juzak et. al. (US 20200271241) and Nijdam et. al. (US 20140312182).
Regarding claim 1, Schmitt et. al. teaches: A pipe comprising: at least one flexible duct having an axis, an inner face directed toward the axis, an outer face opposite to the inner face, first and second ends, a lower generatrix, and a length corresponding to a distance separating the first and second ends (Fig. 1A, represents the duct on a support band with elements shown in the marked figure below and is described as suspended pipe which includes a support that surrounds a portion of the pipe [Para. 2, lines 2-7]), at least one stiffening band, which is pressed against the duct over at least a portion of the length (Defines the shield as a metal sheet shaped into an arcuate channel that engages a pipe [Para. 38, lines 1-4] and shown application of pipe on a support in Fig. 1A), extending along a longitudinal direction substantially parallel to the axis of the duct (Fig. 1A indicates the pipe is placed in the direction of the longitudinal edges and therefore would result with the longitudinal direction of the support being parallel with the pipe) and which is, in at least in one state, rigid along the longitudinal direction, and wherein the at least one stiffening band is metallic and configured to deform elastically between a rolled-up state (States that the embodiment is a metal sheet stamped from a roll of sheet metal [Para. 37, lines 2-4]), when cross sections of the at least one stiffening band are rectilinear (As
described, Para. 35 Lines 4-5, the shield is formed from sheet metal that is “generally rectangular”), and an elongate and rigid state, when the cross sections of the at least one stiffening band are curved (Contains an elongate and rigid state as it is curved [Para. 36, lines 2-3 and Fig. 4B]), the at least one stiffening band having a first surface pressed against the duct, curved and concave in the elongate and rigid state (Fig. 5A showing the assembly of the curved shield, that comprises a surface C as shown in Fig. 4C, and hanger which utilizes at least on shield and in which a pipe would fit as represented in Fig.
1A), wherein each of the at least one stiffening band comprises first and second lateral edges that are substantially parallel to the longitudinal direction (Describes the manufacture of
the shield to make the two longitudinal edges substantially parallel to each other in their direction [Para. 36, lines 6-8 and Fig. 4B]) and positioned on either side of the lower generatrix of the duct (the longitudinal edges as perpendicular to curved edges, claim 9 and represented to be on either side of a lower generatrix as shown by intent of invention in Fig. 1A and being on opposing sides of lower generatrix on the shield itself in Fig. 4B and 5A)
PNG
media_image1.png
464
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Schmitt et. al. fails to teach: the longitudinal reinforcers positioned on the lateral edges.
Juzak teaches: wherein one of the at least one stiffening band has first and second longitudinal reinforcers positioned at the first and second lateral edges, respectively, such that each of the first and second lateral edges has a folded profile forming the longitudinal reinforcer (a reinforcement flange is folded along the longitudinal edges of the support [Para. 60, lines 1-5 and Figs. 1-2]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmitt et. al. to incorporate the flange element of Juzak et. al. to supply rigidity to the shell body and reduce risk of sharp edges puncturing pipe and thus extending life span of the pipe (Juzak et. al. – Para. 60, lines 5-9).
Furthermore, while Schmitt et. al. is reasonably seen as disclosing the limitations of claim 1, for compact prosecution, if it is seen that Schmitt et. al. does not supply sufficient support for the flexible duct, Nijdam et. al. provides support for a plastic pipe (Para. 3, lines 1-4), which is noted to sag (Para. 3, lines 2-4), thus indicating a degree of flexibility within the pipe. Also, with respect to the pipe, as defined
within motivation for invention of Schmitt et. al., the additional purpose is that the “shield prevents
drooping of plastic pipes, which will otherwise often sag between the hangers” (Para. 3, lines 12-14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmitt et. al. by incorporating the flexible pipe taught in
Nijdam et al. in place of the insulated pipe of Schmitt et al., to yield the predictable result of preventing
drooping of the pipe of Nijdam et al. (Schmitt et. al. - Para. 3, lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Schmitt et. al., Juzak et. al. and Nijdam et. al. teaches: the pipe as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first and second lateral edges are positioned substantially symmetrically in relation to the lower generatrix (the support is an arcuate shape that extends about 180 degrees and longitudinal edges being substantially parallel would result in the edges being symmetrical to the lowest point of the arcuate edge [Schmitt et. al. - Para. 19, lines 1-6 and Fig. 5A] with the shield in place on the hook, the longitudinal edges are symmetrical to the lowest point of the hook and the shield’s arcuate edges).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Schmitt et. al., Juzak et. al. and Nijdam et. al. teaches: the pipe as claimed in claim 1, wherein the pipe comprises at least one connection connecting the at least one stiffening band and the duct (a strap, element 15, is utilized to fix the pipe within the channel body [Nijdam et. al. - Para. 77, lines 12-16 and Fig. 4]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schmitt et. al. to incorporate the strap element of Nijdam et. al. to yield the predictable result of securing the pipe to the channel body as represented in the comparable device of Nijdam et. al. (Para. 10, lines 3-13).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Schmitt et. al., Juzak et. al. and Nijdam et. al. teaches: The pipe as claimed in claim 1, further comprising cutouts in the at least one stiffening band evenly distributed over the entire surface of the at least one stiffening band (Cutouts are located on the stiffening band and evenly distributed across the entire surface in the longitudinal direction [Juzak et. al. – Fig. 1]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Schmitt et. al., Juzak et. al. and Nijdam et. al. teaches: The pipe as claimed in claim 1, wherein the folded profile has a C-shaped or U-shaped cross section (the folded profile of the flange has a u-shaped cross section [Juzak et. al. – Fig. 2]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Schmitt et. al., Juzak et. al. and Nijdam et. al. teaches: The pipe as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one stiffening band has a width substantially equal to or slightly less than half of the circumference of the duct (Schmitt et. al. – Fig. 1A and Fig. 3A illustrate stiffening band to be equal or slightly less than half the circumference of the pipe).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Schmitt et. al., Juzak et. al. and Nijdam et. al. teaches: The pipe as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one stiffening band comprises multiple stiffening bands superposed on one another (Connection and use of multiple stiffening bands superposed on one another [Nijdam et. al. – Fig. 2 and 4]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Schmitt et. al., Juzak et. al. and Nijdam et. al. teaches: The pipe as claimed in claim 10, wherein a width of the multiple stiffening bands decreases from the at least one stiffening band proximate the duct toward the at least one stiffening band farthest from the duct (The stiffening band farther from the duct is illustrated to have a smaller width [Nijdam et.al. – Fig. 2 and 4]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt et. al. (20210278027) in view of Juzak et. al. (US 20200271241) and Nijdam et. al. (US 20140312182) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harr et. al. (US 20120111432).
Schmitt et. al., Juzak et. al., and Nijdam et. al. combination fails to teach: an aircraft comprising the pipe as claimed in claim 1.
Harr et. al. teaches: an aircraft comprising a pipe (Para. 10 Lines 2-6, describing the potable water system within an aircraft to comprise conduits which can be formed by varying materials).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harr et. al. to include the teachings of Schmitt et. al., Juzak et. al., and Nijdam et. al. as the incorporation of the support would prevent the drooping of flexible pipes (Schmitt et. al. - Para. 3, lines 12-14) which would have otherwise resulted in the flexible pipes on the aircraft, since it is known that flexible pipes tend to sag without appropriate support (Nijdam et. al. - Para. 3, lines 3-5).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmitt et. al. (20210278027) in view of Juzak et. al. (US 20200271241) and Nijdam et. al. (US 20140312182) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Hermanson (US 20230349585).
The combination of Schmitt et. al., Juzak et. al. and Nijdam et. al. teaches: The pipe as claimed in claim 7 but fails to teach the further limitations of claim 8.
Hermanson teaches: the folded profile has a uniform radius about an axis of the folded profile, and wherein the folded profile extends around the axis of the folded profile by an angle greater than 180 degrees (a reinforcing member mated around the perimeter of the flange and is made with a uniform radius and an angle greater than 180 degrees [Para 113, lines 4-8 and Fig. 3C]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Schmitt et. al., Juzak et. al., and Nijdam et. al. with the flange structure of Hermanson et. al. as the shape adds stiffness and structural integrity as a reinforcing member along the perimeter of a straight edge on a metallic body (Para. 113, lines 1-3 and Para. 143, lines 1-3).
Response to Arguments
As stated in the rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 above, applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 5, as well as new claims 7-11, are unpatentable over the prior art. Regarding the newly added limitations wherein the independent claim includes the limitation previously expressed in a dependent claim and the stiffening band including longitudinal reinforcers, the grounds in this action have been revised to include the teachings of Juzak et. al., which teaches a reinforcement flange is folded along the longitudinal edges of the support. Furthermore, the additional claims were rejected over the combination as taught in claim 1 and in further view of Hermanson for claim 8.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 5712723607. 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
Prosecution Insights