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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7 after “outer side” “of the flow path formation layer” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 7 after “outer side” “of the flow path formation layer” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 after “outer side” “of the heat insulating layer” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3 after “outer side” “of the heat insulating layer” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5 after “outer side” “of the flow path formation layer” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 8 after “outer side” “of the flow path formation layer” should be inserted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama et al (USPAP 2007/0231521) in view of JP 2005-188577 (cited by applicant, hereafter JP ‘577).
Katayama et al discloses a tube for transporting a vehicle fluid (fuel) and has a flow path forming layer (inner layer 2) that partitions and forms the flow path inside and an outer layer (outer layer 3) that covers the flow path forming layer from the radially outer side, wherein the Young' modulus of the flow path forming layer is 1000 MPa or more and 2000 MPa or less ( 400-2000MPa ), and the Young's modulus of the outer layer is less than 1000 MPa ( 350-650MPa ). (See paragraphs [0013] - [0066] and Fig. 1). Katayama et al do not discloser that the outer layer of the tube for transporting the fluid has heat insulating properties. However, as described in JP ‘577 an outer layer of a pipe is used for heat insulation, see the outer layer of the tube for transporting the vehicle refrigerant has heat insulating properties, as described in, for example, Cited Document 4 (see paragraph [0002] of Cited Document 4).
At the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the outer layer be of heat insulating material and properties in order to preserve the thermal properties of the flowing fluid. With regards to the fluid being a coolant the pipe of Katayama et al is capable of being used to transport such a fluid.
With regards to claims 8 and 10, Katayama et al describes a method for manufacturing a tube having a flow path forming layer (inner layer 2) that has a flow path of a vehicular fluid (fuel) and defines and forms the flow path inside, and an outer layer (outer layer 3) that covers the flow path forming layer from the radially outer side, the method comprising an extrusion molding step of extruding the flow path forming layer having a Young's modulus of 1000 MPa or more and 2000 MPa or less ( 400-2000MPa ) and the heat insulating layer having a Young's modulus of less than 1000 MPa ( 350-650MPa ) by using a flow path forming material (alloys of elastomer components or polyester-based resins softened by copolymerization) that is a material of the flow path forming layer and a heat insulating material (a specific blend polymer, that is, a blend polymer in which flexible components such as polymer fine particles having a core-shell structure, ethylene-acrylic rubber (AEM), and styrene-isobutylene block copolymers are blended with PBT, and the flexural modulus is within a specific range) that is a material of the heat insulating layer (paragraphs [0036]) A method for
manufacturing a vehicle fluid transport tube is described. Further, it would have been obvious to use the method of making the tube to make the tube.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al (USPN 2025.0297697 (which corresponds to 10 2024/122427, cited by the applicant).
With regards to claim 1, Tanaka et al describes a tube (fluid transport tube 1) having a flow path (internal space) for a vehicle refrigerant (antifreeze (LLC), etc.), comprising a flow path forming layer (inner layer 2) that partitions and forms the flow path inside, and a heat insulating layer (outer layer 3) that covers the flow path forming
layer from the radially outer side, wherein the foaming ratio of the heat insulating
layer is 2 times or more and 5.5 times or less.
(See paragraphs [0014] - [0074] and Figs. 1-7 of Cited Document 7, etc.)
In the invention described in Tanaka et al the flow path forming layer
(inner layer 2) is made of a thermoplastic elastomer or a Thermoplastic resin (refer
to paragraph [0016]), and does not include a foam; therefore, the foaming ratio is 1. Then, since there is a relation of porosity [%] = 100 * (expansion ratio - 1) /
expansion ratio the porosity of the flow path forming layer (inner layer 2) is 0, and the porosity of the heat insulating layer (outer layer 3) is 50% or more and less than 81.
However, Tanaka et al does not specifically disclose that, the porosity of the flow path forming layer is less than 20%, and the porosity of the heat insulating layer is 20% or more and less than 80%, whereas in the invention described in Tanaka et al, the porosity of the flow path forming layer is 0%, and the porosity of the heat insulating layer is 50% or more and less than 81. 8%.
Thus at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the proper porosities for the two layers since “[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).
With regards to claims 7 and 9, as also noted above Katayama et al disclose an extrusion molding method and it would have been obvious to use such a method as a well known mechanism for creating a fluid path. Further, it would have been obvious to use the method of making the tube to make the tube.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Katayama et al as applied to claim 2.
As set forth above, Tanaka et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose that the Young's modulus of the flow path formation layer is 1000 MPa or greater and 4000 MPa or smaller. However, as noted above Katayama et al discloses this limitation and at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to make the inner layer have such a Young’s modulus in order to obtain desired stiffness for a particular application.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama et al as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al et al as applied to claim 2.
As set forth above, Katayama et al et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed but does not disclose that the porosity of the heat insulating layer is 20% or greater and smaller than 80%.. However, as noted above Tanaka et al discloses and makers obvious this limitation and at the time of the effective filing date it would have been obvious to make the outer layer have such a porosity in order to obtain desired heat insulation for a particular application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art neither discloses nor makes obvious an outer protection layer having a porosity that is smaller than 20% .
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469)295-9278. 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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF
June 24, 2026
Prosecution Insights