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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 5/26/2026 has been entered. All previous objections and 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
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) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meiger (DE2501780A1) in view of Weil (US 8,479,777).
Claim 1: Mierger discloses a grab bucket excavator comprising a self-propelled vehicle (Fig. 1); a grab bucket (10) comprising, in turn, two shovels (note two shovels with 10) movable with respect to each other between an open position and a closed position (as can be appreciated via 12); a lifting device (18) fitted on the self-propelled vehicle for lowering and lifting the grab bucket (Fig. 1); and a hydraulic drive device (12/20/21) for moving the shovels between the open position and the closed position; wherein the hydraulic drive device comprises at least one actuator cylinder (12) connected to the shovels (8), at least one flexible pipe (20) for supplying a fluid under pressure to the actuator cylinder, and, for each flexible pipe, a respective winding roller (21) fitted on the self-propelled vehicle (Fig. 1).
Mierger is not explicit about the flexible pipe comprising an inner tube; an outer tube; at least six reinforcement layers, which are interposed between the inner tube and the outer tube, and are helically wound around a longitudinal axis of the flexible pipe in an alternated manner in two windup directions opposite to each other having differing angles alpha and beta differing in absolute value, respectively; and a plurality of intermediate layers, each one interposed between two respective adjacent reinforcement layers for ensuring the adhesion between the reinforcement layers and also that the first two reinforcement layers starting from the outer tube are wound around the longitudinal axis with angles alpha and the remaining reinforcement layers are wound around the with angles beta. However, Weil (Fig. 1) teaches a flexible pipe comprising an inner tube (14); an outer tube (44); at least six reinforcement layers (30a-d; note col. 5, lines 55-58), which are interposed between the inner tube and the outer tube (Fig. 1), and are helically wound around a longitudinal axis of the flexible pipe in an alternated manner in two windup directions opposite to each other having angles alpha (note angle theta) and beta (note negative theta) differing in absolute value (see col. 6, lines 16-30, “each of the layers 30 may be wound at the same or different absolute pitch angle”, emphasis added), respectively (Fig. 1); and a plurality of intermediate layers (50a-d), each one interposed between two respective adjacent reinforcement layers for ensuring the adhesion between the reinforcement layers (Fig. 1, note col. 7, lines 37-43) and also that the first two reinforcement layers starting from the outer tube are wound around the longitudinal axis with angles alpha and the remaining reinforcement layers are wound around the with angles beta (as can be appreciated from Applicant’s dependent claims 4 and 5, all the beta and alpha angles can be different, rendering the designation of alpha and beta as somewhat loose and unrestricted; as was previously mentioned in col. 6, lines 16-30, “each of the layers 30 may be wound at the same or different absolute pitch angle”; thus, it follows that all of the reinforcement layers could have different absolute value angles and still be situated from the outer tube as alpha angles in the first two layers and beta angles in the last four layers). In total, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a skilled artisan to utilize the reinforced hose as taught by Weil into the apparatus of Mierger as it can convey fluids under low temperature and high pressures (see Abstract).
Claim 2: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that each first windup angle alpha is comprised between 36 and 54 degrees (see col. 6, lines 20-21).
Claim 3: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that each second windup angle beta is comprised between 48 and 62 degrees (see col. 6, lines 20-21).
Claim 4: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the first windup angles are equal to each other or differ from each other (Fig. 1; see also col. 6, lines 29-30).
Claim 5: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the second windup angles are equal to each other or differ from each other (Fig. 1; see also col. 6, lines 29-30).
Claim 6: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the first windup angles are equal to each other (col. 6, lines 29-30), the second windup angles are equal to each other (col. 6, lines 29-30); while Weill is not explicit about the difference between the first windup angles and the second windup angles is comprised between 2 and 15 degrees, such a decision amounts to a choice of design, as the angle selection is a result effective variable. As discussed by Weill, angle choice “may be selected depending upon the desired convergence of strength, elongation, weight, and volumetric expansion characteristics of the hose…higher pitch angles..exhibit decreased radial expansion of the hose under pressure, but increased axial elongation” (col. 6, lines 21-36). As such, the choice to select a first angle of 45 degrees and a second angle of 47 degrees would be wholly within the design realm of the skilled artisan and would amount to an angle difference of 2 degrees.
Claim 7: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the first windup angles differ from each other (col. 6, lines 29-30), the second windup angles differ from each other (col. 6, lines 29-30); while Weill is not explicit about the difference between the greatest windup angle and the smallest windup angles is comprised between 2 and 15 degrees, such a decision amounts to a choice of design, as the angle selection is a result effective variable. As discussed by Weill, angle choice “may be selected depending upon the desired convergence of strength, elongation, weight, and volumetric expansion characteristics of the hose…higher pitch angles..exhibit decreased radial expansion of the hose under pressure, but increased axial elongation” (col. 6, lines 21-36). As such, the choice to select a greatest angle of 55 degrees and a smallest angle of 40 degrees would be wholly within the design realm of the skilled artisan and would amount to an angle difference of 15 degrees.
Claim 8: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the inner tube (14 or possibly inner layers discussed at col. 7, lines 24-30) and the outer tube (40) are made of polymeric material (col. 6, lines 61-67; col. 7, lines 24-30).
Claim 9: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the intermediate layers (50a-d) are made of polymeric material (col. 7, lines 40-44, 53).
Claim 10: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that each reinforcement layer comprises a plurality of wires made of metallic material (see claim 2).
Claim 11: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the flexible pipe further comprises a consolidation layer made of textile material and fitted on the inner tube (see col. 7, lines 24-30, note “textile layers”).
Claim 12: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that the flexible pipe further comprises a further intermediate layer interposed between the consolidation layer and the adjacent reinforcement layer (col. 7, lines 24-30, note “resin layers”).
Claim 13: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches that each first windup angle is equal to 45 degrees (see col. 6, lines 20-21 and 29-30).
Claim 14: Mierger and Weil teach the previous limitations. Weil further teaches each second windup angle is equal to 54°44' (col. 6, line 27).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that each reinforcement layer of Weil can be independently and uniquely wound at different absolute angles (see col. 6, lines 16-30, “each of the layers 30 may be wound at the same or different absolute pitch angle”, emphasis added). As can be appreciated from Applicant’s dependent claims 4 and 5, all the beta and alpha angles can all be different, rendering the designation of alpha and beta as somewhat loose and unrestricted; as each of the layers 30 in Weil may be wound at the same or different absolute pitch angle, it follows that all of the reinforcement layers could have different absolute value angles and still be situated from the outer tube as alpha angles in the first two layers and beta angles in the last four layers. In light of these observations, Examiner believes that reliance upon Weil is still reasonable notwithstanding the new claim limitations.
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 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
Prosecution Insights