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 December 3, 2025, is acknowledged. Claim 9 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-8 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.
Regarding claims 1-8, claim 1 recites a junction of inner and outer tubes. It is unclear if the claimed junction is a separate structural limitation or if the claimed junction is merely defining the purpose of a region between the inner and outer tubes. It should be noted that the specification does not recite any structure or composition associated with the claimed junction. For purposes of examination, the claimed junction is interpreted as merely defining the purpose of a region between the inner and outer tubes.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites that the elastic woven layer is of a weft-knitted structure that may realize four-way stretch. The claim appears to be reciting that the woven is a weft-knit. However, a woven layer is distinct from a weft-knitted structure. Therefore, it is unclear how the woven layer is a weft-knitted structure.
Additionally, it is unclear what the limitation “that may realize four-way stretch” necessarily entails. For example, it is unclear if the four-way stretch is a property of the elastic woven layer, or merely a potential property of the elastic woven layer.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the elastic cored yarn”. The claim is dependent from claim 1, which does not recite “an elastic cored yarn.” Therefore, the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis in the claims.
Additionally, the claim recites that the axial helix angle is calculated by first stretching ‘the elastic tube” under different axial lengths while an angle of the axial helix angle between the elastic cored yarn of the elastic woven layer and the inner elastic tube changing accordingly to obtain a stress value in local coordinates. The claim is dependent from claim 1, which recites each of a “composite elastic tube”, “an inner elastic tube”, and “an outer elastic tube.” It is unclear which “elastic tube” is referenced in the claim. Note that the claim includes multiple iterations of “the elastic tube” which are similarly indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
Additionally, it is unclear what “different axial lengths” necessarily entails as it is also directly related to the angle “changing accordingly.” For example, it is unclear if the stretching under different axial lengths is directly proportional to changing axial helix angle or generally proportional. Additionally, it is unclear what “a stress value in local coordinates” necessarily entails.
Additionally, claim recites “which is transformed to principal axis coordinates via a transformation matrix.” It is unclear what or what values are transformed as claimed.
Additionally, the claim recites that if the elastic woven layer is subjected to an axial external force and when the axial helix angle is α, a stress-strain relation in a direction of the principal axis coordinates of the elastic tube may be expressed as claimed. It is unclear if an axial external force is necessarily required to calculate the axial helix angle.
Additionally, the claim does not appear to recite principal axis coordinates of the elastic tube. Therefore, it is unclear what direction is claimed.
Additionally, the claim recites λ1 λ2 µ12 are respectively the axial stress value, the radial stress value and the shear force value of a plane formed by an axial direction and a radial direction of the elastic tube. It is unclear which elastic tube is referenced.
Additionally, the claim recites “calculating the above stress components in the direction of the principal axis coordinates of the elastic tube.” The claim does not recite any stress components. Therefore, it is unclear exactly what is claimed as the recitation of “the above stress components” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Additionally, it is unclear if “the direction” entails the direction generally or a specific direction.
Additionally, the claim recites “according to the material properties of the elastic tube.” It is unclear what material properties are required.
Additionally, the claim recites calculating the maximum stress limit in any axial direction, wherein K is the ultimate strain elastic coefficient of different materials. It is unclear what “different materials” are referenced in the claim.
Additionally, the claim recites a reasonable angle α of the axial helix angle of the elastic cored yarn and the inner elastic tube is calculated. The claim references “α” as the axial helix angle However, the claim further references a reasonable angle as “α”. It is unclear if the claim is consistent.
Additionally, is unclear what “a reasonable angle” necessarily entails, as “reasonable” is not defined by Applicants, “a reasonable angle” does not appear to be a term of the art, and it is unclear how an angle is “reasonable”.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites a radial helix angle between the elastic cored yarn of the elastic woven layer and the inner elastic tube. The claim is dependent from claim 1, which does not recite “an elastic cored yarn.” Therefore, the limitation lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Additionally, the claim recites a formula including a cylindrical shear force, a torque, and a rotation angle. However, the claim does not provide any context as to the values, including how they are measured or obtained and in reference to which structures recited in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
Additionally, the claim recites subjecting the elastic tube to a radial external force or injecting water flow of different water pressures to cause radial expansion of a water tube. The claim is dependent from claim 1, which recites each of a “composite elastic tube”, “an inner elastic tube”, and “an outer elastic tube.” It is unclear which “elastic tube” is referenced in the claim. Note that the claim includes additional iterations of “the elastic tube” which are similarly indefinite for the reasons set forth above.
Additionally, it is unclear how expansion of a water tube relates to the claimed formula, as the claim neither requires water nor a water tube.
Additionally, the claim recites that if the radial helix angle changes, the shear-strain variation relation of the elastic tube may be expressed as claimed. It is unclear if any radial helix angle change is required to satisfy the claimed formulas.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites that according to the variation range of the radial helix angle, a ratio between a radius and a thickness of the outer elastic tube is as claimed. The claim is dependent from claim 1, which does not require any variation range or any radial helix angle. Therefore, it is unclear exactly what is claimed, as the limitations lack proper antecedent basis in the claim.
Additionally, it is unclear what R2 and R1 entail in the claim, as no description is provided.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites that the junction of inner and outer tube and an outer elastic tube fills between the elastic woven layers. Claim 8 is dependent from claim 1, which recites a singular elastic woven layer. Therefore, it is unclear exactly what structure is required by the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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)(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.
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 1-8 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 US Pub. No. 2021/0062939 to Zhang.
Regarding claims 1-8, Zhang teaches an extensible flexible hose comprising one elastic inner layer, one elastic textile reinforcement layer, and one elastic outer layer, wherein the elastic textile reinforcement layer comprises a twill weave textile layer, with stretch yarns longitudinally distributed among (Zhang, Abstract, paragraph 0011). Zhang teaches that the elastic textile reinforcement layer has an axial elasticity and a radial constraint force, wherein the layer increases its length of at maximum 7 times with respect to its original length under working pressure (Id., paragraphs 0012-0014), such as 4.6 times (Id., paragraph 0071). Zhang teaches that the elastic inner layer and elastic outer layer are each made of thermoplastic elastomer material or rubber material (Id., paragraphs 0019-0020). Zhang teaches that the elastic outer layer is processed by extrusion or coating process that could guarantee the tight junction between the elastic outer layer and the other two layers (Id., paragraph 0021). Although the claimed junction is unclear and indefinite as set forth above, such a structure would appear to inherently be within the scope of the claimed junction. Alternatively, the claimed junction and outer elastic tube appear indistinguishable from the elastic outer layer of Zhang.
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches that the elastic inner layer and elastic outer layer are each made of thermoplastic elastomer material or rubber material.
Regarding claim 3, Zhang teaches that the elastic textile reinforcement layer comprises stretch yarns, and has an axial elasticity and a radial constraint force, wherein the layer increases its length of at maximum 7 times with respect to its original length under working pressure, such as 4.6 times. It is reasonable for one of ordinary skill to expect that the elongation of the elastic textile reinforcement layer and the yarns are substantially similar or identical.
Regarding claim 4, as set forth above, it is unclear exactly what is claimed. Since Zhang teaches an elastic woven structure comprising similar yarns as claimed, the composite of Zhang appears capable of four-way stretch as claimed.
Regarding claims 5-7, as set forth above, the claims comprise numerous indefinite issues. However, since Zhang teaches a substantially similar structure and composition as claimed, the claimed values appear obtainable as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches that the elastic outer layer is processed by extrusion or coating process that could guarantee the tight junction between the elastic outer layer and the other two layers. Such a structure would appear to inherently be within the scope of the claimed junction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER Y CHOI whose telephone number is (571)272-6730. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/PETER Y CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786