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 lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
While certain issues are specifically noted, due to the extensive narrative language and number of issues, the following list is not necessarily exhaustive. Applicant should carefully review all claims and correct any similar errors which may occur elsewhere in the claims.
Claims 1, 6 & 8 recite several relative or otherwise subjective terms which render the respective claims indefinite, including:
“high elasticity” (“an elastic outer layer, with high elasticity”)
“tightly integrated” (“a tightly integrated overall tubular structure”)
“quickly” (“can quickly retract”).
These terms are 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.
Claims 2, 7 & 9 refer to “the annular folding structure”. As best understood, this was likely intended to refer to the “multiple coaxial continuous annular folding structures” recited in claims 1, 6 & 8, but appears to refer only to a single “structure”.
Claim 3 recites “the multiple elastic yarns are distributed in parallel along the axial direction in the braided layer and are covered by a braided layer made of yarns”, which is confusing as it is unclear if the “braided layer made of yarns” is the same as the multiple yarns which form the braided layer, or whether this is an additional braided layer. As best understood, this was likely intending to state that the elastic braided layer is formed by parallel elastic yarns extending axially, covered by a braided arrangement of (non-elastic) yarns.
Claims 4, 7 & 9 recite “wherein the outer bending ring and the inner bending ring of the compressible and foldable axial elastic corrugated inner pipe are composed of an arc structure of 0.2-5 mm, and the wall thicknesses a and b of the arc structure are greater than the thickness c of the membrane wall” which renders the claims indefinite. The claims do not clarify what dimension of the arc structure of “0.2-5mm” and does not properly define “the wall thicknesses a and b of the arc structure”. The claims also refer to “the outer bending ring”, “the inner bending ring”, and “the membrane” however, as understood, there would be a plurality of each along the corrugated inner pipe.
Claims 4, 7 & 9 further recite “the above settings can enable the axial elastic corrugated pipe to obtain axial geometric elasticity and a compression ratio of 1.5-8 times, that is, the length of the axial elastic corrugated pipe in the extended state is 1.5-8 times in the compressed state”. The use of the term “can enable” in this context raises doubt as to whether this is an optional or required feature.
Claims 4, 7 & 9 recite: “the material of the compressible and foldable axial elastic corrugated inner pipe is a high-toughness thermoplastic polymer material, and PET, PP, PE, PS, and ABS can be selected” which raises several issues.
First, “high-toughness” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. 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.
Additionally, with respect to the phrase “and PET, PP, PE, PS, and ABS can be selected”, it is unclear if these are merely examples of suitable materials or if the claim is intended to be limited to these materials.
As set forth in MPEP § 2173.05(d), description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim.
Claim 5 recites “the elastic yarns are distributed in parallel along the axial direction in the braided layer and are covered by a yarn braided layer” which is confusing as it is unclear if the “yarn braided layer” is the same as the yarns which form the elastic braided layer, or whether this is an additional braided layer. As best understood, this was likely intending to state that the elastic braided layer is formed by parallel elastic yarns extending axially, covered by a braided arrangement of (non-elastic) yarns.
Claim 5 further recites “thereby limiting the extension of the elastic braid layer in the radial direction and the ability to obtain limited elongation in the axial direction”. This appears to suggest that both the “extension in the radial direction’ and the “ability to obtain limited elongation” are limited. However, this was likely intended to state that the radial extension is limited, while enabling a limited axial elongation, etc.
Claim 5 also recites “the elastic yarn is made of high elastic rubber yarn”. The term “high elastic” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. 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.
Claim 5 further recites “the maximum axial elongation limit of the elastic braid layer can be achieved by adjusting the angle β of the bias yarn during braiding; the angle of β is set to less than 180 degrees, but greater than 120 degrees; the larger the β value, the stronger its axial elongation capability”. This appears to be merely a suggestion for optimizing or designing. It is unclear what portion of this limitation, if any, is actually required by the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites “the braded layer adopts crochet method to form a relatively loose and flat polygonal braided structure” which renders the claim indefinite.
As best understood, “the braided layer adopts crochet method” was likely intended to mean that the braided layer is provided as a knitted (crocheted) layer, however appropriate clarification is required (i.e., a crocheting method is used to make the braided layer, the braided layer itself does not perform the method).
Additionally, the terms “relatively loose and flat” are relative or otherwise subjective terms which render the claim indefinite. 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.
Claim 7 recites “the polygonal braided structure can produce geometric deformation as the axial elastic corrugated pipe is extended or shortened”. The use of the term “can” in this context raises doubt as to what is necessarily required to meet the limitation and/or whether this is an optional or required function.
Claim 8 recites “the braided layer …uses a circumferential bias braiding method to form a relatively flat rhombus braided structure” which renders the claim indefinite.
As best understood, “the braided layer… uses a circumferential bias braiding method” was likely intended to mean that the braided layer is provided as a circumferential bias braid (as described in the specification), however appropriate clarification is required (i.e., a circumferential bias braiding method is used to form the braided layer; the braided layer itself does not perform the method).
Additionally, the term “relatively flat” is a relative or otherwise subjective term which renders the claim indefinite. 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.
Claim 9 recites "the rhombus braided structure… can produce geometric deformation as the axial elastic corrugated pipe is extended or shortened”. The use of the term “can” in this context raises doubt as to what is necessarily required to meet the limitation and/or whether this is an optional or required function.
Claim 9 further recites “the maximum axial elongation limit of the braided layer can be achieved by adjusting the bias angle β during braiding; the angle of β is set to be less than 180 degrees, but greater than 120 degrees; the larger the β value, the stronger its axial geometric elongation capability”. This appears to be merely a suggestion for optimizing or designing. It is unclear what portion of this limitation, if any, is actually required by the claimed invention.
Claims recited in the section heading above but not specifically discussed are rejected due to dependency upon at least one rejected claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record in the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard K Durden whose telephone number is (571) 270-0538. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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 supervisors can be reached by phone: Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881; Craig Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607. 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.
/Richard K. Durden/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights