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 .
Drawings
The subject matter of this application admits of illustration by a drawing to facilitate understanding of the invention. Applicant is required to furnish a drawing under 37 CFR 1.81(c). No new matter may be introduced in the required drawing. 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).
In particular, at least the water pipe of claims 15-20 readily admits of illustration by a drawing, which would aid in understanding the particular layer structure and coupling arrangement described. Diagrams detailing the methods described in making the modified wear-resistant fillers would also be useful, but are not strictly required.
See also 37 CFR 1.83(a): “The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box).”
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification refers to a US application “US16681769” in four instances (2x in para. 3, 1x each in paras. 4 & 52). The formatting used may cause confusion as it appears to read as a US patent number. These instances should be amended to recite the US Patent Application Number as “16/681,769” or should otherwise be amended to recite the publication number (US 2021/0062939 A1).
Para. 47, line 2: “concludes” appears it should read “includes”.
In at least three instances [1x each in paras. 25, 65, 73], the term “molybdenum pentachloide" should read “molybdenum pentachloride”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Examiner’s Comment on Filler Modification Processes
Applicant’s disclosure and claims appear to include an initial embodiment wherein the flexible hose material includes fillers comprising kaolin clay and quartz powder (see Embodiment 1 [e.g., paras. 55-59] & claim 1), with later embodiments performing various modifications to the kaolin and quartz powder mixture.
In embodiment 2 (e.g., paras. 60-67 & claim 4), the kaolin/quartz mixture is dispersed in water via ultrasonic stirring, molybdenum pentachloride and vanadium tetrachloride are initially added and then, after a time, potassium bicarbonate is added, followed by a filtration to collect “solid filter slags”, which are then calcined to form calcined solids, which are the “modified wear resistant fillers” in this instance.
In embodiment 3 (e.g., paras. 68-76; claims 9 & 13), the calcined solids are added to water to form another dispersion, to which modifying additives including “l-Alanine, N-coco acyl derivs., sodium salts” (i.e., Sodium Cocoyl Alaninate), benzyltriethylammonium chloride, and titanium tris (dodecyl benzene sulfonate) isopropoxide are added, followed by a stirring and an additional filtering operation to obtain “modified solids” which are the “modified wear resistant fillers” in this instance.
In the case of embodiments 2 & 3, the specification does not explain what processes are expected to be occurring during these steps, nor does it provide any detail as to how the kaolin and quartz are intended to be modified in each step, or even whether the resulting “modified wear resistant fillers” are still in fact kaolin and quartz (it may be the case that the raw materials are transformed into some new composite particle during this process).
By way of example, for embodiment 2, it is understood that molybdenum pentachloride and vanadium tetrachloride are each Lewis acids and polymerization catalysts, but it is unclear if they are being used to acid-modify the kaolin surface, to leach aluminum from the kaolin (e.g., for later deposition on the quartz or elsewhere), and/or if they are intended to deposit particles of molybdenum and/or vanadium on the kaolin and/or quartz during later precipitation after addition of the alkali, etc. It is unclear if the potassium bicarbonate is merely neutralizing the acid to cause precipitation, or if this is also intended to perform some alkali-modification to the kaolin surface, etc.
For the additional steps in embodiment 3, it is unclear if the l-Alanine compound is merely serving as a surfactant, or if the l-Alanine actually performs another function (e.g., forming an amine compound, binding to one of the filler material components, etc.); similarly, it is unclear what additional modifications are being achieved by benzyltriethylammonium chloride and titanium tris (dodecyl benzene sulfonate) isopropoxide (e.g., is titanium from the isopropoxide being deposited onto the kaolin as titanium dioxide particles?; do these compounds form a polymer or prepolymer coating on the particles?).
The uncertainty in the resulting structures achieved by these processes raise more specific issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and (b), which are detailed in the appropriate portions of this action.
Claim Objections
The claims are replete with informal or inconsistent phrasing, especially with respect to plural / singular wording errors (e.g., “the wear resistant fillers is” vs. “the wear resistant filler is”/”the wear resistant fillers are”, etc.). The following list includes examples of various issues identified in the claims but, for brevity, is not exhaustive. Applicant should carefully review the claims and correct any similar instances which may be present of the issues identified below.
Claims 1-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 2 & claim 2, line 2 & claim 15, lines 4-5: “…comprise following…” should read “…comprise the following” or similar.
Throughout the claims, it appears “wear resistant fillers” should instead read “wear resistant filler” (i.e., a collective singular term). In either case, the term should be either plural (“fillers”) or singular (“filler”) in a consistent manner.
e.g., in claim 1: “the wear resistant filler comprises kaolin and quartz powder”; in claim 3, “a weight ratio of kaolin to quartz powder in the wear resistant filler is…”, etc.
Throughout the claims: “kaolins” should read “kaolin”.
Claim 1, line 7: “the quartz powders” should read “quartz powder” (i.e., “kaolin and quartz powder”).
Related: throughout the claims, “quartz powders” should read “quartz powder”.
Claim 2, lines 1-2: “raw material components” should read “the raw material components” or similar.
In general, claim 2 should be rephrased to clarify that the listed amounts are narrowing the ranges in claim 1, rather than requiring new/additional ingredients (e.g., “The flexible hose material according to claim 1, wherein the thermoplastic rubber is 90 to 100 parts by weight, the polypropylene is 20 to 30 parts by weight…”, etc.)
Claim 4: “the wear resistant fillers is a modified wear resistant fillers; the modified wear resistant fillers is…” should read “the wear resistant filler is a modified wear resistant filler; the modified wear resistant filler is…”;
Claim 4, line 14: “the calcined solids” should read “calcined solids”;
Claim 7 is informally phrased, and it may be unclear what is meant by “weight parts” in this context. Consider, e.g., “wherein the molybdenum pentachloride is provided in an amount of 2 to 3 parts by weight, the vanadium tetrachloride is provided in an amount of 1.5 to 2.5 parts by weight, and the potassium bicarbonate is provided in an amount of 8 to 10 parts by weight, based on 100 parts by weight of the kaolin and quartz powder dispersion” or similar.
Claims 8 & 11-14 present similar issues.
Claim 8, line 3: “pentachloide" should read “pentachloride”
Claim 9, lines 1-3: “wherein, calcining the solid filter slags at 900 °C to 1100 °C for 3 h to 5 h; after the step of calcining the solid filter slags at 900 °C to 1100 °C for 3 h to 5 h, to obtain the calcined solids, it also comprises the following steps of:” should read “wherein, after the step of calcining the solid filter slags, the method further comprises:” or similar.
Claim 9, lines 5-6: “adding the calcined solids to the water to obtain calcined solids dispersion after stirring evenly” should read “adding the calcined solids to water and stirring to obtain a calcined solids dispersion” or similar.
Claim 13: “wherein, the raw material components of the modified additives comprise 3 kinds of raw materials” should read simply “wherein the modified additives comprise:” (or similar).
In claims 13 & 14: “l-Alanine, N-cocoacylderivs sodiumsalts”, as understood, is referring to a particular compound: “l-Alanine, N-coco acyl derivs., sodium salts” (CAS 90170-45-9), which is an amino-acid based surfactant, also known as “sodium cocoyl alaninate” (SCA). The claim should be reformatting or rephrased to avoid confusion as to whether this is referring to the above compound or to “l-Alanine”, “N-coco acyl derivs”, and “sodium salts”, separately. Alternatively, the informal name “sodium cocoyl alaninate” may be used instead (though clarifying language should be added to the specification to provide antecedent basis for the alternative name).
Claim 13, line 5: “isopropoxide14” should read “isopropoxide”.
Claim 13, line 7: “2 patrs” should read “2 parts”.
Claim 15: the description / preamble in lines 1-3 is overly complicated and potentially confusing. Consider instead: “A water pipe comprising a water pipe main body made of a flexible hose material” or similar.
Claim 17 is overly complicated and potentially confusing. Consider instead “The water pipe according to claim 15, wherein the water pipe main body comprises a hollow single-layer structure and is configured to expand longitudinally and transversely; the water pipe further comprising a first coupler connected to a first end of the water pipe main body, and a second coupler connected to a second end of the water pipe main body” or similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The written description requirement promotes the progress of the useful arts by ensuring that patentees adequately describe their inventions in their patent specifications in exchange for the right to exclude others from practicing the invention for the duration of the patent’s term. [MPEP § 2163(I)].
Claims 4-14 (especially claims 4, 9 & 13) seek to define the claimed flexible hose material by further defining processes of modifying the filler derived from the raw materials of kaolin and quartz:
In claim 4, a process is described wherein molybdenum pentachloride and vanadium tetrachloride are added to water-based dispersion of the kaolin/quartz mixture obtained by ultrasonic stirring, followed by an addition of potassium bicarbonate, a filtering process to collect “solid filter slags”, and finally performing a calcining operation on the calcined solids, wherein the calcined solids are “the modified wear resistant filler”.
In claim 9, a further process is described to modify the calcined solids, including forming a calcined solids dispersion, adding “modified additives”, and performing a filtering operation to obtain “modified solids” which are “the modified wear resistant filler”.
Claim 13 further defines the “modified additives” as comprising “l-Alanine, N-coco acyl derivs., sodium salts” (i.e., Sodium Cocoyl Alaninate), benzyltriethylammonium chloride, and titanium tris (dodecyl benzene sulfonate) isopropoxide.
As set forth in the Examiner’s Comment on Filler Modification Processes section of this action, while the specification describes the above processes in terms of the steps performed and the materials used, the disclosure does not describe the intended modifications made to the filler materials at each step, and does not describe the composition or structure of the resulting “calcined solids” or “modified solids” which comprise the modified wear resistant fillers.
As set forth in MPEP § 2163(I)(A), an invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. Written description issues may also arise if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not have permitted the ordinary artisan to immediately envisage the claimed product arising from the disclosed process.
See Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm.Co., Ltd., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("it is well established in our law that conception of a chemical compound requires that the inventor be able to define it so as to distinguish it from other materials, and to describe how to obtain it"). [MPEP § 2163(II)(A)(2)]. In the instant case, while applicant’s specification describes how to obtain the modified fillers, it does not define these fillers in a manner sufficient to distinguish them from other materials.
As set forth in MPEP § 2163(II)(A)(3)(a), an adequate written description of a chemical invention also requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
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 1-20 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 term “wear resistant” (incl. “wear resistant fillers” in claims 1, 3, 4 & 15; “modified wear resistant fillers” in claims 4 & 9; “wear resistant water pipe main body” in claims 15-18; and “wear resistant nylon thread” in claim 20) is a relative term which renders the claims indefinite. The term “wear resistant” is 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.
Furthermore, in the case of “wear resistant fillers”, it is unclear if this means that the fillers themselves are “wear resistant” or if these fillers are intended to impart additional wear resistance to the flexible hose material.
Claim 1 recites that the raw materials of the flexible hose material comprises “wear resistant fillers” comprising kaolin and quartz powder.
Claim 4, however, recites that “the wear resistant filler is a modified wear resistant filler”, and then proceeds to describe a process resulting in “calcined solids” which “are the modified wear resistant fillers”. It is unclear in view of the specification if the “calcined solids” still comprise the kaolin and quartz powder, or if the calcined solids are a different / composite particle which merely uses the kaolin/quartz mixture as a starting ingredient. It is also unclear if the limitation wherein “the wear resistant filler is a modified filler” is further defining the raw material used for the flexible hose material (which may not necessarily be present in the final material), or whether this is instead defining the wear resistant filler as it is to be used in the final product, made from the raw material filler recited in claim 1.
As set forth in MPEP § 2113(I), the structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art. In the instant case, however, it is not clear what resulting structure is actually implied here, causing the claims to take on an unreasonable degree of uncertainty.
Claim 4 recites “mixing the kaolins and the quartz powders evenly, and then adding the kaolins and the quartz powders to water, to obtain kaolins and quartz powders dispersion after ultrasonic stirring”, which raises several issues.
First, as best understood, the phrase “after ultrasonic stirring” was meant to establish that that the mixture of water / kaolin / quartz powder is ultrasonically stirred to form a kaolin and quartz powder dispersion, however, the limitation might be read as suggesting that the ultrasonic stirring is applied to the dry kaolin and quartz powder before adding to the water, or even that the kaolin and quartz powder are ultrasonically stirred before mixing (i.e., the steps of mixing and/or adding to water may be seen as “after ultrasonic stirring”).
The term “evenly” (“mixing evenly”) may also be seen as a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
Claim 4 further recites “adding molybdenum pentachloride and vanadium tetrachloride to the kaolin and quartz powders dispersion, adding potassium bicarbonate after stirring for 10 min to 20 min, and then stirring continuously for 120 min to 200 min”. The actual order of the steps is ambiguous or vague. As best understood, this was likely intended to mean that the molybdenum pentachloride and vanadium tetrachloride are added to the dispersion, another stirring step is performed for 10 to 20 mins, then potassium bicarbonate is added, followed by an additional stirring step performed from 120 to 200 minutes. Alternatively, it may be that the 10-20 min stirring and the 120 to 200 minute stirring are each continuations of the same ultrasonic stirring action previously recited (to obtain the dispersion in the first place), which is simply continued throughout this process.
As previously discussed, claim 1 recites that the raw materials of the flexible hose material comprises “wear resistant fillers” comprising kaolin and quartz powder and, claim 4, recites that “the wear resistant filler is a modified filler”, wherein “the calcined solids” are “the modified wear resistant fillers”.
Claim 9, however, describes an additional modification process performed on “the calcined solids” resulting in “modified solids” which “are the modified wear resistant fillers”. It is unclear in view of the specification if the “calcined solids” and/or the resulting “modified solids” still comprise the kaolin and quartz powder, or if the calcined solids and modified solids are different / composite particles which merely uses the kaolin/quartz mixture as a starting ingredient. It is also unclear if the limitation wherein “the modified solids are the modified wear resistant fillers” is further defining the raw material used for the flexible hose material (which may not necessarily be present in the final material), or whether this is instead defining the modified wear resistant filler as it is to be used in the final product, merely made from the raw material filler recited in claim 1.
It is also noted that the recitation wherein “the modified solids are the modified wear resistant fillers” in claim 9 appears to contradict the limitation in claim 4 wherein “the calcined solids are the modified wear resistant fillers”.
Claim 9 recites “adding the calcined solids to the water”. It is unclear if “the water” is intended to be (or required to be) the same “water” as recited in claim 4, or if this is intended to be different water.
The term “evenly” (“stirring evenly”) in claim 9 may also be seen as a relative term which renders the claims indefinite.
Claim 9 further recites “adding modified additives after heating the calcined solids dispersion to 50°C to 70°C, after stirring for 2 h to 4 h, performing a filtering operation to obtain modified solids” which raises several issues.
First, the term “modified additives” appears to suggest that the additives themselves are modified, but it is unclear in what manner they are to be modified or what they are intended to be modified relative to. As best understood, this was likely intended to mean that the additives are modifying additives (i.e., additives which modify the calcined solids). Still, while the specific additives are later named, it is unclear how they are actually modifying the calcined solids.
Next, it is unclear if the phrase “after stirring for 2h to 4h” means that the filtering operation is performed after stirring for 2h to 4h, or whether the modified additives are added after 1) heating the calcined solids dispersion to 50°C to 70°C and 2) stirring for 2h to 4h (i.e., heating, adding, stirring, filtering vs heating, stirring, adding, filtering).
Claim 10 also recites “the water”. As with claim 9, it is unclear if this is referring to the same “water” as claim 4, or if this is a different volume / batch of water (i.e., the water of claim 9, if different than the water of claim 4).
Claim 11 recites “wherein, the calcined solids dispersion is 100 weight parts, the modified additives are 5 weight parts to 10 weight parts”. Claim 12 similarly recites “wherein, the calcined solids dispersion is 100 weight parts and the modified additives is 8 weight parts”. As best understood, this was likely intended to mean that the modified additives are provided in an amount of 5 to 10 parts by weight (or 8 parts by weight), based on 100 parts by weight of the calcined solids dispersion. However, it is unclear if this is a total amount of the modified additives, or if each modified additive must be separately provided in the claimed amount.
Claim 13 recites “wherein, the raw material components of the modified additives comprise 3 kinds of raw materials: l-Alanine, N-cocoacylderivs sodiumsalts, benzyltriethylammonium chloride and titanium tris (dodecyl benzene sulfonate) isopropoxide”.
It is unclear if this means that the step of “adding modified additives” in claim 9 requires adding each of these three materials to the calcined solids dispersion, or, as claim 13 notes that these are merely “raw materials”, if the “modified additive” added to the calcined solids dispersion in claim 9 may be any material / compound / solution which may be derived from the three raw materials listed (even if the resulting “modified additive” no longer contains one or more of those three materials in the recited form when added to the calcined solids dispersion).
Claim 15 recites “the wear resistant water pipe main body is made by the flexible hose material”, which appears to suggest that the material is performing the action of making the main body. As best understood, the main body is, e.g., “made from” or “made of” the flexible hose material.
Claim 16 recites that the water pipe main body “is an integrated forming structure”. The scope of this limitation is unclear. This may have been intended to mean that the water pipe main body is formed as a single integrated structure, or that the structure is one formed by integrating different components (layers, etc.).
Claim 18 recites that the “water pipe main body comprises a fabric layer”, however, claim 18 depends from claim 16 which recites that the main body is “an integrated forming structure”. It is unclear how the main body can be both “an integrated forming structure” while also comprises “a fabric layer”. As best understood, the main body would thus comprise at least two separate layers (the flexible material layer and the fabric layer).
Claim 20 recites that the elastic fabric layer comprises “a rubber band”. It is unclear if this is intended to mean that the elastic fabric layer comprises, i.e., an elastomeric thread / fiber component, or if this actually is intended to mean that the layer has a band which is formed from a rubber.
To promote compact prosecution, the term “rubber band” will be interpreted in this action as referring to an elastic thread / fiber, as best understood to be the intended meaning in view of the specification and prior art.
Claims recited in the section heading above but not specifically discussed are rejected due to dependency on at least one rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4 recites that “the calcined solids are the modified wear resistant fillers”. However, claim 9, which depends from claim 4, recites additional steps of modifying the calcined solids to obtain “modified solids”, wherein “the modified solids are the modified wear resistant fillers”.
As such, claim 9 appears to replace the limitation in claim 4 wherein the calcined solids are the modified wear resistant fillers, with a different limitation wherein the modified solids are the modified wear resistant fillers.
As a result, claim 9 is an improper dependent claim for failing for include all of the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 10-14 depend from claim 9 and are rejected due to dependency therefrom.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1-3, 15 & 16 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddhamalli et al. (US 2013/0327428 A1; hereafter Siddhamalli) in view of Luo et al. (US 2013/0273289 A1; hereafter Luo), Lutz et al. (US 4,795,782; hereafter Lutz), and Stuhldreher (US 6,080,809).
Regarding claim 1, Siddhamalli discloses (throughout; see abstract) a flexible hose material (i.e., material for a “thermoplastic elastomer tubing” 300 in fig. 3), wherein raw material components of the flexible hose material comprise
thermoplastic rubber (i.e., the base elastomer material; which may include “a thermoplastic elastomer component” [see paras. 23-24]) and
polypropylene (see para. 25: “The components of the thermoplastic elastomer tubing can also include a polyolefin component….In a particular embodiment, the polyolefin component includes polypropylene”).
Siddhamalli also discloses that the thermoplastic elastomer tubing can include one or more additives, including a stabilizer, a curing agent, a lubricant, a filler, a processing aid, or a combination thereof (see paras. 17 & 62).
With respect to the limitation wherein the amount of thermoplastic rubber is 80 to 100 parts by weight, and the amount of polypropylene is 20 to 40 parts by weight, Siddhamalli discloses, in a broad range, that the thermoplastic rubber may be provided in an amount of “at least approximately 20 wt%”, and the polypropylene may be provided in an amount of “no greater than approximately 50 wt %” (see para. 16). Siddhamalli elaborates that the thermoplastic rubber may be provided in an amount of at least 25, 30, 33, 38, or 45 wt % (para. 39), and that the polyolefin (e.g., the polypropylene) may be provided in an amount of at least 8, 10, 15, 20, 23, 27, or 30 wt % (para. 40).
Siddhamalli later suggests that, “in another embodiment”, the thermoplastic rubber component may be no greater than approximately 60 wt %, however, this is reasonably seen as a preference rather than a required upper limit and, as set forth in MPEP § 2123(II), disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 2123(I): a reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989).
Nevertheless, setting the amount of thermoplastic rubber in the material to 60 wt%, and defining this quantity of thermoplastic rubber as 100 parts by weight (for a total composition of ~167 parts by weight), the corresponding claimed range of 20 to 40 parts by weight of polypropylene would be 12 wt % to 24 wt %, clearly within the ranges of the polyolefin (polypropylene) disclosed by Siddhamalli. Indeed, one preferred range of the polyolefin component is disclosed to be “approximately 10 wt% to 30 wt%”.
Note that even if the same 60 wt% of thermoplastic rubber is defined to be 80 parts by weight (for a total composition of ~133 parts by weight), the corresponding range of 20 to 40 parts by weight of polypropylene would be 15 wt % to 30 wt %, still clearly within the ranges suggested by Siddhamalli.
As mentioned above, Siddhamalli discloses that the thermoplastic elastomer tubing can include one or more additives, including a stabilizer, a curing agent, a lubricant, a filler, a processing aid, or a combination thereof.
With respect to the “wear resistant filler” component, Siddhamalli does not explicitly disclose the filler to be a “wear resistant filler” comprising kaolin and quartz powder.
With respect to the “anti-aging agent”, Siddhamalli discloses that the material may comprise “a stabilizer”. As used in the art, the term “stabilizer” refers to an additive which inhibits or slows degradation (e.g., an antioxidant, UV / light, or heat stabilizer). It is also noted that the example anti-aging materials listed by applicant in the specification are understood to be antioxidants. As a result, Siddhamalli’s disclosure of a “stabilizer” additive would be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art as equivalent to “an anti-aging agent” (i.e., a stabilizer which extends the life of the product by preventing or slowing degradation due to one or more environmental sources, such as light, heat, UV, etc.). However, to promote compact prosecution, additional teachings are provided below.
Siddhamalli does not explicitly disclose a dispersing agent or coupling agent (though one or more of the stabilizer, lubricant, processing aid, etc. may also be an anti-aging agent or dispersing agent), and does not explicitly disclose amounts for the additives (except for amounts of an optional mineral oil plasticizer).
Luo teaches (para. 122) that a thermoplastic composition for a hose / tube may comprise one or more mineral fillers in an amount from about 1 wt% to about 60 wt %, wherein the mineral fillers may include quartz powder and kaolin, among others. Converting to parts by weight, this would correspond to a range of about 2 – 100 parts (for a 167 part total composition; or about 1 – 80 parts for a 133 part total composition).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible hose material of Siddhamalli to include wear resistant fillers including kaolin and quartz powder, in view of the teachings of Luo, as Siddhamalli already discloses that the composition may contain fillers, and Luo teaches kaolin and quartz powder as two such known fillers, especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding the limitation wherein the amount of wear resistant filler is 30 parts to 40 parts, as noted above, Luo teaches that the fillers may be provided in an amount from 1 wt% to about 60 wt %, which corresponds to about 2 – 100 parts (for a 167 part total composition) or about 1 – 80 parts (for a 133 part total composition).
As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05(I), 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 the instant case, the claimed range of “30 parts to 40 parts” clear lies inside the ranges disclosed by the prior art.
Furthermore, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A), "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.").
If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible hose material of Siddhamalli, as otherwise modified above, such that the amount of wear resistant filler is from 30 parts to 40 parts, 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 (as explained above).
With respect to the limitation wherein the material comprises 1 part to 3 parts of an anti-aging agent, as noted above, Siddhamalli discloses that the material may comprise additives, including a stabilizer, which would reasonably be understood as an “anti-aging agent” in this context.
Luo further teaches that the thermoplastic composition for a hose / tube may comprise “a UV stabilizer” in an amount of between about 0.5 wt% and about 15 wt %, (paras. 124-126), which corresponds to 0.8 to 25 parts for a 167 part composition, or 0.67 to 20 parts for a 133 part composition.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible hose material of Siddhamalli to include an anti-aging agent (e.g., a UV stabilizer), in view of the teachings of Luo, as Siddhamalli already discloses that the composition may contain various additives including stabilizers (i.e., anti-aging agents), and Luo teaches the corresponding use of a UV stabilizer (i.e., to prevent degradation of the polymer by UV, as is otherwise known in the art), especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to the limitation wherein the amount of anti-aging agent is 1 part to 3 parts, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when modifying the flexible hose material of Siddhamalli to include the anti-aging agent (e.g., UV stabilizer) in view of Luo above, to provide the anti-aging agent in an amount of 1 part to 3 parts, since Luo already teaches that the anti-aging agent may be provided in an amount between about 0.5 wt% and about 15 wt %, corresponding to 0.8 to 25 parts for a 167 part composition (or 0.67 to 20 parts for a 133 part composition), especially considering that 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 (as explained above).
Examination Note I: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that Luo explicitly suggests that other additives may include “antioxidants, stabilizers (e.g., heat stabilizers…),…and other materials added to enhance properties and processability” (para. 130).
Examination Note II: to further promote compact prosecution, it is also noted that providing a thermoplastic rubber composition with various UV, light, heat stabilizers, and antioxidants, including amine-antioxidants and phenolic antioxidants [the two ‘anti-aging agents’ in applicant’s specification are amine and phenolic antioxidants, respectively], is otherwise known in the art; see, e.g., US 2015/0228376 to Ranganathan et al.
With respect to the limitation wherein the material comprises 1 part to 3 parts of a “dispersing agent”, it is noted that the term “dispersing agent” is understood to mean an additive used to aid in achieving a uniform distribution of fillers. In applicant’s specification, the example of a suitable dispersing agent is “ethylene bis stearamide” which is a known “fatty-acid” amide wax, with various uses, including as a lubricant.
As previously noted, Siddhamalli discloses that the thermoplastic elastomer tubing can include one or more additives, including a lubricant and a processing aid.
Lutz teaches that a thermoplastic elastomer composition may be provided with “one or more conventional additives such as stabilizers and inhibitors of oxidative, thermal, and ultraviolet light degradation; lubricants and mold release agents, colorants including dyes and pigments, fibrous and particulate fillers and reinforcements, nucleating agents, plasticizers, etc.” (col. 12, lines 56-62).
Lutz further explains that “[s]uitable lubricants and mold release agents, e.g., up to 1.0 percent, based on the weight of the composition, are stearic acid, stearic alcohol, stearamides” (col. 13, lines 16-18). 1 percent by weight would correspond to 1.67 parts for a 167 part composition, and 1.33 parts for a 133 part composition.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible hose material of Siddhamalli to include a dispersing agent (e.g., stearamide lubricant), in view of the teachings of Lutz, as Siddhamalli already discloses that the composition may contain various additives including a lubricant or processing aid, and Lutz teaches the corresponding use of a stearamides as such a lubricant / mold-release / processing aid (as is otherwise known in the art and which, as understood, would also function as a dispersing agent), especially considering that it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
With respect to the limitation wherein the amount of dispersing agent is 1 part to 3 parts, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when modifying the flexible hose material of Siddhamalli to include the dispersing agent (e.g., the stearamide lubricant) in view of Lutz above, to provide the dispersing agent in an amount of 1 part to 3 parts, since Lutz already teaches that the dispersing agent may be provided in an amount up to about 1.0 wt%, corresponding to about 1.67 parts for a 167 part composition (or 1.33 parts for a 133 part composition), especially considering that 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 (as explained above).
It is noted that Lutz also discloses that the “fibrous and particulate fillers and reinforcements” may include “kaolin” and “powdered quartz”, among others (col. 13, lines 23-27).
Examination Note: to promote compact prosecution, it is noted that Ranganathan et al. (US 2015/0228376) explains that processing aids, including various stearate and fatty acid amine lubricant-type processing aids, “can be used to improve the processability of the …composition by forming a microscopic dispersed phase within the polymer carrier”.
With respect to the limitation wherein the material comprises 1 part to 3 parts of a coupling agent, Stuhldreher teaches an elastomer composition comprising wear resistant fillers which may include silica and kaolin clay (e.g., see abstract; col. 2, lines 15-22, 33-41, etc.), and a coupling agent provided in an amount which may be from about 6 to 12 wt% based on the weight of the silica and kaolin clay (see col. 2, lines 24-32; published claim 1, etc.).
Stuhldreher explains that the “kaolin clay is enhanced by the presence of a silane coupling agent” (col. 2, lines 24-25).
Examination Note: as would be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art, treatment of fillers such as kaolin clay and silica, as by a silane coupling agent, in general, is well-known and is used to improve compatibility and dispersion between the fillers and the polymer material. See, e.g., US 2009/0318585 A1 to Sakai, US 6,608,145 to Lin et al., US 6,342,560 to Okel, etc.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible hose material of Siddhamalli to include a coupling agent (e.g. a silane coupling agent), in view of the teachings of Stuhldreher, so as to improve the coupling / compatibility of the quartz powder (a form of silica) and kaolin with the polymer materials in the composition (as is otherwise well-known in the art).
With respect to the limitation wherein the amount of coupling agent is 1 part to 3 parts, it is noted that Stuhldreher suggests an amount of coupling agent of 6% to 12% based on the weight of the silica and kaolin. When the fillers are provided in a range from 30 to 40 parts, this would suggest a corresponding amount of coupling agent in the range from 1.8 parts (6% at 30 parts filler) to 4.8 parts (12% at 40 parts filler).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when modifying the flexible hose material of Siddhamalli to include the coupling agent in view of Stuhldreher above, to provide the coupling agent in an amount of 1 part to 3 parts, since Stuhldreher already teaches that the coupling agent may be provided in an amount of 6-12 wt% based on the weight of the kaolin and silica, which, for an amount of such fillers of between 30 to 40 parts as claimed, would correspond to a coupling agent amount range of 1.8 to 4.8 parts, especially considering that 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 (as explained above).
As a result, all of the limitations of claim 1 are met, or are otherwise rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 2, the flexible hose material of Siddhamalli, as modified in view of Luo, Lutz, and Stuhldreher above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations wherein the raw material components of the flexible hose material comprise following ingredients in parts by weight: thermoplastic rubber 90 parts to 100 parts, polypropylene 20 parts to 30 parts, wear resistant fillers 30 parts to 35 parts, anti-aging agent 2 parts to 3 parts, dispersing agent 1 parts to 2 parts and coupling agent 1 parts to 2 parts.
As set forth in MPEP § 2144.05(I), 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).
As similarly explained for claim 1 above, setting the amount of thermoplastic rubber in the material to 60 wt% as disclosed by Siddhamalli, and defining this quantity of thermoplastic rubber as 100 parts by weight (for a total composition of ~167 parts by weight), the corresponding claimed range of 20 to 30 parts by weight of polypropylene would be, i.e., 12 wt % to 18 wt %, clearly within the ranges of the polyolefin (polypropylene) disclosed by Siddhamalli. Indeed, one preferred range of the polyolefin component is disclosed to be “approximately 10 wt% to 30 wt %”.
With respect to the amount of wear resistant fillers being from 30 parts to 35 parts, as set forth for claim 1, Luo teaches that the fillers may be provided in an amount from 1 wt% to about 60 wt %, which corresponds to about 2 – 100 parts (for a 167 part total composition), encompassing the claimed range.
With respect to the amount of anti-aging agent being from 2 to 3 parts, as set forth for claim 1, Luo further teaches that the thermoplastic composition for a hose / tube may comprise “a UV stabilizer” in an amount of between about 0.5 wt% and about 15 wt %, (paras. 124-126), which corresponds to 0.8 to 25 parts (for a 167 part composition), encompassing the claimed range.
With respect to the amount of dispersing agent being 1 to 2 parts, as set forth for claim 1, Lutz teaches that a dispersing agent (e.g., a stearamide lubricant) may be provided in an amount up to 1.0 percent, based on the weight of the composition, which would correspond to 1.67 parts (for a 167 part composition), overlapping the claimed range.
With respect to the amount of coupling agent being 1 to 2 parts, as set forth for claim 1, Stuhldreher suggests an amount of coupling agent of 6% to 12% based on the weight of the silica and kaolin. When the fillers are provided in a range from 30 to 35 parts as claimed, this would suggest a corresponding amount of coupling agent in the range from 1.8 parts (6% at 30 parts filler) to 4.2 parts (12% at 35 parts filler), overlapping the claimed range.
If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flexible hose material of Siddhamalli, as otherwise modified above, such that the raw material components of the flexible hose material comprises following ingredients in parts by weight: thermoplastic rubber 90 parts to 100 parts (e.g., 100 parts), polypropylene 20 parts to 30 parts (i.e., within the range of 10 wt% to 30 wt % based on the weight of the rubber), wear resistant fillers 30 parts to 35 parts (within the range of 1 to 60 wt % / 2 – 100 parts as taught by Luo), anti-aging agent 2 parts to 3 parts (within the range of 0.5 to 15 wt % / 0.8 to 25 parts as taught by Luo), dispersing agent 1 parts to 2 parts (overlapping the range of up to 1% / 1.67 parts as taught by Lutz) and coupling agent 1 parts to 2 parts (overlapping the range of 6% to 12% based on the weight of the fillers, e.g., 6% at 30 parts filler being 1.8 parts coupling agent), 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 (as explained above).
Furthermore, as set forth in MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A), "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.").
Regarding claim 3, with respect to the limitation wherein a weight ratio of kaolins to quartz powders in the wear resistant fillers is 3:5 to 3:1, Stuhldreher teaches that a filler mixture of kaolin clay and silica (quartz powder being a type of silica) can be provided in a weight ratio of 0.1:1 (i.e. 9% kaolin / 91% silica) to 1:1 parts by weight (50%/50% blend)(col. 2, lines 18-22), overlapping the claimed range of 3:5 (37.5% kaolin / 62.5% quartz[silica]) to 3:1 (75% kaolin / 25% quartz [silica]).
If not already seen as such, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, when modifying the material of Siddhamalli in view of Luo such that the filler is a wear resistant filler comprising quartz powder and kaolin provide the kaolin and quartz (as set forth for claim 1 above) to provide the wear resistant filler with a weight ratio of kaolin to quartz powder of from 3:5 to 3:1, in view of the teachings of Stuhldreher, as the use of a known technique (i.e., providing a mixture of kaolin and silica fillers in the above recited ranges, as taught by Stuhldreher) to improve a similar composition (i.e., the polymer composition of Siddhamalli, as otherwise modified above, having quartz powder [a form of silica] and kaolin as fillers) in the same way (e.g., improvement in certain dynamic properties such as dynamic modulus while maintaining other properties such as hardness, etc., as taught by Stuhldreher), especially considering 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.
Regarding claim 15, Siddhamalli further discloses a pipe (300) comprising a pipe main body (302) made of said flexible hose material (see fig. 3).
With respect to the limitations wherein the pipe is a “water pipe”, as set forth in MPEP § 2115, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.
In the instant case, Siddhamalli discloses that the pipe (thermoplastic elastomer tubing) may be used “to dispense fluid or remove fluid” in various industries including biopharmaceutical, medical, food and beverage industries (para. 2). While not explicitly stated, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood or otherwise reasonably inferred that the pipe could be used in applications where water is the fluid being dispensed or removed, as water is a common fluid in each of the listed industries (i.e., as a water hose).
Moreover, as set forth in MPEP § 2114(II), a claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Here, the hose of Siddhamalli, formed of the flexible hose material would, as understood, be capable for use in transporting water (i.e., as a water hose).
As a result, when the flexible hose material of Siddhamalli, as used to form the pipe (300), is modified in view of Luo, Lutz, and Stuhldreher as set forth in the grounds of rejection for claim 1, the resulting combination reads on or otherwise renders obvious a water pipe (i.e., 300) made of a flexible hose material, wherein, the water pipe comprises a wear resistant water pipe main body (302(; the wear resistant water pipe main body is made by [made of] the flexible hose material; raw material components of the flexible hose material comprise following ingredients in parts by weight: thermoplastic rubber 80 parts to 100 parts, polypropylene 20 parts to 40 parts, wear resistant fillers 30 parts to 40 parts, anti-aging agent 1 part to 3 parts, dispersing agent 1 part to 3 parts and coupling agent 1 part to 3 parts; where, the wear resistant fillers comprise kaolins and quartz powders.
Regarding claim 16, the pipe of Siddhamalli, formed from the flexible hose material as otherwise modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitation wherein the wear resistant water pipe main body (302) is an integrated forming structure (i.e., as shown in fig. 3, and as described in the specification of Siddhamalli, the water pipe main body may be a single integrated structure, as formed by extrusion; see also figs. 1 & 2) .
Claims 17-20 (as understood) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siddhamalli in view of Luo, Lutz, and Stuhldreher as applied to claims 15 & 16 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0062939 A1; cited in IDS received 5/16/2024; hereafter Zhang).
Regarding claim 17, the pipe of Siddhamalli, formed from the flexible hose material as otherwise modified above, reads on or otherwise renders obvious the additional limitations wherein the pipe comprises the wear resistant water pipe main body (302), a first end (314), a second end (316);
the wear resistant water pipe main body (302) has a hollow single-layer structure (as shown; see fig. 3);
wherein the wear resistant water pipe main body is configured to carry out a transverse expansion and a longitudinal expansion (see below);
the first end (314) is arranged at an end of the main body (302) of the wear resistant water pipe, and the second end (316) of the water pipe is arranged at another end of the main body of the wear-resistant water pipe.
Regarding the limitation wherein the wear resistant water pipe main body is configured to carry out a transverse expansion and a longitudinal expansion, the water pipe main body is formed of a thermoplastic elastomer, and Siddhamalli discloses various potential values for tensile strength, 100% and 300% elongation moduli, hardness, etc. (para. 52-57, etc.).
As such, when subjected to sufficient pressure, the water pipe main body would be configured to undergo some degree of transverse expansion and longitudinal expansion (e.g., corresponding to hoop stress and axial stress, etc., resulting from the internal pressure).
Siddhamalli does not explicitly disclose the additional limitations wherein the pipe comprises a first coupler and a second coupler, the first coupler is connected with the first end, and the second end is connected with the second coupler.
Zhang teaches (various embodiments in figs. 1-14 & 19-22) a hose comprising a water pipe main body (10; incl. at least layers 1 and/or 3), a first end (e.g., the left end of the body, as shown in figs. 9-13), a second end (e.g., the right end of the body as shown in figs. 9-13), a first coupler (e.g., quick connect 5 as in fig. 9; an internally threaded coupler 6 as in figs. 10 & 12; or an externally threaded coupler 7 as in figs 11, 13 & 14) and a second coupler (e.g., quick connect coupler 5 at right in figs. 9, 12 & 13; internally threaded coupler 6 at right in figs. 10 & 14; externally threaded coupler 7 at right in fig. 11);
the water pipe main body has a hollow structure (as shown);
the water pipe main body is configured to carry out a transverse expansion and a longitudinal expansion (e.g., see paras 2-7: Zhang explains that such expandable hoses, made from rubber or thermoplastic elastomer, etc., are configured to expand radially and longitudinally, with certain prior art embodiments introducing a textile reinforcement layer to control maximum radial expansion; as would be understood by those skilled in the art, the inner and outer elastic layers 1, 3 of Zhang, which may be formed from thermoplastic elastomer or rubber, is configured to expand longitudinally and transversely, while the elastic textile reinforcement layer 2 allows longitudinal elongation, while limiting the transverse / radial expansion [see para. 69-70]);
the first end is arranged at an end of the main body of the wear resistant water pipe (as shown);
the second end of the water pipe is arranged at another end of the main body of the wear-resistant water pipe (as shown); and
the first coupler is connected with the first end (via a joint 4, as shown), and the second end is connected with the second coupler (via a corresponding joint, as shown).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water pipe of Siddhamalli to further comprise a first coupler and a second coupler, the first coupler is connected with the first end, and the second end is connected with the second coupler, in view of the teachings of Zhang, to enable the pipe to be removably connected at both ends as may be required for a particular application (e.g., connecting to a fluid source such as a water tap at one end and a fluid dispensing device such as a sprayer at the other, each via a threaded or quick-connect arrangement, as shown in the various embodiments of Zhang).
To promote compact prosecution, and if not already seen as such, it would have been further obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water pipe of Siddhamalli (as otherwise modified above) such that the water pipe main body is configured to carry out a transverse expansion and a longitudinal expansion, in view of the teachings of Zhang, to enable the resulting pipe to be used as an expandable hose which expands during use but retracts to a smaller size when not in use (as suggested by Zhang and as otherwise known in the art).
Regarding claims 18-20, Zhang further teaches that a water pipe main body may comprise a fabric layer (2; “elastic textile reinforcement layer”)(as in claim 18), wherein the fabric is an elastic fabric layer (see paras. 69-70)(as in claim 19), wherein the elastic fabric layer comprises a “wear resistant nylon thread” (21; “twill weave textile layer 21”, which may be formed from nylon fibers / yards; see para. 17, 93, published claim 5, etc.) and “a rubber band” (22: i.e., the elastic “stretch yarns”, as best understood).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the water pipe of Siddhamalli such that the wear resistant water pipe main body comprises a fabric layer (as in claim 18), wherein, the fabric layer is an elastic fabric layer (as in claim 19), wherein, the elastic fabric layer comprises a wear resistant nylon thread and a rubber band (i.e., an elastic thread, as understood)(as in claim 20), in view of the teachings of Zhang, to provide reinforcement to the elastic water pipe main body, allowing the main body to expand longitudinally while limiting the radial expansion (as suggested by Zhang).
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