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 without traverse of Invention I, in the reply filed on September 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 1, 2026.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. KR10-2023-0185662, filed on December 19, 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (h) (3) because figures 3, 4A-C, 10 - 12ngs.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
672
953
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 3B
Claim(s) 1-6, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mori et al. (US2018/0093421A1) hereinafter Mori.
Regarding claim 1, Mori discloses a circulation pipe structure (Abstract: “tubular body”, Figure 1: 1, paragraph [0020]) comprising:
an upper member (paragraph [0019], Figure 2 & Annotated figure 3B: 20);
a lower member (paragraph [0019], Figure 2 & 3B: 10) coupled to the upper member (20) to form the circulation pipe structure;
first coupling parts (Annotated figure 3B: First coupling parts) respectively provided on the upper member (Annotated figure 3B: 20) and the lower member (Annotated figure 3B: 10) and engaged with each other when the upper member and the lower member are coupled (Annotated figure 3B);
and a second coupling part (Annotated figure 3B: 13) that couples the upper member and the lower member to each other by a coupling member.
Examiner’s comment: As per figures 3, 4A-C and 12 of the instant application, the applicant appears to pointing to different mating sections of upper member and lower member as first coupling parts. The examiner has used BRI to identify first coupling parts on tubular structures Mori (Annotated figure 3B: two boxes to identify first coupling member).
As per figures 3, 4A – C and 12 of the applicant, there appears to be no physical disjoint between first coupling parts of lower member and the second coupling part of the lower member and, applicant is merely pointing to different sections of the same physical part as first coupling part and second coupling part. The examiner has used BRI to identify second coupling part on tubular structure of Mori (Annotated figure 3B: 13)
Regarding claim 2, Mori discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 1 as set forth above. Mori further discloses the coupling member (paragraph [0037]: “joint resin 4” and Annotated figure 3B: 4) is fused (paragraph [0042]: mentions adhesive agents and different kinds of welding mechanism) to a gap (paragraph [0037]: grooves 13a, 23a and Annotated figure 3B: 13a, 23a) between the upper member (20) and the lower member (10).
Regarding claim 3, Mori discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 1 as set forth above. Mori further discloses the upper member (20), the lower member (10), and the coupling member (4) are molded and combined by applying die slide injection [paragraph 0042].
Regarding claim 4, Mori discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 2 as set forth above. Mori further discloses the gap (formed by 13a and 23a) is disconnected from a pipe inner space (Annotated figure 3B shows circular flow space within the tube is disconnected from the gap formed by 13a and 23a).
Regarding claim 5, Mori discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 1 as set forth above. Mori further discloses the second coupling part (13) protrudes outward from the upper member and the lower member (Annotated figure 3B 13 protruding outwards from 20 and 10).
Regarding claim 6, Mori discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 1 as set forth above. Mori further discloses the first coupling parts comprise structures engaged with each other by an engraved-embossed (paragraph [0037]: “engagement projection” and “engagement groove”) part provided in and on the upper member and the lower member, respectively, inside the coupling member (paragraph [0037]: “The inner circumferential sides of the joint resin filling grooves 12a, 13a, 22a, 23a of the joint faces of the joint projection portions 12, 13, 22, 23 can be provided with an engagement projection or an engagement groove so as to be engaged and to suppress misalignment”).
Regarding claim 14, Mori discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 1 as set forth above. Mori further discloses the circulation pipe structure further comprises an inlet (paragraph [0020] describes having multiple use of tubular structure 1, such as cooling tube or intake manifold indicating that tube 1 has an inlet for fluid material to flow within the tubular structure) that communicates with a pipe inner space.
Regarding claim 16, Mori discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 1 as set forth above. Mori further discloses
the first coupling parts (Annotated figure 3B: First coupling parts) and the second coupling part (Annotated figure 3B: 13) are formed in a part or an entirety of an outer thickness region of the circulation pipe structure (Annotated figure 3B shows and paragraph [0042] describes the components of the tubular structure being from by DSI and are located in the outer thickness region of the circulation pipe);
the circulation pipe structure further comprises third coupling parts (Annotated figure 3B: “Third coupling parts”) and a fourth coupling part (Annotated figure 3B: 12) formed in a part or an entirety of an inner thickness region (Annotated figure 3B: third coupling parts and 12 are on the opposing end of the circular cross section of the tubular structure) of the circulation pipe structure;
the third coupling parts are respectively provided on the upper member (Annotated figure 3B: 20) and the lower member (Annotated figure 3B: 10) and engaged with each other when the upper member and the lower member are coupled (Annotated figure 3B);
and the fourth part (12 and 22) couples the upper member and the lower member to each other by an additional coupling member.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori.
Regarding claim 7, Mori discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 1 as set forth above. Mori further discloses a circulation shape of the circulation pipe structure being a circular (Annotated figure 3B shows circular space in the tubular structure). Mori does not disclose the circulation shape to be an oval, a polygon, a single closed curve, or any combination thereof.
The applicant does not disclose any criticality of having a circulation shape anything other than circular. Disclosure of additional shapes absent persuasive evidence that the additional shapes are critical is considered a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (MPEP 2144.05.IV(B)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose a circulation shape other than circular for the tubular structure disclosed by Mori. Motivation to do so would be to adapt the circulation shape of the circulation tube to meet the physical constraint of the application where the circulation tube will be used.
Regarding claim 15, Mori discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Mori does not explicitly disclose the circulation pipe structure further comprises at least one injection hole that communicates with a pipe inner space. However, Mori discloses the members of the tubular structure are molded and combined by applying die slide injection [paragraph 0042]. This implies that at the end of the injection process the tubular structures will contain injection holes connecting to the tube inner space.
MPEP 2144.01 states that "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968)”.
Additionally, the applicant does not point to a specific use of the injection hole anywhere in the disclosure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to conclude that the tubular structure of Mori will contain at least one injection hole and hence the limitation introduced in claim 15 does not have patentable merit.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US2023/0264459A1) hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 8, Mori discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 1 as set forth above.
Mori does not disclose an average thickness of the circulation pipe structure, other than the first coupling parts and the second coupling part, is in a range of 1-6 millimeters (mm), based on a pipe inner space and an outside of the circulation pipe structure.
Zhang teaches coolant tubes for automotive applications (Abstract) with wall thickness in the range of 1-6 mm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tubular structure disclosed by Mori to have average wall thickness in the range of 1-6 mm as taught by Zhang. Applicant states no criticality of having wall thickness in the claimed range. Motivation for choosing wall thickness of Mori’s tubular structure in the specified range would be routine optimization to meet the need of different applications.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nishino et al. (US2017/0217118A1) hereinafter Nishino.
Regarding claim 9, Mori discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 2 as set forth above.
Mori does not disclose a thickness of the gap is in a range of 0.3-2.5 mm.
Nishino teaches a resin tube structure (Abstract) having two cross-sectional halves that form a tube when brought in together (Figure 13). Nishino teaches gap at the two ends of the cross-section of the tube with the gap being at least 0.3 mm (paragraph [0038]). So, the range of gap thickness introduced in the claim limitation is anticipated by Nishino.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adopt a gap thickness of at least 0.3 mm as taught by Nishino for the tubular structure of Mori. The motivation to do so would be to meet the physical requirements set by the application cases for the tubular structure.
Additionally, while applicant mentions the stated gap thickness range will ensure a good bonding between the upper and lower member, applicant does not disclose any criticality of having a thickness value towards the lower versus the upper range or beyond the uppermost range. A person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would be able to perform optimization of thickness value through routine experimentation (MPEP 2144.05.II).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Homi et al. (US6363900B1) hereinafter Homi.
Regarding claim 10, Mori discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 1 as set forth above. Mori further discloses circulation pipe structure comprising a polymer-based material including a polycarbonate-based resin (paragraph [0023]: polycarbonate), a polystyrene-based resin (paragraph [0023]: ABS), or any combination thereof, wherein the polymer-based material further includes an inorganic filler (paragraph [0023]: synthetic resin with additive agents such as carbon or glass fiber).
Mori does not disclose polyamide as the polymer-based material. Homi teaches polyamide-based resin (column 13, line 11) as a material for tubular parts like automotive intake manifold. The applicant mentions polyamide-based polymer resin as an alternative polymer among a list of polymers mentioned in the claim limitation. No critically is mentioned about the polyamide-based polymer over the other polymers mentioned in the claim limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use any polymer disclosed by Mori and use polyamide-based polymer taught by Homi as a viable alternative to construct the circulation pipe structure of Mori. Absent of any critically mentioned, motivation to choose a particular polymer or a combination of polymers would be to meet the application need, availability of material and cost limitation.
Claim 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Homi as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sakuma et al. (JP2010248953A) hereinafter Sakuma.
Regarding claim 11, Mori in view of Homi discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 10 as set forth above. Mori further discloses polymer-based material including inorganic filler (synthetic reinforcement fiber) such as carbon and glass fiber (paragraph [0023]).
Mori in view of Homi does not disclose inorganic filler being in the range of 15-50 wt% with respect to a total weight of the polymer-based material; and the inorganic filler comprises silica, calcium carbonate, talc, wollastonite, mica, or any combination thereof.
Sakuma teaches polymer-based material composition for automotive applications with inorganic filler material silica, calcium carbonate, talc, wollastonite, mica (page 11: [(B) Inorganic filler]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use one or a combination of the inorganic filler materials taught by Sakuma for construction of the circulation pipe structure disclosed by Mori in view of Homi as additional materials option. This would provide more material option for filler material ensuring the same functional outcome.
Sakuma also teaches the polymer-based material (polyamide) composition containing 1 to 200 parts by mass of inorganic filler with respect to 100 parts by mass of polyamide. By wt% the filter material range taught by Sakuma is between 0.99% and 66.67%.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wt% range of filler material from between 0.99% and 66.67% to between 15% and 50% since it has been held that “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph [0057] indicating the range “may” be within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 12, Mori in view of Homi in view of Sakuma discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 11 as set forth above. Mori in view of Homi in view of Sakuma further discloses the polymer-based material comprises polyamide 6 (Page 1: BACKGROUND ART) and glass fiber (page 11: [(B) Inorganic filler]).
Regarding claim 13, Mori in view of Homi in view of Sakuma discloses a circulation pipe structure according to claim 12 as set forth above.
Mori in view of Homi in view of Sakuma does not explicitly disclose the glass fiber has an average diameter in a range of 8-15 micrometers (μm) and an average length in a range of 2.5-5.0 mm.
Sakuma teaches average glass fiber diameter between the range of 3 to 30 micrometers (μm) (page 12: [(B) Inorganic filler], 6th paragraph). Sakuma also teaches preferred fiber aspect ratio (defined by length/diameter) to be 10 to 100 (page 12: [(B) Inorganic filler], 6th paragraph), which put the preferred length of the glass fiber to be in the range of 30 μm to 3 mm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose glass fiber having diameter from between 3 to 30 μm to between 8-15 μm and to choose glass fiber having length from between 30 μm to 3 mm to between 2.5 to 5 mm since it has been held that “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed ranges of glass fiber diameter and length (see paragraph [0058] indicating the range “may” be within the claimed range).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-0113. The examiner can normally be reached Tue, Wed 9:00am-7:00pm and Thurs 8:30am-2:30pm 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 supervisors, Craig M Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at (571) 272-4881. 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.
/FAISAL AHMED/Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights