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
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: EXPANDABLE AND CONTRACTABLE HOSE WITH INTERIOR COIL SPRING ARRANGEMENT
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.
Claims 3, 7, 10 and 14 are 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 3 and 10 recite “at least 10 feet” and claims 7 and 14 recite “at least 45 feet”. These are unbounded ranges and it is unclear as to what length (e.g., 500 ft, 1000 ft, etc..) the tube can be. As no upper bound exists, Examiner has deemed these claims indefinite.
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) 1-2, 4-9 and 11-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berardi (US 8,291,942) in view of Johns (US 3,413,020).
Claim 1: Berardi discloses a hose (Figs. 1-8) comprising an outer tube (12) having a first end and a second end (see Figs. 1 and 3), the outer tube being capable of stretching from an initial length and initial diameter (Fig. 1), to a maximum length and a maximum diameter (Fig. 3); an inner tube (14) having a first end and a second end (see Figs. 1 and 3); a proximal coupler (26) secured to the first ends of the inner tube and the outer tube (Figs. 1, 3 and 7-8); and a flow restrictor (note passage restrictor at end of 32/36) connected to the second end of the inner tube and the second end of the outer tube (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-8).
Berardi is not explicit about a coil spring positioned within the inner tube adjacent the proximal coupler, the coil spring having a diameter that is large enough to bias the inner tube outwardly such that the inner tube is held in frictional contact with the outer tube. However, Johns discloses a tubing connector arrangement (see Figs. 1 and 5) which utilizes a coil spring (12) positioned within an inner tube (40) adjacent a proximal coupler (26/34), the coil spring having a diameter that is large enough to bias (Fig. 5, Examiner noting that the coil spring’s outer diameter exceeds the inner diameter of the inner tube which is necessarily creating an outward push upon the inner and outer tube within the fitting) the inner tube (40) outwardly such that the inner tube is held in frictional contact with an outer tube (44). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the coil arrangement of Johns into the apparatus of Berardi to enhance the reinforcement and durability of the tubing at the coupling ends.
Claim 2: Berardi and Johns teach the previous limitations. Berardi further discloses a distal nozzle (32/36) configured to receive fluid flowing from the flow restrictor (Figs. 1-4 and 7-8).
Claim 4: Berardi and Johns teach the previous limitations. Berardi further discloses the inner diameter of the tubing to be ½ inch ID (see col. 8, line 14); as modified with the coil from Johns which would fit snugly into this opening, the diameter of the coil spring would necessarily approximate 3/8-3/4 inch.
Claim 5: Berardi and Johns teach the previous limitations. Berardi further discloses the outer tube is constructed from a fabric material (see claims 6-7; col. 7, line 54).
Claim 6: Berardi and Johns teach the previous limitations. Berardi further discloses that the inner tube is constructed from a material selected from a group consisting of nylon, polyester, or polypropylene (see claim 6).
Claim 7: Berardi and Johns teach the previous limitations. Berardi further discloses that the maximum length of the outer tube is at least 45 feet (see col. 7, lines 10-12).
Claim(s) 8- is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berardi (US 8,291,942) in view of Johns (US 3,413,020).
Claim 8: Berardi discloses a hose (Figs. 1-8) for directing a flow of liquid from a source of pressurized liquid (note col. 5, lines 25-26), the hose comprising an outer tube (12) having a first end and a second end (see Figs. 1 and 3), the outer tube being capable of stretching from an initial length and initial diameter (Fig. 1), to a maximum length and a maximum diameter (Fig. 3); an inner tube (14) having a first end and a second end (Figs. 1 and 3), the inner tube being formed of an elastic material (see col. 5, lines 48-50 and 65-67 and col. 6, lines 1-7) that stretches from a first length and a first diameter to a second length and a second diameter (note Figs. 1 and 3); the inner tube being positioned within the outer tube such that expansion of the inner tube upon receiving the flow of liquid expands the outer tube to the maximum length and diameter (see col. 5, lines 47-67 through col. 6, lines 1-20); a proximal coupler (26/18) secured to the first ends of the inner tube and the outer tube (Figs. 1, 3 and 7-8), the proximal coupler constructed to couple the hose to the source of pressurized liquid (col. 5, lines 24-26); a flow restrictor (note passage restrictor at end of 32/36) connected to the second end of the inner tube and the second end of the outer tube (see Figs. 1-4 and 7-8), such that upon introduction of the flow of liquid through the proximal coupler into the inner tube, the inner tube fills with the liquid resulting in an increase in fluid pressure within the inner tube, the increase in fluid pressure expands the inner tube longitudinally along a length of the inner tube and laterally across a width of the inner tube thereby increasing the length of the hose (see col. 5, lines 47-67 and col. 6, lines 1-21).
Berardi is not explicit about a coil spring positioned within the inner tube adjacent the proximal coupler, the coil spring having a diameter that is large enough to bias the inner tube outwardly such that the inner tube is held in frictional contact with the outer tube. However, Johns discloses a tubing connector arrangement (see Figs. 1 and 5) which utilizes a coil spring (12) positioned within an inner tube (40) adjacent a proximal coupler (26/34), the coil spring having a diameter that is large enough to bias (Fig. 5, Examiner noting that the coil spring’s outer diameter exceeds the inner diameter of the inner tube which is necessarily creating an outward push upon the inner and outer tube within the fitting) the inner tube (40) outwardly such that the inner tube is held in frictional contact with an outer tube (44). As can be seen from Johns depiction in Fig. 5, the outer tube is stretched to approximately the maximum diameter. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the coil arrangement of Johns into the apparatus of Berardi to enhance the reinforcement and durability of the tubing at the coupling ends.
Claim 9: Berardi and Johns teach the previous limitations. Berardi further discloses a distal nozzle (32/36) configured to receive fluid flowing from the flow restrictor (Figs. 1-4 and 7-8).
Claim 11: Berardi and Johns teach the previous limitations. Berardi further discloses the inner diameter of the tubing to be ½ inch ID (see col. 8, line 14); as modified with the coil from Johns which would fit snugly into this opening, the diameter of the coil spring would necessarily approximate 3/8-3/4 inch.
Claim 12: Berardi and Johns teach the previous limitations. Berardi further discloses the outer tube is constructed from a fabric material (see claims 6-7; col. 7, line 54).
Claim 13: Berardi and Johns teach the previous limitations. Berardi further discloses that the inner tube is constructed from a material selected from a group consisting of nylon, polyester, or polypropylene (see claim 6).
Claim 14: Berardi and Johns teach the previous limitations. Berardi further discloses that the maximum length of the outer tube is at least 45 feet (see col. 7, lines 10-12).
Claim(s) 3 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berardi (US 8,291,942) in view of Johns (US 3,413,020) and in further view of Whaley (US 5,036,890).
Claims 3 and 10: Berardi and Johns teach the previous limitations. Berardi further discloses that the maximum length of the outer tube is at least 10 feet (see col. 7, lines 10-12) but modified Berardi is not explicit about the length of the coil spring being 1-6 inches. However, Whaley teaches a coil length of 4-6 inches with his reinforcement coil (see col. 3, lines 3-4). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize a length of the coil arrangement within modified Berardi as recommended by Whaley as this length is sufficient for its reinforcement purposes (see Whaley, col. 3, lines 3-4).
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