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 .
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.
Claim 6 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.
Claim 6 recites the roughness Ra being 0.01 to 0.80 and/or a ten point height of roughness profile Rz being 0.01 to 3.00. The applicant does not mention a unit for Ra or Rz either in the claims or in the specifications. For purpose of compact prosecution, the examiner is assuming the Ra and Rz values to be in micron.
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.
PNG
media_image1.png
538
818
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated figure 5
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai et al. (WO 2021/149783 A1, US equivalent US 2023/0047117 A1 will be used for citation purposes) hereinafter Yanai in view of Bennett et al. (US4099418A) hereinafter Bennett.
Yanai discloses a tube (Title, abstract, Figure 1(a)-(b): 20) being an elongated object having a constant shape in a longitudinal direction (Figure 1(b) shows constant shape in longitudinal direction) and including a flow passage (Figure 1(a)-(b): flow path CH) that penetrates inside the tube (Figure 1(a)-(b): 20) in the longitudinal direction and a resin section (Figure 1(a): BD surrounds flow path CH; 1(a)-(b) shows BD broken into BL1 and BL2; paragraph [0043] and Figure 4 explain RG1 region of BL1 region containing resin layers IMR1) surrounding the flow passage,
wherein the resin section is constructed as a laminate (paragraph [0043]: RG1 consisting of PMB1 and IMR1 configured as laminate; same with RG2 described in paragraph [0044]) in which expanded polytetrafluoroethylene layers (paragraph [0063-0066]: describes base layers being stretched/expanded and containing resins like PTFE) and elastomer layers (paragraph [0069]: thermosetting resins, also referred as elastomers) are alternately laminated in a radial direction of the flow passage (paragraph [0043-0044] and Figure 4: describe and show plurality of base (PMB1, PMB2)and resin (IMR1, IMR2) layers alternatingly laminated),
the elastomer layers each bonding the polytetrafluoroethylene layers (Figure 4) and being made from at least one type of elastomer (paragraph [0069]), and the polytetrafluoroethylene layers having voids that are impregnated with a portion of the elastomer (paragraphs [0064-0069] and [0084-0087]and Figure 4 describe base material being porous and being impregnated with resins like elastomers).
Yanai implicitly discloses the wall thickness ratio being 1.0 to 1.2 when the average value of the wall thicknesses is 0.5 mm or greater and less than 2.8 mm and the wall thickness ratio being 1.0 to 1.1 when the average value of the wall thicknesses is 2.8 mm or greater and less than 10.3 mm (paragraph 0051-0052] and Annotated Figure 5 discloses preferred included angle between 5 to 30 degrees. This implies along line LN3, segment LN3B will have one more layer of resin layer compared to segment LN3A. Paragraph [0122 - 0123] discloses an example case with tube wall thickness 2.4 mm and total number of layers being 24. This would indicate a single layer thickness to be 0.1 mm. Considering the disclosure of one extra layer in segment LN3B compared to LN3A, this would indicate a range of wall thickness ratio approximately between 1.0 to 1.04 for the entirely of thickness range 0.5 mm to 10.3 mm, where thickness ratio = thickness of LN3B / thickness of LN3A).
Yanai further discloses the following ranges regarding the number of laminated layers,
the number of laminated layers being 5 or greater and less than 35 when the average value of the wall thicknesses is 0.5 mm or greater and less than 1.4 mm,
the number of laminated layers being 14 or greater and less than 50 when the average value of the wall thicknesses is 1.4 mm or greater and less than 2.0 mm,
the number of laminated layers being 20 or greater and less than 70 when the average value of the wall thicknesses is 2.0 mm or greater and less than 2.8 mm,
the number of laminated layers being 28 or greater and less than 100 when the average value of the wall thicknesses is 2.8 mm or greater and less than 4.0 mm,
the number of laminated layers being 40 or greater and less than 155 when the average value of the wall thicknesses is 4.0 mm or greater and less than 6.2 mm,
the number of laminated layers being 62 or greater and less than 193 when the average value of the wall thicknesses is 6.2 mm or greater and less than 7.7 mm, and
the number of laminated layers being 77 or greater and less than 258 when the average value of the wall thicknesses is 7.7 mm or greater and less than 10.3 mm. (Paragraph [0122 - 0123] discloses an example case with tube wall thickness 2.4 mm and total number of layers being 24. This would indicate a single layer thickness to be 0.1 mm. Additionally, paragraph [0086] discloses a single layer thickness could be 0.05 mm as well. Considering single layer thickness between 0.05 mm to 0.1 mm all the ranges for number of laminated layers are anticipated by Yanai as per MPEP 2131.03. E.g. a wall thickness of 0.5 mm will be 5 layers of lamination with 0.1 mm thick single layer lamination, and a wall thickness of 7.7 mm will be 154 layers of lamination with 0.05 mm thick single layer lamination).
Yanai does not disclose wall thickness being calculated from wall thicknesses of the resin section in at least four radial directions of the flow passage intersecting one another. Bennett teaches calculating wall thickness from averaging thickness values from four radial directions of the flow passage intersecting each other (column 7, lines 43 – 46, Figure 4 and 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the calculation method taught by Bennett to calculate the wall thickness of the resin section of the tube disclosed by Yanai. The motivation to do so would be to obtain a more accurate thickness value accounting for location variation of thickness due to overlapping laminating regions.
Yanai does not disclose a wall thickness ratio calculated from the wall thicknesses in directions opposing each other of the four radial directions. Bennet teaches calculating wall thickness ratios from ratio of wall thickness in directions opposing to each other (column 11, line 7 – 24, equations for calculating M13 and M24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the calculation method taught by Bennet to calculate the wall thickness ratio of the tube disclosed by Yanai. Motivation to do so would be to obtain an accurate measurement of wall thickness uniformity between the overlapping and non-overlapping sections of the tube cross-section.
Regarding claim 2, Yanai in view of Bennett discloses a tube according to claim 1 as set forth above. Yanai in view of Bennett further discloses elastomer made from perfluoropolyether elastomer and silicone (paragraph [0121]) and, urethane, nitrile rubber, styrene-butadiene rubber, chloroprene, phosphazene (paragraph [0070]) or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 4, Yanai in view of Bennett discloses a tube according to claim 1 as set forth above. Yanai in view of Bennett further discloses elastomer made from fluoroelastomer (paragraph [0070]: fluorine rubber (FKM)), perfluoroelastomer (paragraph [0070]: perfluorinated rubber (FFKM)), or a combination thereof.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai in view of Bennett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zumbrum et al. (US 2003/0012905 A1) hereinafter Zumbrum.
Regarding claim 3, Yanai in view of Bennett discloses a tube according to claim 1 as set forth above. Yanai in view of Bennett does not disclose elastomer is made from methyl silicone, phenyl silicone, or a combination thereof. Zumbrum teaches elastomers made from methyl silicone, phenyl silicone (paragraph [0039]) for flexure endurant composition elastomer that can be used for fabricating pump tubing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use methyl silicone, phenyl silicone or a combination of them taught by Zumbrum as one of the options of elastomeric materials for constructing the tube disclosed by Yanai in view of Bennett. Motivation to do so would be to obtain a more flexure endurant tube for diverse applications.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai in view of Bennett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US5789047A) hereinafter Sasaki.
Regarding claim 5, Yanai in view of Bennett discloses a tube according to claim 1 as set forth above. Yanai in view of Bennett does not disclose an inner periphery of the flow passage in the tube is smooth. Sasaki teaches flexible multilayer tube manufactured from elastomers with smooth inner surface (column 11, lines 35-37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have smooth inner wall as taught by Sasaki for the tube disclosed by Yanai in view of Bennett. Motivation to do so would be to have a tube with stain resistant, antifungal and organic material adsorption resistant tube.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanai in view of Bennett in view of Sasaki as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Broadley et al. (US 2018/0147505 A1) hereinafter Broadley.
Regarding claim 6, Yanai in view of Bennett in view of Sasaki discloses a tube according to claim 5 as set forth above. Yanai in view of Bennett in view of Sasaki does not disclose the inner periphery of the flow passage in the tube satisfies arithmetic average roughness Ra being 0.01 to 0.80 and/or a ten point height of roughness profile Rz being 0.01 to 3.00.
Broadley teaches multilayer tube with smooth inner wall having surface roughness typically below 16 micro inch Ra, and preferably less than 10 micro inch Ra (paragraph [0046]). Ra value of 16 micro-inch is 0.41 micron and 10 micro-inch is 0.25 micron. Both Ra values are within the range 0.01 to 0.80 specified in the claimed invention. When the Ra values are converted to Rz values, assuming Rz is 4 to 6 times of Ra value which is well known in the art, the calculated values are still within the range introduced in claim 6 limitation. Hence, Broadley anticipates the range of Ra and Rz values introduced as limitation in claim 6 (MPEP 2131.03).
Additionally, while tube taught by Broadley is built from non-elastomeric material, actions to achieve roughness values within the same range taught by Broadley, which is also well-known in the art, is considered routine for tubes constructed from elastomeric material and would produce predictable result. So while manufacturing a tube from elastomeric material it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to achieve Ra value within the specified range (MPEP 2143(I)(A)/(D)).
It would have been therefore obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube disclosed by Yanai in view of Bennett in view of Sasaki applying the teachings of Broadley to have an elastomeric tube with roughness value Ra and Rz within the specified range. Motivation to do so would be to have a smooth tube with stain resistant, antifungal and organic material adsorption resistant tube.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAISAL AHMED whose telephone number is (571)270-0113. The examiner can normally be reached Tue, Wed 9:00am-7:00pm and Thurs 8:30am-2:30pm EST.
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, Craig M Schneider can be reached at (571) 272-3607 or 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.
/FAISAL AHMED/ Examiner, Art Unit 3753
/CRAIG M SCHNEIDER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3753
