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 group I in the reply filed on 03 August 2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nie et al. (US 6180197 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Nie teaches a multilayer tube for a vehicle comprising a liner (first layer 14) comprising polyether ether ketone (PEEK) defining a bore in the multilayer tube and an exterior layer (third layer 12) covering the liner which comprises a polyamide (Nie, Abstract, Col. 4 Lines 5-34, Col. 5 Lines 55-67, Col. 6 Lines 16-39, and Fig. 1). Regarding the limitation of the continuous use temperature, Nie teaches a multilayer tube comprising the same inner and outer layer material as the instant invention as stated above. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01. Nie teaches the inner liner comprises PEEK as stated above which is the same material as the instant invention per the instant claim 1. Nie further teaches the inner liner has a melt temperature of 715-750°C, which is above the lower end of the range greater than 150°C (Nie, Col. 6 Lines 25-39). Nie teaches the exterior layer comprises a polyamide that is polyamide 612 (Nie, Col. 7 Lines 48-67 – see “nylon 6,12”), which is the same material as the instant invention per the instant claim 2. Nie teaches the tube has a wall thickness of 0.8-1.5 mm (Nie, Col. 5 Lines 1-11), which lies within the range of the instant invention per the instant claim 3. Further, the instant specification does not state that any other specific modifications are made to achieve the claimed use temperature. Nie therefore teaches a multilayer tube that is identical or substantially identical to the instant tube. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, Nie’s multilayer tube would have inherently been capable of continuous use at a temperature of 150°C or greater, satisfying the claimed limitation.
Alternatively, regarding the continuous use temperature, Nie teaches the multilayer tube has an outer service temperature of about -40°C to about 150°C, which overlaps the claimed range of 150°C or greater and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 2, Nie teaches the polyamide is polyamide 612 (Nie, Col. 7 Lines 48-67 – see “nylon 6,12”).
Regarding claim 4, Nie teaches a first bonding layer connecting the liner and the exterior layer (Nie, Col. 8 Line 64 – Col. 9 Line 15).
Regarding claims 9-10, Nie teaches a structural layer (Second layer 16) between the liner and the exterior layer wherein the structural layer includes a polyamide polymer (Nie, Abstract, Col. 7 Lines 4-47, Claims 1-2, and Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Nie teaches bonding layers between the layers and thus teaches a first bonding layer connecting the liner and the structural layer and a second bonding layer connecting the structural layer and the exterior layer (Nie, Col. 8 Line 64 – Col. 9 Line 15).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Nie teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claim 1. Nie further teaches the multilayer tube has a wall thickness of 0.8-1.5 mm (Nie, Col. 5 Lines 1-11), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.6-2.0 mm and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Nie teaches the multilayer tube has an outer diameter of up to 50 mm (5 cm) (Nie, Col. 4 Lines 55-67). Combined with a thickness of 0.8-1.5 mm (0.08-0.15 cm), this results in an inner diameter of up to 4.92 cm, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5-3 cm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Claims 5-8, 12-13, 21-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. as applied to claims 1, 4, and 9 above, further in view of Rosenberg et al. (US 20170074427 A1).
Regarding claims 5, Nie teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1 and 4. Nie is silent regarding the first bonding layer including a polyamide adhesive as required by claim 5.
Rosenberg teaches a multilayer tube for vehicle use wherein the multilayer tube comprises an inner layer and an outer layer wherein the outer layer comprises polyamide (Rosenberg, Abstract). Rosenberg teaches the layers of the multilayer tube are joined by bonding layers (adhesive layers) including a polyamide adhesive (Rosenberg, Par. 0009, 0025-0027).
Nie and Rosenberg are analogous art as they both teach multilayer tubes for vehicle use comprising an outer polyamide layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the polyamide adhesive of Rosenberg as the adhesive of Nie. This would allow for adhesion between the layers (Rosenberg, Par. 0025-0027).
Regarding claims 6-7 and 12, Nie teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 1 and 9. Nie is silent regarding a barrier layer between the liner and the exterior layer, wherein the barrier layer exhibits a thickness in the range of 0.05 mm to 0.2 mm as required by claim 6. Nie is silent regarding a barrier layer between the structural layer and the exterior layer as required by claim 12. Nie is silent regarding the barrier layer including an EVOH.
Rosenberg teaches a multilayer tube for vehicle use wherein the multilayer tube comprises an inner layer, a structural layer (additional layer 18) comprising polyamide and an outer layer comprising polyamide (Rosenberg, Abstract, Par. 0024 and Fig. 3). Rosenberg teaches an EVOH barrier layer between the structural layer and the exterior layer, and thus also between the inner layer and the exterior layer (Rosenberg, Abstract, Par. 0024, and Fig. 3). Rosenberg teaches the barrier layer has a thickness of 0.02-0.07 mm (Rosenberg, Abstract), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.05 to 0.2 mm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Nie and Rosenberg are analogous art as they both teach multilayer tubes for vehicle use comprising an outer polyamide layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the barrier layer of Rosenberg between the structural layer and exterior layer of Nie. This would allow for barrier properties for the tube (Rosenberg, Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, modified Nie teaches bonding layers (adhesive layers) between the layers as stated above for claim 4 (Rosenberg, Par. 0025-0027) and therefore teaches a first bonding layer connecting the liner and the barrier layer and a second binding layer connecting the barrier layer and the exterior layer.
Regarding claim 13, modified Nie teaches bonding layers between the layers and thus teaches a first bonding layer connecting the liner and the structural layer, a second bonding layer connecting the barrier layer and the exterior layer, and a third bonding layer connecting the structural layer and the barrier layer (Nie, Col. 8 Line 64 – Col. 9 Line 15).
Regarding claim 21, Nie teaches a multilayer tube for a vehicle comprising a liner (first layer 14) comprising polyether ether ketone (PEEK) defining a bore in the multilayer tube and an exterior layer (third layer 12) covering the liner which comprises a polyamide (Nie, Abstract, Col. 4 Lines 5-34, Col. 5 Lines 55-67, Col. 6 Lines 16-39, and Fig. 1). Nie teaches a structural layer (Second layer 16) between the liner and the exterior layer wherein the structural layer includes a polyamide polymer (Nie, Abstract, Col. 7 Lines 4-47, Claims 1-2, and Fig. 1). Nie teaches bonding layers between the layers (Nie, Col. 8 Line 64 – Col. 9 Line 15).
Nie is silent regarding a barrier layer between the liner and the exterior layer wherein the barrier layer includes EVOH.
Rosenberg teaches a multilayer tube for vehicle use wherein the multilayer tube comprises an inner layer, a structural layer (additional layer 18) comprising polyamide and an outer layer comprising polyamide (Rosenberg, Abstract, Par. 0024 and Fig. 3). Rosenberg teaches an EVOH barrier layer between the structural layer and the exterior layer, and thus also between the inner layer and the exterior layer (Rosenberg, Abstract, Par. 0024, and Fig. 3).
Nie and Rosenberg are analogous art as they both teach multilayer tubes for vehicle use comprising an outer polyamide layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the barrier layer of Rosenberg between the structural layer and exterior layer of Nie. This would allow for barrier properties for the tube (Rosenberg, Abstract). Further, as modified Nie teaches bonding layers between the layers modified Nie teaches a first bonding layer connecting the liner and the structural layer, a second bonding layer connecting the barrier layer and the exterior layer, and a third bonding layer connecting the structural layer and the barrier layer (Nie, Col. 8 Line 64 – Col. 9 Line 15).
Regarding claim 22, modified Nie teaches a multilayer tube comprising the same liner, structural layer, barrier layer, and exterior as the instant invention as stated above. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), see MPEP 2112.01. Modified Nie teaches same liner material, structural layer material, barrier material, and exterior layer material as the instant invention as stated above for claim 22. Modified Nie further teaches the inner liner has a melt temperature of 715-750°C, which is above the lower end of the range greater than 150°C (Nie, Col. 6 Lines 25-39). Modified Nie teaches the exterior layer comprises a polyamide that is polyamide 612 (Nie, Col. 7 Lines 48-67 – see “nylon 6,12”), which is the same material as the instant invention per the instant claim 2. Modified Nie teaches the tube has a wall thickness of 0.8-1.5 mm (Nie, Col. 5 Lines 1-11), which lies within the range of the instant invention per the instant claim 3. Further, the instant specification does not state that any other specific modifications are made to achieve the claimed use temperature. Nie therefore teaches a multilayer tube that is identical or substantially identical to the instant tube. Therefore, absent objective evidence to the contrary, Nie’s multilayer tube would have inherently been capable of continuous use at a temperature of 150°C or greater, satisfying the claimed limitation.
Alternatively, regarding the continuous use temperature, Nie teaches the multilayer tube has an outer service temperature of about -40°C to about 150°C, which overlaps the claimed range of 150°C or greater and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 23, modified Nie teaches the multilayer tube has a wall thickness of 0.8-1.5 mm (Nie, Col. 5 Lines 1-11), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.6-2.0 mm and therefore satisfies the claimed range, see MPEP 2131.03. Nie teaches the multilayer tube has an outer diameter of up to 50 mm (5 cm) (Nie, Col. 4 Lines 55-67). Combined with a thickness of 0.8-1.5 mm (0.08-0.15 cm), this results in an inner diameter of up to 4.92 cm, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5-3 cm and therefore establishes a prima facie case of obviousness over the claimed range, see MPEP 2144.05, I.
Regarding claim 24, modified Nie teaches the multilayer tube defines a fuel flow path (Nie, Abstract).
Regarding claim 26, Nie teaches a multilayer tube for a vehicle comprising an extruded liner (first layer 14) comprising polyether ether ketone (PEEK) defining a bore in the multilayer tube, a structural layer comprising polyamide (Second layer 16) over the liner and an exterior layer (third layer 12) over the structural layer which comprises a polyamide (Nie, Abstract, Col. 4 Lines 5-34, Col. 5 Lines 55-67, Col. 6 Lines 16-39, Col. 7 Lines 4-47, Claims 1-2, and Fig. 1). Nie teaches bonding layers between the layers (Nie, Col. 8 Line 64 – Col. 9 Line 15).
Nie is silent regarding a barrier layer between the liner and the exterior layer wherein the barrier layer includes EVOH.
Rosenberg teaches a multilayer tube for vehicle use wherein the multilayer tube comprises an inner layer, a structural layer (additional layer 18) comprising polyamide and an outer layer comprising polyamide (Rosenberg, Abstract, Par. 0024 and Fig. 3). Rosenberg teaches an EVOH barrier layer between the structural layer and the exterior layer, and thus also between the inner layer and the exterior layer (Rosenberg, Abstract, Par. 0024, and Fig. 3).
Nie and Rosenberg are analogous art as they both teach multilayer tubes for vehicle use comprising an outer polyamide layer. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the barrier layer of Rosenberg between the structural layer and exterior layer of Nie. This would allow for barrier properties for the tube (Rosenberg, Abstract). Further, as modified Nie teaches bonding layers between the layers modified Nie teaches a first bonding layer connecting the liner and the structural layer, a second bonding layer connecting the structural layer and the barrier layer, and a third bonding layer connecting the barrier layer and the exterior layer (Nie, Col. 8 Line 64 – Col. 9 Line 15).
Claims 25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nie et al. as applied to claims 24 and 26 above, further in view of Hammer et al. (US 20180335172 A1).
Regarding claims 25 and 27, modified Nie teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated above for claims 21 and 26. Modified Nie is silent regarding a sensor connected to the multilayer tube as required by claim 25. Modified Nie is silent regarding a fitting welded onto the tube.
Hammer teaches a fuel tube comprising a sensor connected to the tube and a fitting welded onto the tube (Hammer, Abstract, Par. 0007, 0012, 0020, and 0035-0036).
Modified Nie and Hammer are analogous art as they both teach fuel tubes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included a sensor and a welded fitting onto the tube of modified Nie. This would allow for connecting the tube to other devices and a sensor for the fuel in the tube (Hammer, Abstract, Par. 0017, 0020, and 0035-0036).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS J KESSLER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3075. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:30 M-Th.
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, Aaron Austin can be reached at 571-272-8935. 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.
/THOMAS J KESSLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1782
Prosecution Insights