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).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 4, lines 23-24 state that the invention “exhibit a good permeability to hydrogen”, which is inconsistent with the objective of the invention, as the hydrogen would leak out of the tube during transport.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) names a standard without reciting sufficient detail on what the standard describes. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “CSA/ANSI CHMC 2:19” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding method described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. The method is stated on page 5, lines 12-16.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the preamble recites a method yet the claims recite no method steps that could be considered a recognizable process that can be considered for protection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-24,27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Montanari (WO 2017121961 A1), hereafter known as Montanari.
Regarding claim 1, Montanari discloses a multilayer tubular structure intended for the transportation of hydrogen (while Montanari does not disclose the intended use to be transporting hydrogen, it has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)) , comprising, from the outside toward the inside,
at least one barrier layer (1) and at least one internal layer (2) located below the barrier layer (page 29, claims para 1 and 2, Montanari),
said internal layer (2) or the combination of the layers (2) and of the other optional layers located below the barrier layer containing, on average, from 0% to 1.5% by weight of plasticizer, with respect respectively to the total weight of the composition of the layer (2) or to the total weight of the combination of the compositions of the layers (2) and of the other optional layers located below the barrier layer (page 29, claims para 4 and 5, Montanari),
said internal layer (2) exhibiting a content of extractables, determined according to the standard CSA/ANSI CHMC 2:19, of less than or equal to 3% by weight, of the sum of the constituents of said composition (page 34, last paragraph, which extends to page 35, states the content of extractables found using the claimed standard to be 6g/m^2 of inner surface area. To convert that number into % of the weight of internal layer (2), the weight of layer (2) per m^2 of inner surface area is needed. To find the weight, the volume and density of internal layer (2) per m^2 of inner surface area is needed. Page 8, last paragraph, which extends to page 9, states internal layer (2) is 100 μm, or 0.1mm, thick. Page 24, paragraph 7 states the tube has external diameter of 8 mm and thickness of 1 mm, thus the inner diameter, which is the inner diameter of internal layer (2), is 6 mm and, internal layer (2) has external diameter 6.2mm; thus 1/(0.006*π)=53.052 m of tube per m^2 of inner surface area, and internal layer (2) has 0.000407m^3 of volume per m^2 of inner surface area. Layer (2) can be made from PA6, which has density of 1130 kg/m^3, thus layer (2) has a weight of 459.91 g/m^2 of inner surface area, and the percentage of extractables is 6/459.91= 1.3%, Montanari)
said internal layer (2) predominantly comprising at least one polyamide of aliphatic type or consisting of more than 75% of aliphatic units (page 29, claims para 6, Montanari), said aliphatic polyamide being chosen from:
-a polyamide, denoted A, exhibiting a mean number of carbon atoms per nitrogen atom, denoted CA, of from 4 to 8.5 (page 29, claims para 7, Montanari)
- a polyamide, denoted B, and a mean number of carbon atoms per nitrogen atom, denoted CB, of from 7 to 10 (page 29, claims para 8, Montanari)
- a polyamide, denoted C, exhibiting a mean number of carbon atoms per nitrogen atom, denoted Cc, of from 9 to 18 (page 29, claims para 9, Montanari)
with the proviso that, when said internal layer (2) comprises at least three polyamides, one at least of said polyamides A, B and C is excluded (page 30, claims para 1, Montanari).
Regarding claim 2, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim 1, in which said barrier layer is chosen from an EVOH layer, a fluoropolymer layer, and a PPA layer (page 29, claims para 3, Montanari),
Regarding claim 3, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim 1,in which said internal layer (2) or each of the layers (2) and of the other optional layers located below the barrier layer is (are) devoid of plasticizer (page 30, para 2, Montanari)
Regarding claim 4, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim 1, in which at least one, more external, layer (3), located above the barrier layer, is present, said external layer (3) predominantly comprising at least one polyamide of aliphatic type or consisting of more than 75% of aliphatic units(page 30, para 3, Montanari).
Regarding claim 5, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure(page 30, para 4, Montanari.)
Regarding claim 6, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim 4(page 30, para 5, Montanari).
Regarding claim 7, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim 6, in which the layer (3') is the outermost layer and is the only layer which is plasticized, the layer(s) (3) being devoid of plasticizer (page 30, para 6, Montanari).
Regarding claim 8, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim 6,in which at least one layer (4) is present, said layer (4) not containing more than 15% by weight of plasticizer with respect to the total weight of the constituents of the layer (4) (page 30, para 7, Montanari);
said layer (4) predominantly comprising at least one polyamide of aliphatic type or consisting of more than 75% of aliphatic units (page 30, para 8, Montanari), said aliphatic polyamide being chosen from:
- a polyamide, denoted A, exhibiting a mean number of carbon atoms per nitrogen atom, denoted CA, of from 4 to 8.5 (page 31, para 1, Montanari)
-a polyamide, denoted B, and a mean number of carbon atoms per nitrogen atom, denoted CB, of from 7 to 10 (page 31, para 2, Montanari)
- a polyamide, denoted C, exhibiting a mean number of carbon atoms per nitrogen atom, denoted Cc, of from 9 to 18, with the proviso that, when said layer (4) comprises at least three polyamides, at least one of said polyamides A, B and C is excluded (page 31, para 3, Montanari),
or said layer (4) is a tie layer, the thickness of which represents up to 15% of the (MLT) structure (page 31, para 5,6, Montanari),
said layer (4) being located between the barrier layer (1) and the internal layer (2) and/or between the external layer (3) and the barrier layer (1) (page 31, para 4, Montanari).
Regarding claim 9, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure(page 31, para 7, Montanari), said aliphatic polyamide being chosen from:
- a polyamide, denoted A, exhibiting a mean number of carbon atoms per nitrogen atom, denoted CA, of from 4 to 8.5 (page 31, para 8, Montanari)
- a polyamide, denoted B, and a mean number of carbon atoms per nitrogen atom, denoted CB, of from 7 to 10 (page 31, para 9, Montanari)
- a polyamide, denoted C, exhibiting a mean number of carbon atoms per nitrogen atom, denoted Cc, of from 9 to 18 (page 31, para 101, Montanari)
with the proviso that, when said layer (4') comprises at least three polyamides, one at least of said polyamides A, B and C is excluded (page 31, para 11, Montanari),
or said layer (4') is a tie layer, the thickness of which represents up to 15% of the (MLT) structure (page 31, para 12,13, Montanari), it being possible for said at least one polyamide of said layer (4') to be identical to or different from said polyamide of the layer (4) (page 32, para 1, Montanari);
said layer (4') being located between the external layer (3) and the barrier layer (1) and said tie layer (4) being located between the barrier layer (1) and the internal layer (2) (page 32, para 2, Montanari).
Regarding claim 10, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim 4, in which the polyamide of the internal layer (2) or the polyamide of the external layer (3) is a completely aliphatic polyamide(page 32, para 3, Montanari).
Regarding claim 11, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim4,in which a second barrier layer (5) is present, said second barrier layer (5) being adjacent or not adjacent to the first barrier layer (1) and located below said barrier layer (1) (page 32, para 4, Montanari).
Regarding claim 12, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim2,in which said barrier layer is an EVOH layer comprising up to 27% of ethylene (page 32, para 5, Montanari)
Regarding claim 13, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim2,in which said barrier layer is an EVOH layer comprising an impact modifier (page 32, para 6 discloses a shock modifier for the EVOH, Montanari)
Regarding claim 14, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim 11,in which the barrier layer (1) is an EVOH layer and the second barrier layer (5) is a PPA or fluoropolymer layer, the fluoropolymer being in particular of ETFE, EFEP or CPT type modifier (page 32, para 6 discloses a second barrier layer of ETFE, EFEP or CPT, Montanari).
Regarding claim 15, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim1,in which the polyamide of the internal layer (2) is a composition based on a polyamide chosen from A, B or C (page 32, para 6, Montanari)
Regarding claim 16, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in clam4 in which the polyamide of the external layer (3) is a polyamide chosen from B or C(page 32, para 7 discloses outer layer made of polyamide selected from B or C, Montanari)
Regarding claim 17, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure(page 32, para 8, which extends to page 33 discloses inner layer made from A, B, or C, and outer layer from or C, Montanari).
Regarding claim 18, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim_1, in which the polyamide of the internal layer (2) or of one at least of the other layers (2) is a conductive polyamide (page 33, para 1 discloses inner layer to be conductive, Montanari)
Regarding claim 19, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structureclaim 9,in which the polyamide of the layer (4) and/or (4') is chosen from the binary blends:PA6 and PA12, PA6 and PA612, PA6 and PA610, PA12 and PA612, PA12 and PA610, PA1010 and PA612, PA1010 and PA610, PA1012 and PA612, PA1012 and PA610, and the ternary blends: PA6, PA610 and PA12; PA6, PA612 and PA12; PA6, PA614 and PA12 (page 33, para 2 discloses the material compositions, Montanari)
Regarding claim 20, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim9,in which at least one of the layers (2), (3), (4) and (4') comprises at least one impact modifier and/or at least one additive (page 33, para 3, Montanari)
Regarding claim 21, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure claim 4, in which the structure comprises three layers in the following order: (3)//(1)//(2), the layers (3) and/or (2) not containing more than 1.5% by weight of plasticizer, with respect to the total weight of the composition of each layer (page 33, para 4, Montanari).
Regarding claim 22, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim6, in which the structure comprises four layers in the following order:(3')//(3)//(1)//(2) the layer (2) and/or (3) not containing more than 1.5% by weight of plasticizer, with respect to the total weight of the composition of each layer (page 33, para 5, Montanari).
Regarding claim 23, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structure as claimed in claim 11,in which the structure comprises five layers in the following order:
(3')//(3)//(1)//(5)//(2), in which the layer (1) is an EVOH layer, the layer (5) is a PPA layer, the layer (2) not containing more than 1.5% by weight of plasticizer, with respect to the total weight of the composition of each layer (page 34, para 2, Montanari);
or (3')//(3)//(1)//(2)//(5), in which the layer (1) is an EVOH layer, the layer (5) is a PPA layer, the layer (2) not containing more than 1.5% by weight of plasticizer, with respect to the total weight of the composition of each layer (page 34, para 3, Montanari)
or (3)//(4')//(1)//(4)//(2), the layer (2) and (4) not containing more than 1.5% by weight of plasticizer, with respect to the total weight of the composition of each layer (page 34, para 4, Montanari).
Regarding claim 24, Montanari discloses the multilayer tubular structureclaim8, in which the structure comprises the layers in the following order:
(3')//(3)//(4')//(1)//(4)//(2), the layer (2) and (4) not containing more than 1.5% by weight of plasticizer, with respect to the total weight of the composition of each layer (page 34, para 5 and 6, Montanari)
Regarding claimed 27, Montanari discloses a method of using the multilayer tubular structure as defined in claim 1, but does not disclose a method of using the tubular for the transportation of hydrogen. However, it would have been obvious to use the tube of Montanari to transport hydrogen, since Montanari discloses the structure of claim 1, and it has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montanari in view of Leger (DE 102017116364 A1), hereafter known as Leger.
Regarding claim 25, Montanari discloses the multilayer structure as claimed in claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the multilayer structure comprises a polyamide connector at one and/or the other of its ends, said connector being welded to said structure.
However, Leger teaches welding a polyamide connector on the end of a tube (fig 9, page 3, para 1, the connection is via laser welding, page 7, para 3, the fitting is made of PA610 or PA612, which are polyamides, Leger). Leger describes a polyamide fuel tube, a field closely related to Montanari and the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before time of file to have incorporated the teachings of Leger into Montanari and weld the fitting of Leger to the fluid tube of Montanari. Plastic welding is well known in the art, and the fitting of Leger would allow the tube of Montanari to be easily connected and disconnected from other components.
Regarding claim 26, Montanari in view of Leger discloses the structure as claimed in claim 25, wherein the polyamide of said connector is chosen from PA6, PA66, PA6/66, PA11, PA610, PA612 or PA1012 (page 7, para 3, the fitting is made of PA610 or PA612, Leger).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berger (EP 3299165 A1) discloses a multilayer polyamide tube with low plasticizer and extractables.
Jadamus (US 6090459 A) discloses a multilayer plastic composition with a conductive inner layer
Zimmer (US 20140246111 A1) and Micheneau (US 20050031818 A1) discloses a multilayer conductive polyamide pipe
Schmitz (US 20060099478 A1) and Montanari (US 20180080583 A1) discloses a conductive polyamide and EVOH pipe for hydrogen
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAOTIAN LU whose telephone number is (571)272-0444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am-5:00 pm CST.
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, 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/KENNETH RINEHART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights