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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species A, Figures 1-2 and 4-6, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on April 13, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that species B includes the hose of species A is persuasive. The requirement is withdrawn.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains phrases which can be implied (“The disclosure provides”). Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 2-9, line 1, “a pressure washer” would be clearer if written as --the pressure washer--.
In claim 4 lines 2-3, “the two strands” would be clearer if written as --the at least two strands--.
In claim 10 lines 10-11, “the two braided yarn” would be clearer if written as --the at least two braided yarn--.
In claim 10 lines 11-12, “the two interwoven yarn” would be clearer if written as --the at least two braided yarn--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
The term “high-pressure” in claims 1-10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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. It is unclear how much pressure is considered high pressure. The Examiner notes that in further interpreting the claims, it is assumed that any pressure commonly used with pressure washers is a high-pressure.
The term “high-strength polyester industrial filament” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-strength” 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. Furthermore, it is unclear what makes a filament an “industrial filament.” The Examiner notes that in further interpreting the claims, it is assumed that any polyester industrial filament is a high-strength polyester industrial filament.
In claim 6 lines 3-5, it is unclear if the recited diameters of the braided layer, the inner hose and the outer hose refer to the inner, outer or some other diameter of these layers. The Examiner notes that in further interpreting the claims, it is assumed that any diameter reads on the recited diameters.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 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 –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent 9,046,201 to Theis.
Referring to claim 1, Theis discloses a high-pressure hose, comprising:
an inner hose (10), defining a fluid flow passage; an outer hose (14), covering the inner hose (10); and an interlayer (12), arranged between the inner hose (10) and the outer hose (14), the interlayer (12) at least comprising a braided layer, the braided layer provided with a latticework of interwoven yarn to be a cylindrical structure to cover an outer wall of the inner hose (10) (Fig. 1; col. 5 line 2 - col. 10 line 10).
The recitation of “of a pressure washer” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead, the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See In re Hirao, 535 F.2d 67, 190 USPQ 15 (CCPA 1976) and Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951). Furthermore, it has been held that the recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex part Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Referring to claim 2, Theis discloses a high-pressure hose comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above and further discloses a hose wherein:
the interwoven yarn (of 12) intersect with each other to form an angle, and the angle is from 60° to 90° (Fig. 1; col. 5 line 2 - col. 10 line 10).
Referring to claim 3, Theis discloses a high-pressure hose comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above and further discloses a hose wherein:
the interwoven yarn (of 12) in the braided layer intersect with each other to form a ring body, and the cylindrical surface of the ring body is a continuous curved surface (Fig. 1; col. 5 line 2 - col. 10 line 10).
Referring to claim 4, Theis discloses a high-pressure hose comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above and further discloses a hose wherein:
the interlayer (12) further comprises at least two strands of reinforcing yarn (16), and the at least two strands of reinforcing yarn (16) are centrally symmetrically arranged along a longitudinal axis of the inner hose (10) (Fig. 1; col. 5 line 2 - col. 10 line 10).
Referring to claim 5, Theis discloses a high-pressure hose comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above and further discloses a hose wherein:
the interlayer (12) is fixedly connected with the inner hose (10) and the outer hose (14) respectively (Fig. 1; col. 5 line 2 - col. 10 line 10).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,046,201 to Theis in view of U. S. Patent 3,966,238 to Washkewicz.
Referring to claim 6, Theis teaches a high-pressure hose comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, and further teaches a hose wherein:
the braided layer (in 12) is made of high-strength polyester industrial filament (Fig. 1; col. 5 line 2 - col. 10 line 10).
Theis does not teach the use of PVC. Washkewicz teaches a hose wherein:
an inner hose (11) and an outer hose (15) are made of PVC (Fig. 1; col. 2 line 43 - col. 3 line 6).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the hose taught by Theis with the PVC material taught by Washkewicz in order to use a low cost material (col. 2 line 43 - col. 3 line 6) and since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,046,201 to Theis in view of U. S. Patent 6,179,008 to Kawazura.
Referring to claim 7, Theis discloses a high-pressure hose comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but is silent as to the diameters of the hoses and interlayer. Kawazura teaches a hose having an inner hose, an outer hose and an interlayer wherein the inner diameter is 6 mm and the outer diameter is 9.5 mm which means that the inner hose, outer hose and interlayer must have diameters within the claimed ranges (col. 78 lines 56-59).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the hose taught by Theis with the diameters taught by Kawazura in order to design the hose for the appropriate pressures and temperatures of use.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,046,201 to Theis in view of U. S. Patent 10,935,171 to Nakano.
Referring to claim 8, Theis discloses a high-pressure hose comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but is silent as to the ends of the hose. Nakano teaches a hose having ends comprising:
a high-pressure hose connector (26), arranged on an outer wall of an outer hose (12) at two ends of the high-pressure hose; a nut sleeve clamping component (34), sleeved on an outer wall of the high-pressure hose connector (26); and a nut sleeve (32), sleeved on the nut sleeve clamping component (34) and the outer wall of the outer hose (12) Figures 1 and 2, col. 2 line 61 - col. 4 line 59).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the hose taught by Theis with the connectors taught by Nakano in order to connect the hose to things.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 9,046,201 to Theis in view of U. S. Patent Publication 2012/0111378 to Brow.
Referring to claim 9, Theis discloses a high-pressure hose comprising all the limitations of claim 1, as detailed above, but is silent as to straps. Brow teaches a hose comprising:
at least two straps, wherein the straps are connected to the outer hose (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the hose taught by Theis with the straps taught by Brow in order to store the hose in a coil (Brow Fig. 2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U. S. Patent Publication 2012/0111378 to Brow in view of U.S. Patent 9,046,201 to Theis.
Referring to claim 10, Brow teaches a pressure washer, comprising:
a power assembly (112), provided with an input port (connected to the garden house supply) and an output port (connected to the hose and spray gun); at least two high-pressure hoses (210, to connect to the garden house supply and the spray gun), respectively connected with the input port and output port of the power assembly (112), each high-pressure hose (210) comprising: an inner hose (212), defining a fluid flow passage, an outer hose (216), covering the inner hose (212), and an interlayer (214), arranged between the inner hose (212) and the outer hose (216), the interlayer (214) at least comprising a braided layer and being sleeved on an outer wall of the inner hose (212), wherein, the outer hose (216) is sleeved on an outer wall of the braided layer (214); a working head (114), connected with the high-pressure hose (210) which is connected with the output port; and a nozzle (outlet of 214), connected to the working head (214) (Figures 1-3; paragraphs [0022]-[0027]).
Brow is silent as to the details of the braided layer. Theis teaches a hose comprising:
a braided layer comprising at least two braided yarn; the at least two braided yarn are spiral-shaped and rotate in opposite directions, and the at least two braided yarn are configured to intersect with each other to form a circular cylinder network structure and cover the outer wall of the inner hose (10) (Fig. 1; col. 5 line 2 - col. 10 line 10).
It would have been obvious before the invention was effectively filed, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the pressure washer taught by Brow with the braided layer taught by Theis in order to use a hose “having a very small bend radius, and a high degree of flattening and kink resistance,” and since it has been held that a simple substitution of one known element, the interlayer of Theis, for another, the interlayer of Brow, to obtain predictable results, reinforcing the hose, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. at 419, 82 USPQ2d at 1396, MPEP 2141 III B.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gilpatrick, Arima, Bunting and Alexander teach similar pressure washers as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN MATTHEW LETTMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7860. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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.
/BRYAN M LETTMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights