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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 7, and 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, line 2, “or” is written instead of “of”.
The use of "of from" when describing the thickness of each layer (lines 2 and 3, claim 7 and line 2, claim 12) is awkward and unconventional phrasing for grammatical structure. It is recommended to choose "of" or "from" in the place of "of from". Furthermore, claim 7 line 2, refers to the "innermost layer" in a different manner than all other instances by adding a space between "inner" and "most".
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 2, 9, 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "j, at each instance," in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "formula (1)" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While “formula (1)” is positively recited in claim 2, claim 9 is dependent upon claim 8 and 1 which make no reference to the formula.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 14 recites the broad recitation "the electrically conductive filler is carbon nanotubes", and the claim also recites "preferably, single-walled carbon nanotubes" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Furthermore, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-10, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et. al. (US 20130273289) in view of Sausner et. al. (US 20040062895).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Luo et. al. teaches: A multilayer tube comprising a plurality of layers and including: an outermost layer comprising: a first polyarylene sulfide ("PAS") (outermost layer represented by 62 and 73 in Figs. 3 and 4 respectively and the material is described as a thermoplastic composition, polyarylene sulfide [Para. 31, lines 1-5]) and 10 wt.% to 40 wt.% of an impact modifier (impact modifier present in the material composition with a weight percentage of 0.05-40 [Para. 12]), and - an innermost layer comprising: a second PAS (innermost layer represented by 61 and 71 in Figs. 3 and 4 respectively and the material is described as a thermoplastic composition, polyarylene sulfide [Para. 31, lines 1-5]) and an electrically conductive filler (teaches a conductive filler which can be carbon nanotubes as a filler [Para. 117]), wherein: each layer in the multilayer tube comprises a PAS (the material of the tube is described as a thermoplastic composition, polyarylene sulfide [Para. 31, lines 1-5]); the outermost layer is the sole layer comprising an impact modifier. And a method of forming a multilayer tube comprising a plurality of layers and including the method comprising co-extruding the outermost layer and the innermost layer to form the multilayer tube (teaches a method for co-extruding the thermoplastic composition [Para. 62, lines 2-9]).
Luo et. al. fails to teach: the electrically conductive filler having a percent of weight between 0.1 and 5 and the inner layer being the sole layer with the electrically conductive filler.
Sausner et. al. teaches: inner layer comprising 0.1 wt.% to 5 wt.% of an electrically conductive filler (Claim 23 teaches a conductive material within the inner layer as less than 5% by volume which encompasses the range stated in the limitation) and innermost layer being sole layer with electrically conductive filler (Claim 21 teaches a singular inner layer containing the conductive material).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the fuel line of Luo et. al. with the conductive material’s quantity of Sausner et. al. in order to provide suitable electrostatic dissipation via a layer of the tube (Sausner et. al. – Para. 34, lines 1-6 and Claim 21) as it was taught that a conductive filler would be desirable in a thermoplastic composition in fuel line (Luo et. al. – Para. 117, lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. teaches: The multilayer tube of claim 1, wherein the first PAS and the second PAS are independently represented by the following formula (1): wherein, R, at each instance, is independently selected from the group consisting of a C1-C12alkyl group, a C7-C24 alkylaryl group, a C7-C24 aralkyl group, a C6-C24 arylene group, and a C6-C18 aryloxy group and i is an independently selected integer from 0 to 4; and j, at each instance, is an independently selected integer from 0 to 3 (the PAS is PPS, which is an example of the described formula [Luo et. al. – Para. 66]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. teaches: The multilayer tube of claim 1, wherein the first PAS is the same as the second PAS (Luo et. al. teaches the layers comprising polyarylene sulfide where in the PAS is PPS [Para. 31, lines 1-5 and Para. 66]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. teaches: Tube of claim 1, wherein the outermost layer consists essentially of the first PAS and the 10 wt.% to 40 wt.% of the impact modifier (Applicant defines “consists essentially” to mean the total concentration of components not explicitly recited is less than 1 wt.%. It is taught that the outer layer contains the PAS and the impact modifier [Para. 31, lines 1-3] where the impact modifier is between 0.5% and 40% by weight [Para. 102]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. teaches: Tube of claim 1, wherein the innermost layer consists essentially of the second PAS and the 0.1 wt.% to 5 wt.% of an electrically conductive filler (Applicant defines “consists essentially” to mean the total concentration of components not explicitly recited is less than 1 wt.%. It was taught that the inner layer is composed of polyarylene sulfide where the PAS is PPS [Sausner et. al. – Para. 22, lines 4-12] and the addition to that plastic is electrically conductive filler [Sausner et. al. – claims 21-23]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. teaches: Tube of claim 1, wherein the outermost layer and the innermost layer are the sole layers (Luo et. al. – Fig. 3 and Para. 13).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. teaches: Tube of claim 1, wherein the outermost layer has a thickness of from 0.1 mm to no more than 10 mm and the inner most layer has a thickness of from 10 m to no more than 1500 m. (Luo et. al. teaches a layer in the fuel line having a thickness between 0.5 to 5 millimeters [Para. 139, lines 1-4]. While the range as disclosed does not fully incorporate the claimed range of thickness, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of each layer of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. to meet appropriate resistivity, permeability, and/or strength in its field of intended use, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim is disclosed in the prior art, discovering workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. teaches: Tube of claim 1, further comprising an intermediate layer in contact with the outermost layer and innermost layer, the intermediate layer comprising a third PAS (Luo et. al. – discloses 3 layers [Fig. 4] which comprise PAS [Para. 31, lines 1-5 and Para. 66]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. teaches:
The multilayer tube of claim 8, wherein the third PAS is independently represented by formula (1).
(Luo et. al. – discloses 3 layers [Fig. 4] which comprise PAS and that PAS is PPS [Para. 31, lines 1-5 and Para. 66]. See rejection of claim 2.).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. teaches: Tube of claim 8, wherein the first PAS, the second PAS and the third PAS are the same (Luo et. al. – discloses 3 layers [Fig. 4] which comprise PAS and that PAS is PPS [Para. 31, lines 1-5 and Para. 66]).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. teaches: Tube of claim 8, wherein the intermediate layer has a thickness of from 10 pm to no more than 1500 pm. (Luo et. al. teaches a layer in the fuel line having a thickness between 0.5 to 5 millimeters [Para. 139, lines 1-4]. While the range as disclosed does not fully incorporate the claimed range of thickness, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the thickness of each layer of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. to meet appropriate resistivity, permeability, and/or strength in its field of intended use, since it has been held that where the general condition of a claim is disclosed in the prior art, discovering workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. teaches: Tube of claim 1, wherein the impact modifier is an ethylene/methyl acrylate/glycidyl methacrylate copolymer (impact modifier can include ethylene, methyl acrylate, and glycidyl methacrylate [Luo et. al. – Para. 92, lines 9-11]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et. al. (US 20130273289) in view of Sausner et. al. (US 20040062895) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sato (US 20060035043).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. teaches: the limitations of claim 8 but fails to teach the intermediate layer consisting essentially of the PAS.
Sato teaches: an intermediate layer which is made of PPS and is enclosed by a layer of electrically conductive PPS resin and a layer of impact modified resin (Claim 4, Para. 26, and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the intermediate layer of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. with the teachings of the intermediate tube of Sato in order to have high fuel permeation inhibiting and joint electrostatic dissipation characteristics due to the orientation and material selection (Para. 26, lines 4-11).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et. al. (US 20130273289) in view of Sausner et. al. (US 20040062895) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miller et. al. (US 20150170788).
The combination of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. teaches: the tube of claim 1 where in the electrically conductive filler is elemental carbon.
Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. fails to teach: the electrically conductive filler is single-walled carbon nanotubes.
Miller et. al. teaches: the electrically conductive filler is carbon nanotubes, preferably, single-walled carbon nanotubes (teaches the use of carbon nanotubes as an electrically conductive filler with 0.1 wt.% to 5 wt.% [Para. 21] where the carbon nanotubes are a single-wall carbon nanotube [Para. 54, lines 1-7]).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of the multilayer tube of Luo et. al. and Sausner et. al. with carbon nanotube as electrically conductive filler of Miller et. al. in order to provide sufficient to cause electrostatic dissipation within the layer and maintain flexibility of the composition (Para. 21, lines 2-7 and Para. 7, lines 4-10) as it has been taught that the carbon nanotubes have excellent conductive characteristics while utilizing lower level of the additive (Para. 22, lines 2-14).
Conclusion
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