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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-12 and 14 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.
In claim 1, the term “periodic” is indefinite in that it cannot be ascertained whether the term describes an arrangement along an axial direction or if the term refers to an actual structural feature on the hose.
In claim 2, “integral bonding” is indefinite in that metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
In claim 7, the term “locally limited elevations” is indefinite in that metes and bounds of the claim cannot be ascertained.
In claim 11, the claim is indefinite in that the metes and bounds of the term “elevation” in relation to gaps.
In claim 14, the term ”abutment” is indefinite in that it unsure what the metes and bounds of the term.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) (1,2, 7,10,11 and 13-20) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lemelson (.
In claims 1 and 18, Lemelson discloses the invention as claimed including hose shaped tubular member 16, that contains an embossed structure 27, by rollers 24A and 24B (See figures 1, 4 and col. 3, lines 43-71).
In claims 2,19 and 20, Lemelson discloses the invention as claimed including the embossed features 15”, running in a periodic direction from wheel
In claims 7,10 and 11, Lemelson discloses the invention as claimed including hose shaped tubular member 16, that contains an embossed structure 27 (i.e. curved), by rollers 24A and 24B which extends and varies along a circumference through the use of stamped indicia (See figures 1, 4 and col. 3, lines 43-71).
In claim 13 and 15-17, Lemelson discloses the invention as claimed including hose shaped tubular member 16, that contains an embossed structure 27, roller pair 24A, and 24B, opposite of one another in a plane, located downstream of extruder 12, (See figures 1, 4 and col. 3, lines 43-71).
In claim 14, Lemelson discloses the invention as claimed including rollers 24A and 24B abutted to each other (See figures 1).
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.
Claim(s) 3-6,8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemelson in view of Biris (Patent PG Pub. US 2010/0221473)
In claims 3,4,,8 and 9, Lemelson discloses the invention as claimed including a multi layer pipe/hose, with an extruded exterior. Lemelson does not disclose a multilayer hose having a polymeric thermoplastic exterior, adhesively bonded.
Biris teaches that it is old and well known in the art or tube formation to provide an inner tubular member 13, integrally bonded to outer member 4, through the use of an adhesive layer 3.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the primary reference of Lemelson with the tubular specific as taught by Biris for the purpose of enhancing structural strength while protecting inner tubular components.
In claims 5 and 6, the modified invention of Lemelson discloses the invention as claimed except for specific thickness ratios and modulus of elasticity. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to provide a polymer layer with a modulus of elasticity of 1000MPa and wall ratio inner and outer thickness between 0.1 and 5.0. The specification does not disclose any particular advantage of these values as the Summary appears to be a recitation of the claims.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lemelson in view of Lupke (Patent PG Pub. US 2017/0217074).
In claim 21, Lemelson discloses the invention as claimed except for the use of cooling means on the die. However, Lupke teaches that it is old and well known in the art to provide forming dies (generally 4), with cooling means 21 for the purpose of cooling a newly formed tube (See Figs. 1,3 and para. 0041-0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the device of Lemelson with the cooling means of Lupke for the purpose of cooling a newly formed tube.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bronnum, Nett, Hoffman and Shen have been cited for state of the art..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL R DURAND whose telephone number is (571) 272-4459. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 730-400.
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.
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.
/PAUL R DURAND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754 July 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights