DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 14 April 2026, the title, are acknowledged.
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/Restriction
Applicant's election with traverse of group II, claims 9-19, in the reply filed on 14 April 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no search burden. This is not found persuasive because it does not address the independence or distinctness of the inventions or all sources of burden imposed by the inventions. A serious burden on the examiner may be prima facie shown by appropriate explanation of separate classification, or separate status in the art, or a different field of search. Arguments of convenience or coextensiveness are insufficient showing to demonstrate that there is no undue burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 6,645,410 B2) in view of Oka et al. (US 6,905,646 B1).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson discloses a method of making a product 100 comprising a plurality of microducts 102 bundled within a sheath 101 (title/abstract, 4:6+; FIG. 3-4), the method comprising:
(a) extruding a roughly cylindrical sheath material 101 having an inner surface around a plurality of microducts 102 each having an outer surface in such a fashion that the inner surface of the sheath material does not contact outer surface of the microducts, wherein the sheath material is extruded at a temperature T1;
(b) passing the sheath material and microducts through an air gap for a distance, a time, and at an air temperature T2; and then
(c) passing the sheath material and microducts through a cooling medium, for a distance, and time, and at a cooling medium temperature T3 that is lower than T2; wherein welding is inhibited between the inner surface of the sheath material and the outer surfaces of the microducts (FIG. 5; 4:28+).
Thompson does not appear to expressly disclose the temperature relationship between the extruded temperature T1, the air temperature T2, and the cooling medium temperature T3.
However, Oka discloses a method for cooling a extrudate at 180° C. to below the softening point by air cooling in an air gap at 20-30° C. followed by final cooling in a water bath at 20-30° C. (Examples 1-7; 6:1+).
At the time of invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Thompson to include the cooling temperatures of Oka, in order to quickly and adequately cool the extruded material in a manner known in the art and prevent leaks and surface irregularities (Oka 2:6+).
Regarding claim 10-12, Oka discloses the air gap is 3-4.8 meters (Example 1-2) which overlaps the claimed range (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 13, Thompson and Oka discloses the cooling medium comprises water (Oka Examples 1-7: Thompson 5:26+).
Regarding claim 14, Oka discloses the extruder at 180° C. and the air gap at 20-30° C. (Examples 1-7; 6:1+) which overlaps the claimed range (MPEP § 2144.05).
Regarding claim 15-16, Oka discloses the water bath at 20-30° C. (Examples 1-7; 6:1+). which overlaps the claimed range (MPEP § 2144.05).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that the use of Thompson’s hollow annular guide 50 to maintain separation between the inner and outer tubes does not suggest the claimed process. Specifically, that Thompson’s inner and outer tubes do not pass through an air-gap stage and thereafter enter a separate cooling medium. However, it is the position of the Examiner that the instant claims do not preclude Thompson’s hollow annular guide 50. The instant claim 9 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
340
622
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The recitation “in such a fashion that the inner surface of the sheath material does not contact outer surface of the microducts” broadly includes a process in which Thompson’s hollow annular guide 50 is disposed between the inner and outer surfaces to prevent contact. If Applicant intends for there to be nothing between the inner and outer surfaces such a feature must be explicitly recited in the claims. Similarly, the recitation “passing the sheath material and microducts through an air gap” also does not exclude the use of Thompson’s hollow annular guide.
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 Benjamin A Schiffman whose telephone number is (571)270-7626. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-530p 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, Christina Johnson can be reached at (571)272-1176. 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.
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights